A fair distinction: It is an error to equate glossolalia with an ecstatic state just because those two qualities correlate in the experience of SOME tongues speakers.
Some of the earlier studies involved observing people in an ecstatic state while they spoke in tongues. They drew an erroneous correlation. In The Way, we spoke in tongues under much different circumstances. Maybe that's why we find the comparison somewhat offensive. Aside from the circumstances and presentation, though, I think the actual speaking in tongues is the same for both examples.
This is a good thread for considering the reference you posted. Part of the reason I started this thread is because I know Raf doesn't want his thread to become too doctrinal. I scanned the article, though I will have to read it in detail later. I welcome your participation in this discussion. I need to understand YOUR point of view especially while I'm working on this paper!
Love,
Steve
You are a sweet man who I have come to appreciate. Really.
Steve thanks for the insights. It may take me awhile to go through...
I find we tend to interprit the supernatural with our own experiences rather than what really scriptural teaches... I guess that is really hard to do to mold those two books of life. But what I can say reading some of the stuff posted against speaking in other languages or of angels it just seems to ignore that those around them thought they were speaking in another language or an unknown language...
Steve is there a way to get a copy of your thesis when it is completed?
I find we tend to interprit the supernatural with our own experiences rather than what really scriptural teaches... I guess that is really hard to do to mold those two books of life.
Hi Nate & all. Been forever since I've been around here, & I feel a little uncomfortable, but I'll give it a shot. RE: interpreting "the supernatural with our own experiences rather than what really scriptural teaches," I'd just like to say that, yeah, we are all so sucked up into our own experiences, but our own experiences is all we have, right? God's word notwithstanding - or being part of those experiences. But God, the master teacher, knows that's what he has to deal with, & so he deals with us in the light of our experiences. Like where the Word says that he purifies language 7x77 times in a furnace in the making of His Word, so he purifies the language of our lives as we experience the supernatural. It is God transforming us. Yes, it takes work. It is the work of a lifetime. But it is His work. It's like the coolest thing, really. Not trying to be obtuse here. Hope this makes sense to some.
The heavy lifting of the project will be explaining how "the person and work of the Holy Spirit" fits in, or, the difference between the Giver and the Gift.
One of the things I'm going to have to do is demonstrate the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the role of spirit set forth in a Stoic interpretation of I Corinthians 8:6. I've already blown one prof's mind with that one!
Love,Steve
Ah, been a while since I've been in this neighborhood. Don't want to step on toes. I know you appreciate being outside the TWI thought box, & yet, being products of your experiences, a bunch of the stuff that pops out of your heads, comes out of that box. Me too.
OK, so anyway, here goes. Please recognize that any discussion of differences between the Giver and the Gift comes out of a TWI paradigm. Jesus Christ, God, us, we are all one. There is no "difference." Jesus Christ prayed so in the gospel of John Ch 14-16 concerning the coming of the Comforter.
Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Takes a while to get it, no doubt (especially in the light/darkness of TWI thought), but there it is.
No Giver & Gift - ONE SPIRIT, ONE BODY, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH.
Ah, am I coopting this thread. Not my intent. Just trying to respond to what you said. I'll shut up if you want me to.
What I am saying Tom is that we error on either side...
I have had many experiences that would be called spiritual where it is the experiencing of demonic activity or the supernatural work of God in my own body (nothing like TWI but more like Acts stuff)... The problem is that I can make the mistake of having my own experiences effect my interpretation.
On the flip side I know many who interpret this subject through I have not seen it so it must not be true. I have had professors tell me miracles do not happen today they died with the apostles... Kinda hard for me to accept when I have seen them and I am not talking about coincidences.
To me to think that Paul is talking about regular human languages when addressing this issue seems to be missing somthing.. It is like when Jesus says when the Spirit comes it will baptize with fire and then say well it is just a good feeling he didn't really mean fire or anything supernatural? Really? Such a powerful word for just a feeling?
I think we do the same thing in regards to tongues or languages... Obviously the congregates didn't know what others where saying and Paul spoke it (at least he thought he did) more than anyone else.
I think to downplay either Acts 2 or anything involving tongues is taking away something the text is communicating... Unless you just don't believe what it says is true...
