Disingenuous and evasive. No, it's not funny; no, what's happening is you pretend to make an argument but don't really make any such argument.
How about lacking motivation?
I'm far more interested in why you folks are having a hard time with such elementary ideas. Is it the case that you are using these simple ideas merely as goads to get me into a long blown out debate on a topic I find not very interesting.
All men liars= intriguing;
JC not liar=elementary.
For which of these two are you craving proofs and scriptures?
I'm far more interested in why you folks are having a hard time with such elementary ideas. Is it the case that you are using these simple ideas merely as goads to get me into a long blown out debate on a topic I find not very interesting.
All men liars= intriguing;
JC not liar=elementary.
For which of these two are you craving proofs and scriptures?
Neither, remember you said it was so simple. Now prove how simple it is.
The subject is Mary's linage to Adam and how she too is of the race of adam, therefore jesus christ is of the race of adam.
For which ... are you craving proofs and scriptures?
Sorry... not relevant. If you don't want to do the work then don't clamor about what some nebulous other group might say that agrees with you.
Invoking the word, "proofs" is again disingenuous and evasive... not only that but in this case, misdirection. Nobody asked you for or demanded proofs.
ALL things that you suggest those with whom you discuss/debate go look for what would amount to spelling out your argument, are your responsibility.
Think back several weeks to when I told you I believe you are toying with people here. You're doing it again.
Sorry... not relevant. If you don't want to do the work then don't clamor about what some nebulous other group might say that agrees with you.
Invoking the word, "proofs" is again disingenuous and evasive... not only that but in this case, misdirection. Nobody asked you for or demanded proofs.
ALL things that you suggest those with whom you discuss/debate go look for what would amount to spelling out your argument, are your responsibility.
Think back several weeks to when I told you I believe you are toying with people here. You're doing it again.
I have a little time before I go out tonight.
By "race of Adam" I mean "progeny owned by Adam."
Please don’t ask me about “owned.” My knowledge trails off here. I just don’t know.
Jesus was owned by his Father, Who was not in Adam's progeny. Therefore Jesus was not owned by the adversary.
But the adversary does own everyone else. When I see portions of verses like “all men are liars” I think of Romans 3:10-19 which is a compilation of OT verses:
***
As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[e]
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
***
Add to that Romans 7 and you have the answer to Mary, and all her ancestors.
BTW, this is part of the support for the idea that there are no degrees of sin with God. Do you see it? Even religious people who are nice and don’t bother people are dead inside due to sin. Some actions can be nice… for a while, but the human heart is rotten and it eventually reigns in human affairs.
Jesus had chromosomes from both Mary and God, but was owned by God.
This is all the homework for your spiritual nourishment I care to put work into, because I’m sure no matter how much I do, it won’t satisfy you.
I’m satisfied with this much proof, for now. It you want more PLEASE find someone else to explain it to you, and don’t make me have to evade you.
Jesus had chromosomes from both Mary and God, but was owned by God.
But usually the child is owned by both parents, so he was also owned by Mary, who was Adam's progeny. So your explanation falls flat.
You said it wouldn't satisfy me and I'm here to please. (By the way, that's called negative believing)
16 minutes ago, Mike said:
I’m satisfied with this much proof, for now. It you want more PLEASE find someone else to explain it to you, and don’t make me have to evade you.
You know, in PLAF, Saint Vic said there was nothing wrong with being stupid. The problem is when you choose to be ignorant.
The difference? Stupid means you don't know. Ignorant means you know but choose to ignore it.
Now, when you take someone who honestly doesn't know something and you chide him with how easy it is and then you leave gaping holes in your explanation, you make yourself look bad.
It apparently isn't as easy as you claim, since you don't understand "owned"
All the other stuff, the we're all evil, the red text, is irrelevent and just stuff thrown in to cloud the issue.
The fact that Saint Vic left out any info on owned tells me he was trying to pull a fast one. Why else give incomplete information?