To me to think that Paul is talking about regular human languages when addressing this issue seems to be missing somthing.
I I disagree. I think to consider that Paul is talking about anything other than human languages is to inject something into the text that isn't there.
I I disagree. I think to consider that Paul is talking about anything other than human languages is to inject something into the text that isn't there.
Like 1 Corinthians 13:1 ¶Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels. Seems like other than human languages is not injecting into the text something that isn't there. It is apparently there.
What I am saying Tom is that we error on either side...
I have had many experiences that would be called spiritual where it is the experiencing of demonic activity or the supernatural work of God in my own body (nothing like TWI but more like Acts stuff)... The problem is that I can make the mistake of having my own experiences effect my interpretation.
On the flip side I know many who interpret this subject through I have not seen it so it must not be true. I have had professors tell me miracles do not happen today they died with the apostles... Kinda hard for me to accept when I have seen them and I am not talking about coincidences.
To me to think that Paul is talking about regular human languages when addressing this issue seems to be missing somthing.. It is like when Jesus says when the Spirit comes it will baptize with fire and then say well it is just a good feeling he didn't really mean fire or anything supernatural? Really? Such a powerful word for just a feeling?
I think we do the same thing in regards to tongues or languages... Obviously the congregates didn't know what others where saying and Paul spoke it (at least he thought he did) more than anyone else.
I think to downplay either Acts 2 or anything involving tongues is taking away something the text is communicating... Unless you just don't believe what it says is true...
Ah, gotcha Nate. Still, any communication God sends your way is meant to be understood - at least on some level. Might take a while for you to get it, but God is not stupid & He knows you. If He sends you something, you CAN understand it - at least on some level. Right? His Word doesn't come back void; it accomplishes that for which He sent it.
Like 1 Corinthians 13:1 ¶Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels. Seems like other than human languages is not injecting into the text something that isn't there. It is apparently there.
I believe Steve handled that verse in another thread. It doesn't quite say that tongues of angels is a real option.
Ok, so let's start with some obvious questions: How many languages were heard? If it's more than 12, that would seem to indicate there were more than 12 people SITting.
No?
Hmm, sounds good, but it doesn't say they were speaking all those languages, just that the people heard THEM speak in HIS OWN language, so here are the 12 speaking in tongues, & each person out there listening hears all 12 speaking in his own language. Sounds weird, I know, but no weirder than anything else that we were taught happened. Certainly was NOT a normal day at the temple. Why not just believe what it says? Haven't heard anything less weird when I think about it.
I believe Steve handled that verse in another thread. It doesn't quite say that tongues of angels is a real option.
Well, like I said, I just dropped in, so I can't address that other post. Just looking at what's written. I try to do that these days. It helps to keep me free from TWI think, support professors with a predisposition that SIT isn't presently real, general gainsaying viewpoints, theological crap manufactured in the minds of men & certified valid by a certificate from the wizard of OZ.
OK, so I'm prejudiced about those certified by the wizard, but dig it. I once sold concordances, bibles, PFAL books, door to door in the Way International Marketing Dept.. I spent quite a bit of that time in the backwoods areas of North Carolina where I tslked with many a person who had read the bible every day for 50 years or more. And their "pastors." God forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember meeting one of those pastors who wasn't a complete theologically concretized jerk - as in I'VE BEEN TO SUCH & SUCH SCHOOL & HAVE THIS DEGREE & THAT DEGREE, & YOU ARE A KNOW NOTHING (no, sorry, a particularly awesome pastor with the heart of Jesus comes to mind).
On the other hand, the people who had read the bible every day for 50 years or more were amazing. I couldn't say anything to them that wasn't on the Word without them showing me 18 places where the Word contradicted what I was saying. Obviously, it made an impression on me. Here I am, 35 or so years later, still talking about it.
I've been at meetings where people from other countries understood the words spoken in tongues - that's the least of things, but the most easily recognized - like in Acts 2, so if this is a thread dedicated to the presupposition that tongues today is false - in the name of "real research" - just let me know; I'll bow out.
I'm not going to challenge what you experienced at meetings if you accept my right to remain skeptical. With no info about the hearer who recognized the language, his proficiency in that language, the person who brought forth the language or that person's prior exposure to that language, I really have nothing to go on except your word that two people made this combined claim. Having lied about SIT and TIP for years, with all outward sincerity and zero malice, i would not put it past anyone else, especially second or third hand.
My apologies if that sounds harsh.
It just occurred to me that this line of discussion hijacks the thread and makes it non doctrinal. LOL
Ah, been a while since I've been in this neighborhood. Don't want to step on toes. I know you appreciate being outside the TWI thought box, & yet, being products of your experiences, a bunch of the stuff that pops out of your heads, comes out of that box. Me too.
OK, so anyway, here goes. Please recognize that any discussion of differences between the Giver and the Gift comes out of a TWI paradigm. Jesus Christ, God, us, we are all one. There is no "difference." Jesus Christ prayed so in the gospel of John Ch 14-16 concerning the coming of the Comforter.
Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Takes a while to get it, no doubt (especially in the light/darkness of TWI thought), but there it is.
No Giver & Gift - ONE SPIRIT, ONE BODY, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH.
Ah, am I coopting this thread. Not my intent. Just trying to respond to what you said. I'll shut up if you want me to.
Good thread though - thanks.
Tom
I don't have objections to anything anybody has posted on this thread yet! I almost said "I wouldn't object to anything anybody might post," then I remembered Mike. Yeh, I would object if he posted some of his old stuff. You certainly ain't Mike, Tom! And if anybody AIN'T Mike, it's YOU Raf! Thanks to everybody who is contributing!
Just finished a wonderful Sunday brunch that LizzyBuzz fixed!
So... what are my presuppositions for this thread (and my thesis)?
----------
1. That the events of Acts 2 were the fulfillment of the promise originally given in Joel 2:28-32. This was a possibility Wierwille denied from the git-go:
2. That the promise given in Joel 2:28-32 follows from the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, that in him would all the families of the earth be blessed:
3. That the Feast of Weeks entailed a freewill-offering of the first fruit of the wheat harvest, wherein people gave back to God of that which He had given them (Deuteronomy 16:10), and the Feast of Weeks was the foreshadowing of what actually occurred on the Day of Pentecost described in Acts 2:
4. That the Spirit itself first poured out in Acts 2 is to be regarded as the "gift of the Holy Spirit", that is to say, that the genitive case of ten dorean tou agiou pneumatos should be regarded as the genitive of apposition rather than as the genitive of source:
5. That the Spirit first poured out in Acts 2 was the "life/force" of God the Father "meshed/superimposed/heterodyned" with the human personality of Jesus Christ:
6. That the "gift of the Holy Spirit" is an earnest of the inheritance, that is to say, it is an earnest of the Spirit of resurrection life in the age to come:
7. That the earliest Christians regarded tongues as a sign the same way Abraham regarded circumcision as a sign:
----------
That's all the major points I can think of at the monent...
I'm not going to challenge what you experienced at meetings if you accept my right to remain skeptical. With no info about the hearer who recognized the language, his proficiency in that language, the person who brought forth the language or that person's prior exposure to that language, I really have nothing to go on except your word that two people made this combined claim. Having lied about SIT and TIP for years, with all outward sincerity and zero malice, i would not put it past anyone else, especially second or third hand.
My apologies if that sounds harsh.
It just occurred to me that this line of discussion hijacks the thread and makes it non doctrinal. LOL
Believe what you will, a believer had several relatives visit, umm, mom, dad, & some other if memory serves (no advice on giving credence to my memory - uh, what WERE we talking about?)
OK, so three people anyway - from somewhere in the Middle East. Their native language was some relative of Aramaic (yeah, I know that seems pretty coincidental considering TWI's infatuation with Aramaic - but that part of the story is not to be questioned - I mean that's what they spoke), & the tongue spoken was at least close enough to their native tongue for them to understand what was being said. I knew the guy whose relatives were visiting from the middle east.
So that's the deal. I already knew tongues was real, so, I thought this was cool, but, really, you know, so what? Jesus gets up from the dead, appears to people, some (of those he appeared to) still don't believe. Not why I'm here.
Gosh! I just realized my position is a dyophysite rather than a miaphysite position!