Evade away. Most of these questions are rhetorical anyway.
BTW, this is part of the support for the idea that there are no degrees of sin with God. Do you see it? Even religious people who are nice and don’t bother people are dead inside due to sin. Some actions can be nice… for a while, but the human heart is rotten and it eventually reigns in human affairs.
Jesus had chromosomes from both Mary and God, but was owned by God.
This is all the homework for your spiritual nourishment I care to put work into, because I’m sure no matter how much I do, it won’t satisfy you.
I’m satisfied with this much proof, for now. It you want more PLEASE find someone else to explain it to you, and don’t make me have to evade you.
It's not proof. It's argument.
Btw, your argument that all people are dead inside is one paradigm. I believed it 30 - 40 years ago... because Wierwille said that's what the bible meant.
I no longer believe that to be the case. I read too much to still accept that paradigm.
There are MANY references online to explore that issue. Here's one that I found.
Fundamentally speaking, are humans good or bad? It's a question that has repeatedly been asked throughout humanity. For thousands of years, philosophers have debated whether we have a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, or a basically bad nature that is kept in check by society. Psychology has uncovered some evidence which might give the old debate a twist.
One way of asking about our most fundamental characteristics is to look at babies. Babies' minds are a wonderful showcase for human nature. Babies are humans with the absolute minimum of cultural influence – they don't have many friends, have never been to school and haven't read any books. They can't even control their own bowels, let alone speak the language, so their minds are as close to innocent as a human mind can get.
The only problem is that the lack of language makes it tricky to gauge their opinions. Normally we ask people to take part in experiments, giving them instructions or asking them to answer questions, both of which require language. Babies may be cuter to work with, but they are not known for their obedience. What's a curious psychologist to do?
Fortunately, you don't necessarily have to speak to reveal your opinions. Babies will reach for things they want or like, and they will tend to look longer at things that surprise them. Ingenious experiments carried out at Yale University in the US used these measures to look at babies' minds. Their results suggest that even the youngest humans have a sense of right and wrong, and, furthermore, an instinct to prefer good over evil. (more at the link above)
I didn't prove anything, but I did present an argument to support what I said I believe... (or don't believe)
The significance of this paradigm, as I see it, is that the Wierwille fundamentalist (extremist) mindset is the basis for abusing children and spouses. I regret having bought into that paradigm for far too long. Yes, regrets... I have a few. (I think there's a song about that) I can also say that I'm thankful my daughter (and son-in-law) know(s) better than I did when she was the age my grandchildren are now.
You forgot, He only resorts to such extreme methods when He can't get it done any other way.
You know, that's an interesting observation. Let me just say that I've been the recipient of getting a Word from Balaam's donkey (Somebody I have little respect for) a few times at least. I'm sure we all have. Anyway, interesting replies to this thread. I'm editing this to say that sometimes I think He may give a Word to us from somebody we think isn't worthy of hearing His Word from is to humble us too. At least that's what it usually is in my case. Like it's HIS WORD and not the person or personality cult that's important.
Edited by RottieGrrrl I'm editing this to add another thought
Btw, your argument that all people are dead inside is one paradigm. I believed it 30 - 40 years ago... because Wierwille said that's what the bible meant.
I no longer believe that to be the case. I read too much to still accept that paradigm.
There are MANY references online to explore that issue. Here's one that I found.
I didn't prove anything, but I did present an argument to support what I said I believe... (or don't believe)
The significance of this paradigm, as I see it, is that the Wierwille fundamentalist (extremist) mindset is the basis for abusing children and spouses. I regret having bought into that paradigm for far too long. Yes, regrets... I have a few. (I think there's a song about that) I can also say that I'm thankful my daughter (and son-in-law) know(s) better than I did when she was the age my grandchildren are now.
A really great post, Rocky !!!!
That Yale link is fascinating!!!!