I am in agreement with the Council of Chalcedon in 451!
Whodathunkit!?!
Love,
Steve
Oy vey, "dyophysite," "miaphysite," see, hard to deal with these theo"logical" labels, without reference or source, unchallenged - one HAS to be the case - where do you fit in? They restrict thinking to boxes prescribed by people who pretend to know & pretend to have authority to so prescribe. Nothing new EVER outside a prescibed box. Totally, man's thinking, but His thoughts are NOT our thoughts.
Just finished a wonderful Sunday brunch that LizzyBuzz fixed!
So... what are my presuppositions for this thread (and my thesis)?
----------
1. That the events of Acts 2 were the fulfillment of the promise originallly given in Joel 2:28-32. This was a possibility Wierwille denied from the git-go:
2. That the promise given in Joel 2:28-32 follows from the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, that in him would all the families of the earth be blessed:
3. That the Feast of Weeks entailed a freewill-offering of the first fruit of the wheat harvest, wherein people gave back to God of that which He had given them (Deuteronomy 16:10), and the Feast of Weeks was the foreshadowing of what actually occurred on the Day of Pentecost described in Acts 2:
4. That the Spirit itself first poured out in Acts 2 is to be regarded as the "gift of the Holy Spirit", that is to say, that the genitive case of ten dorean tou agiou pneumatos should be regarded as the genitive of apposition rather than as the genitive of source:
What an awesome list, Steve.
5. That the Spirit first poured out in Acts 2 was the "life/force" of God the Father "meshed/superimposed/heterodyned" with the human personality of Jesus Christ:
6. That the "gift of the Holy Spirit" is an earnest of the inheritance, that is to say, it is an earnest of the Spirit of resurrection life in the age to come:
7. That the earliest Christians regarded tongues as a sign the same way Abraham regarded circumcision as a sign:
----------
That's all the major points I can think of at the monent...
Love,
Steve
Any reason to believe the speaker had or had not been exposed to Aramaic?
Had not - buncha sharp people there, not all idiots without a questioning mind, self included.
You won't mind if I retain my skepticism, although I could see why you would consider the account highly valuable and, as they say in court, probative.
Gosh! I just realized my position is a dyophysite rather than a miaphysite position!
I am in agreement with the Council of Chalcedon in 451!
Whodathunkit!?!
Love,
Steve
The ideas we think about have histories of terms and ideas.
In AD 380, the Emperor Theodosius was ignorant of the history of terms and ideas behind the conflicts that were going on in the Christianity of the time, so he was able to declare that anyone who disagreed with his interpretation of the Trinity was a "demented" and "insane" heretic.
In AD 2012, John Lynn is ignorant of the history of terms and ideas behind the doctrine of the Trinity, so he is able to declare,
Category #1 is doctrinal counterfeits. If you know and adhere to the beliefs and teachings of The Living Truth Fellowship, then the same-old, same-old doctrinal counterfeits like the Trinity, Jesus being God, “dead” people being “alive,” the “immortal soul,” God being in control and thus responsible for all that happens, losing your salvation, Christians going through all or part of the Tribulation, speaking in tongues being a “gift,” etc., etc., are very obvious to you, as well they should be. But how many of our precious brethren are ensnared and enslaved by those fallacious and debilitating notions? Clearly, the vast majority. If you currently hold to such traditional beliefs, please visit our website www.TLTF.org and give us the opportunity to present a more rational, logical, and intellectually and emotionally satisfying view of Scripture.
Over in the "Isolation" thread in "About the Way", johniam was asked to elaborate on what he meant by a "TWI TRAINED believer" and he replied,
A 'twi trained' believer as opposed to a 'trinity trained' believer, which is what churches crank out.
Instead of deciding to remain ignorant, I went to work on a masters degree at a school that loosely adheres to the traditional idea of the Trinity, and I have learned some of the history of the terms and ideas behind the doctrine of the Trinity.
To my delight, I found that the professors were NOT as doctrinaire as Wierwille would have had us believe (at least at THIS school).