Awhile back I revisited an old thread I started called TWI’s Sedative to the Conscience - there was a poster or two that argued that basically the conscience was nothing more than what we have been taught what’s right or wrong.
My last comment on that thread summarized...and perhaps refocused the thread to state that in my opinion - whether you believe the conscience was something a higher power endowed us with or that it was simply a function that developed in the evolutionary process - I think it is safe to say that the conscience is something innate to our makeup - and that one insidious aspect of the mindset that TWI promoted was how it tended to sabotage a follower’s conscience.
Rocky, if you have time at some point - could you repost your post & link on that thread.
Please don’t ask me about “owned.” My knowledge trails off here. I just don’t know.
The whole "owned" thing points out another hole in Saint Vic's "logically logical" presentation.
Initial research points to the relationship to husbands/fathers to wives and children is similar to that of a master and slave. Wives and children in bibical times were considered no more than property.
Now, as we were of the world, we were bought with a price, Jesus Christ.
So, Adam and Eve were given the Garden of Eden, they in return, according to Saint Vic, transfered the property to the devil. So, as God had to pay a price to get us back, what price did the devil have to pay to get us in the first place?
Back there in the back back, the question about 'all men being liars' and if Jesus Christ was a man did He lie....
It is an excellent question! and one that allows vigorous discussion, discussion that ultimately leads to a greater appreciation for who and what Jesus Christ was and is.
To me the answer is simple, if it's true that Jesus didn't lie it's true because he decided not to lie but decided to tell the truth. One could probably say it would be against his "nature", abnormal.
(Example - I love my wife. I have never once in the 50 years I've known here said anything to anyone else about her that is critical or negative, and I have literally never whined over a beer with a buddy about how lousy she treats me. Why? First, she doesn't treat me lousy, second I don't have lingering negative feelings about her and lastly I would never go to someone else and tell them something we hadn't already worked out, because - I just wouldn't do that and have never had to do that. It's against the nature of our relationship and how I think about her. So it's a choice but it's not a difficult one to make. I just don't do it. Other things, not so much, so I'm not perfect in this regard by even the slightest bit but in regards to this I don't think of it as perfection I think of it as natural. I see Jesus, the Son of God, as having God's intentions and thoughts, His "will", foremost in his natural inclinations.)
So - for a baseline, let's consider two verses we've all probably heard in relation to this and if not here 'tis:
Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man that he should repent: hath he said and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken and shall he not make it good?
And Psalm 116:11 - I said in my terror all men are liars.
And to expand the topic a little Matthew 5: 33-37 - Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’4 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.
So - if Jesus was a man, part of humanity and with the faculties and capacities of humanity he clearly had the human faculty to, if not the capacity, to "Lie" and I would extend that to mean something different than telling someone their horrible haircut looked fine, or that Martha's lentil soup tasted good when it didn't. If Jesus dealt with his family and friends in the order of life and it's affairs to any degree I could probably assume that while he didn't get too wrapped up in things outside of his scope and interest he probably developed social skills to maintain a gracious presence in all his relationships. That's a guess, but it's arguable.
On matters relating to God and our relationship with God Jesus was more specific - as in making oaths - don't use the values of things outside your range of authority like "by God I'll be there no matter what", or "as heaven and earth stand today, I will pay you back tomorrow" or such things. Just say what you mean and then do it, don't promise, as any number of things can, might and will change whatever it is you're swearing to do or be. Yes/No, and go with that.
To me the answer is simple, if it's true that Jesus didn't lie it's true because he chose not to. A good example is the series of questions asked him in the desert after his fasting, in Matthew 4. We begin to see in the life of Jesus a different frame of reference than whether he would lie or not.
We can examine this scenario in light of his humanity since the questions address things that he could choose how to respond and he didn't actually answer them all directly -
And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
He didn't answer no I can't or yes I can to provide proof of who He was, rather he answered by saying it was not most important. In fact for all three "temptations" he didn't argue whether he was able to do them, rather he placed them in a different or correct context. Imagine if he had said well, I could get angels to help me sure, but that wouldn't be profitable, as angels have better things to do. No, they do, you know that, I'm not going to waste God's time or theirs or - no, I'm sure they would if I asked but...." etc. etc. etc.
Another place it says the people were amazed when he spoke to them with "authority" rather than like the teachers they were used to hearing. Like the time the man asked him to settle an inheritance squabble and Jesus told he wasn't a judge over him in those matters....who wouldn't want Jesus settling whether or not you get the vacation home or the dog house, in the will? He stayed out of it - "not my job, sorry".
Anyhoo - did Jesus lie? No. Why? Because he chose not to. How did he accomplish that is another question really, but given that he was the Son of God, sent forth as the Living Logos and fathered by the Creator whatever genetics produced him were above average it would seem. It's not a case for having an "Uber Jesus-Man" like Martindale created to get Jesus down to his level, rather Jesus was literally "the son of God".
And the bloodline of Adam is a non issue in this question IMO, as all men were under the "curse" at that time, and while you had a "believers line", it didn't endow any of those people with the ability to not be in sin and subject to the fruit of sin, death. All mankind was then born of a "human nature" that would ultimately die if not reborn as we see later, through Christ. David states this in -
Psalm 51:5 - Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me...
Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned...
Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...
And of course 1 Cor. 15:45 - "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
You know, that's an interesting observation. Let me just say that I've been the recipient of getting a Word from Balaam's donkey (Somebody I have little respect for) a few times at least. I'm sure we all have. Anyway, interesting replies to this thread. I'm editing this to say that sometimes I think He may give a Word to us from somebody we think isn't worthy of hearing His Word from is to humble us too. At least that's what it usually is in my case. Like it's HIS WORD and not the person or personality cult that's important.
RottieGrrrl,
You got it. I feel the same way.
Oops! Maybe I go a little farther with it. :)
I think if God had given us His Word via a person that is easy to like and very charming and lovable, then we’d all rush to that PERSON (not the message) and salaam him/her for ever, even more than lots of vpw worshippers did in TWI-1. We’d measure our spirituality, not on how well we absorb the message, but how close can we get to the person, just like in TWI.
I liken it to a sirloin steak smothered in $hitsauce. You gotta really want that meat real bad, to clean it off well and eat it.
<gag>
Even I do a double take at that, but it’s true.
***
I apologize for temporarily ignoring lots of posts this morning. It’s a busy weekend.
And what's that say about what the person thinks about you that they would hand you a sirloin steak like you described?
Would you call him a loving father?
As Saint Vic, himself, said in PLAF: "If that's so with your biological father, how much more your spiritual father?"
Again, it's not the person that's important, it's all those gathered messages that I'm interested in. I find the person to be a major distraction. I prefer to look away from him.
I think if God had given us His Word via a person that is easy to like and very charming and lovable, then we’d all rush to that PERSON (not the message) and salaam him/her for ever, even more than lots of vpw worshippers did in TWI-1. We’d measure our spirituality, not on how well we absorb the message, but how close can we get to the person, just like in TWI.
I liken it to a sirloin steak smothered in $hitsauce. You gotta really want that meat real bad, to clean it off well and eat it.
<gag>
Even I do a double take at that, but it’s true.
Mike, this is simply your opinion. If it's "true", as you say, please provide some documentation to that effect.
Again, it's not the person that's important, it's all those gathered messages that I'm interested in. I find the person to be a major distraction. I prefer to look away from him.
So in a veiled discussion of the person, you don't want to discuss the person?
Do you read what you type? Or do you fade in and out?
Actually, there is no truth in the PLAF version presented by Mike
Please note Saint Vic's argument was that Jesus Christ was the exception because he was not of Adam and that the devil owns Adam's race.
Well, as all people are relatives of both Adam and Eve, doesn't that make Mary, mother of Jesus, a member of Adam's race and therefore Jesus, a member of Adam's race?