I learned that the full doctrine of the Trinity was not worked out until the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. It looked very much like Jesus Christ was going to be considered as a sock-puppet of God, until the Council surprisingly adopted the two-nature view of Jesus Christ. That's what "dyophysite" or "duophusite" means. If it weren't for the doctrine of the Trinity, we would never have been taught that Jesus was actually a human being, as well as the IMAGE of God.
Since reflecting on it, I have realized my position is NOT that Jesus was dyophysite, but that the Holy Spirit is dyophysite.
You know what I can do with this knowlege? I can talk to my profs without thinking they are insane, and without them thinking I'M insane.
I can talk to them in ways John Lynn will never be able to, unless he repents and starts to learn some real truth!
Enough for now... defining my thesis statement was more than enough work for one day!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
25
24
11
Popular Days
Sep 24
32
Sep 23
18
Sep 18
10
Sep 21
6
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 21 posts
Tom 25 posts
Steve Lortz 24 posts
geisha779 11 posts
Popular Days
Sep 24 2012
32 posts
Sep 23 2012
18 posts
Sep 18 2012
10 posts
Sep 21 2012
6 posts
Raf
A fair distinction: It is an error to equate glossolalia with an ecstatic state just because those two qualities correlate in the experience of SOME tongues speakers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Some of the earlier studies involved observing people in an ecstatic state while they spoke in tongues. They drew an erroneous correlation. In The Way, we spoke in tongues under much different circumstances. Maybe that's why we find the comparison somewhat offensive. Aside from the circumstances and presentation, though, I think the actual speaking in tongues is the same for both examples.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
You are a sweet man who I have come to appreciate. Really.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
Steve thanks for the insights. It may take me awhile to go through...
I find we tend to interprit the supernatural with our own experiences rather than what really scriptural teaches... I guess that is really hard to do to mold those two books of life. But what I can say reading some of the stuff posted against speaking in other languages or of angels it just seems to ignore that those around them thought they were speaking in another language or an unknown language...
Steve is there a way to get a copy of your thesis when it is completed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Hi Nate & all. Been forever since I've been around here, & I feel a little uncomfortable, but I'll give it a shot. RE: interpreting "the supernatural with our own experiences rather than what really scriptural teaches," I'd just like to say that, yeah, we are all so sucked up into our own experiences, but our own experiences is all we have, right? God's word notwithstanding - or being part of those experiences. But God, the master teacher, knows that's what he has to deal with, & so he deals with us in the light of our experiences. Like where the Word says that he purifies language 7x77 times in a furnace in the making of His Word, so he purifies the language of our lives as we experience the supernatural. It is God transforming us. Yes, it takes work. It is the work of a lifetime. But it is His work. It's like the coolest thing, really. Not trying to be obtuse here. Hope this makes sense to some.
Love, Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Ah, been a while since I've been in this neighborhood. Don't want to step on toes. I know you appreciate being outside the TWI thought box, & yet, being products of your experiences, a bunch of the stuff that pops out of your heads, comes out of that box. Me too.
OK, so anyway, here goes. Please recognize that any discussion of differences between the Giver and the Gift comes out of a TWI paradigm. Jesus Christ, God, us, we are all one. There is no "difference." Jesus Christ prayed so in the gospel of John Ch 14-16 concerning the coming of the Comforter.
Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Takes a while to get it, no doubt (especially in the light/darkness of TWI thought), but there it is.
No Giver & Gift - ONE SPIRIT, ONE BODY, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH.
Ah, am I coopting this thread. Not my intent. Just trying to respond to what you said. I'll shut up if you want me to.
Good thread though - thanks.
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
What I am saying Tom is that we error on either side...
I have had many experiences that would be called spiritual where it is the experiencing of demonic activity or the supernatural work of God in my own body (nothing like TWI but more like Acts stuff)... The problem is that I can make the mistake of having my own experiences effect my interpretation.
On the flip side I know many who interpret this subject through I have not seen it so it must not be true. I have had professors tell me miracles do not happen today they died with the apostles... Kinda hard for me to accept when I have seen them and I am not talking about coincidences.
To me to think that Paul is talking about regular human languages when addressing this issue seems to be missing somthing.. It is like when Jesus says when the Spirit comes it will baptize with fire and then say well it is just a good feeling he didn't really mean fire or anything supernatural? Really? Such a powerful word for just a feeling?
I think we do the same thing in regards to tongues or languages... Obviously the congregates didn't know what others where saying and Paul spoke it (at least he thought he did) more than anyone else.
I think to downplay either Acts 2 or anything involving tongues is taking away something the text is communicating... Unless you just don't believe what it says is true...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I I disagree. I think to consider that Paul is talking about anything other than human languages is to inject something into the text that isn't there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Like 1 Corinthians 13:1 ¶Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels. Seems like other than human languages is not injecting into the text something that isn't there. It is apparently there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Ah, gotcha Nate. Still, any communication God sends your way is meant to be understood - at least on some level. Might take a while for you to get it, but God is not stupid & He knows you. If He sends you something, you CAN understand it - at least on some level. Right? His Word doesn't come back void; it accomplishes that for which He sent it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I believe Steve handled that verse in another thread. It doesn't quite say that tongues of angels is a real option.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Hmm, sounds good, but it doesn't say they were speaking all those languages, just that the people heard THEM speak in HIS OWN language, so here are the 12 speaking in tongues, & each person out there listening hears all 12 speaking in his own language. Sounds weird, I know, but no weirder than anything else that we were taught happened. Certainly was NOT a normal day at the temple. Why not just believe what it says? Haven't heard anything less weird when I think about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Well, like I said, I just dropped in, so I can't address that other post. Just looking at what's written. I try to do that these days. It helps to keep me free from TWI think, support professors with a predisposition that SIT isn't presently real, general gainsaying viewpoints, theological crap manufactured in the minds of men & certified valid by a certificate from the wizard of OZ.
OK, so I'm prejudiced about those certified by the wizard, but dig it. I once sold concordances, bibles, PFAL books, door to door in the Way International Marketing Dept.. I spent quite a bit of that time in the backwoods areas of North Carolina where I tslked with many a person who had read the bible every day for 50 years or more. And their "pastors." God forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember meeting one of those pastors who wasn't a complete theologically concretized jerk - as in I'VE BEEN TO SUCH & SUCH SCHOOL & HAVE THIS DEGREE & THAT DEGREE, & YOU ARE A KNOW NOTHING (no, sorry, a particularly awesome pastor with the heart of Jesus comes to mind).
On the other hand, the people who had read the bible every day for 50 years or more were amazing. I couldn't say anything to them that wasn't on the Word without them showing me 18 places where the Word contradicted what I was saying. Obviously, it made an impression on me. Here I am, 35 or so years later, still talking about it.
I've been at meetings where people from other countries understood the words spoken in tongues - that's the least of things, but the most easily recognized - like in Acts 2, so if this is a thread dedicated to the presupposition that tongues today is false - in the name of "real research" - just let me know; I'll bow out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I do not believe that is the presupposition of this thread.
I do invite you to the thread i started in About The Way, if you care to participate
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm not going to challenge what you experienced at meetings if you accept my right to remain skeptical. With no info about the hearer who recognized the language, his proficiency in that language, the person who brought forth the language or that person's prior exposure to that language, I really have nothing to go on except your word that two people made this combined claim. Having lied about SIT and TIP for years, with all outward sincerity and zero malice, i would not put it past anyone else, especially second or third hand.
My apologies if that sounds harsh.
It just occurred to me that this line of discussion hijacks the thread and makes it non doctrinal. LOL
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I don't have objections to anything anybody has posted on this thread yet! I almost said "I wouldn't object to anything anybody might post," then I remembered Mike. Yeh, I would object if he posted some of his old stuff. You certainly ain't Mike, Tom! And if anybody AIN'T Mike, it's YOU Raf! Thanks to everybody who is contributing!
tempus fugit... more later...
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Just finished a wonderful Sunday brunch that LizzyBuzz fixed!
So... what are my presuppositions for this thread (and my thesis)?
----------
1. That the events of Acts 2 were the fulfillment of the promise originally given in Joel 2:28-32. This was a possibility Wierwille denied from the git-go:
2. That the promise given in Joel 2:28-32 follows from the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, that in him would all the families of the earth be blessed:
3. That the Feast of Weeks entailed a freewill-offering of the first fruit of the wheat harvest, wherein people gave back to God of that which He had given them (Deuteronomy 16:10), and the Feast of Weeks was the foreshadowing of what actually occurred on the Day of Pentecost described in Acts 2:
4. That the Spirit itself first poured out in Acts 2 is to be regarded as the "gift of the Holy Spirit", that is to say, that the genitive case of ten dorean tou agiou pneumatos should be regarded as the genitive of apposition rather than as the genitive of source:
5. That the Spirit first poured out in Acts 2 was the "life/force" of God the Father "meshed/superimposed/heterodyned" with the human personality of Jesus Christ:
6. That the "gift of the Holy Spirit" is an earnest of the inheritance, that is to say, it is an earnest of the Spirit of resurrection life in the age to come:
7. That the earliest Christians regarded tongues as a sign the same way Abraham regarded circumcision as a sign:
----------
That's all the major points I can think of at the monent...
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Gosh! I just realized my position is a dyophysite rather than a miaphysite position!
I am in agreement with the Council of Chalcedon in 451!
Whodathunkit!?!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You could knock me over with a feather. And maybe a dictionary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Believe what you will, a believer had several relatives visit, umm, mom, dad, & some other if memory serves (no advice on giving credence to my memory - uh, what WERE we talking about?)
OK, so three people anyway - from somewhere in the Middle East. Their native language was some relative of Aramaic (yeah, I know that seems pretty coincidental considering TWI's infatuation with Aramaic - but that part of the story is not to be questioned - I mean that's what they spoke), & the tongue spoken was at least close enough to their native tongue for them to understand what was being said. I knew the guy whose relatives were visiting from the middle east.
So that's the deal. I already knew tongues was real, so, I thought this was cool, but, really, you know, so what? Jesus gets up from the dead, appears to people, some (of those he appeared to) still don't believe. Not why I'm here.
Just saying,
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Any reason to believe the speaker had or had not been exposed to Aramaic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Oy vey, "dyophysite," "miaphysite," see, hard to deal with these theo"logical" labels, without reference or source, unchallenged - one HAS to be the case - where do you fit in? They restrict thinking to boxes prescribed by people who pretend to know & pretend to have authority to so prescribe. Nothing new EVER outside a prescibed box. Totally, man's thinking, but His thoughts are NOT our thoughts.
Had not - buncha sharp people there, not all idiots without a questioning mind, self included.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Very cool.
You won't mind if I retain my skepticism, although I could see why you would consider the account highly valuable and, as they say in court, probative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The ideas we think about have histories of terms and ideas.
In AD 380, the Emperor Theodosius was ignorant of the history of terms and ideas behind the conflicts that were going on in the Christianity of the time, so he was able to declare that anyone who disagreed with his interpretation of the Trinity was a "demented" and "insane" heretic.
In AD 2012, John Lynn is ignorant of the history of terms and ideas behind the doctrine of the Trinity, so he is able to declare,
Over in the "Isolation" thread in "About the Way", johniam was asked to elaborate on what he meant by a "TWI TRAINED believer" and he replied,
Instead of deciding to remain ignorant, I went to work on a masters degree at a school that loosely adheres to the traditional idea of the Trinity, and I have learned some of the history of the terms and ideas behind the doctrine of the Trinity.
To my delight, I found that the professors were NOT as doctrinaire as Wierwille would have had us believe (at least at THIS school).
I learned that the full doctrine of the Trinity was not worked out until the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. It looked very much like Jesus Christ was going to be considered as a sock-puppet of God, until the Council surprisingly adopted the two-nature view of Jesus Christ. That's what "dyophysite" or "duophusite" means. If it weren't for the doctrine of the Trinity, we would never have been taught that Jesus was actually a human being, as well as the IMAGE of God.
Since reflecting on it, I have realized my position is NOT that Jesus was dyophysite, but that the Holy Spirit is dyophysite.
You know what I can do with this knowlege? I can talk to my profs without thinking they are insane, and without them thinking I'M insane.
I can talk to them in ways John Lynn will never be able to, unless he repents and starts to learn some real truth!
Enough for now... defining my thesis statement was more than enough work for one day!
"Hell on Wheels" is about to come on!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.