Further, I'm still waiting for an explanation of how eating from a forbidden tree implies transfer of ownership.
Some of The Way implied that Mary was a guinea pig and that both the egg and semen/sperm was created by God to prevent blood transfusion, both had different DNA/genome. Adam was with Eve when Satan deceived them when eating from tree of Good and Evil, which meant we don't want God chaperoning/spying on us, thus the 2 of them did treason against God.
The whole "owned" thing points out another hole in Saint Vic's "logically logical" presentation.
Initial research points to the relationship to husbands/fathers to wives and children is similar to that of a master and slave. Wives and children in bibical times were considered no more than property.
Now, as we were of the world, we were bought with a price, Jesus Christ.
So, Adam and Eve were given the Garden of Eden, they in return, according to Saint Vic, transfered the property to the devil. So, as God had to pay a price to get us back, what price did the devil have to pay to get us in the first place?
Wow! This thread has turned into a Doctrinal Potpourri!
I need to fill in a score card to keep track of all the ideas.
I admitted before, some of this father/mother stuff is territory I felt needed no more checking decades ago, and no red flags popped up for me since. As a result I am very rusty on some of these micro-topics, and switching more to a learning mode as I catch up on reading.
The the human lying phenomenon I've studied much, not just from the Biblical perspective, but from the medical/scientific one as well.
As far as Jesus Christ and "white lies" I don't know. How about euphemisms? Could he use them in his speech?
I've wondered if he got the flu, and lean to a "yes." I've also wondered if he got spanked or rodded when a toddler. It says he fulfilled the law, so does that mean he was married at some point? There are lots of marriage laws in there.
Sometimes I think the Word does not spell out this stuff for us for the same reason God made Christ Jesus absent or invisible or whatever on that day of Ascension long ago.
If we knew the trivia on Young Jesus it would probably not lead us in the most desired direction. If we could text JC, and meet him at Starbucks it would probably undermine our ability to grow up to fill his shoes.
Yeah word but the Seventh-day Adventist and Jehovah witnesses etc. etc. etc. consider themselves to be the only real Christians too. I can still watch teachings from just about any religion and get something from it if it's accurate. I do not throw the baby out with the bathwater because then I would not listen to anybody. Hey this was supposed to go under WordWorld's post .I don't know what happened !
Some great points, RottieGrrrl - I think along those same lines and enjoy garnering things from other belief systems and philosophies…
I just wanted to add a few comments…not really addressing you or anyone in particular…
…anyway…
there’s been some threads on Grease Spot that basically ask “did you throw out the baby with the bathwater?” (I think there’s even a thread by that name too) – personally I don’t really consider PFAL / TWI-doctrine as a valid belief system or philosophy simply because it’s a cobbled-together mess by an incompetent plagiarist ( a theological liar and thief). If a Christian is that concerned about “the baby” how about the baby Jesus…keep it simple, start from the gospels and work your way around the rest of the scriptures – concentrically speaking - with Jesus Christ at the center of it all.
And I don’t think it’s a bad idea for Christians to rethink their attitude toward the Bible anyway - after leaving TWI…it wasn’t really declared out loud – but TWI followers tended to worship the Bible…perhaps even to the point of sometimes overshadowing the reverence and adoration that’s truly due to the glory of God displayed in the face of Jesus Christ (II Corinthians 4:6). I think Christianity should be more about a relationship with our Lord than about your relationship with some book.
Looking for what is of value in PFAL is like looking for what is valuable in counterfeit money.
Counterfeit money looks like real money but has deleterious side effects – like reducing the value of real money, causing inflation, and losses to citizens and businesses; it hurts the economy because it’s not based on something of value but on deception. A lie ! It is the illusion of resources.But there’s nothing to back up those fake bills.
PFAL and TWI-doctrine is an illusion of resources – lots of promises…lots of claims about what PFAL can do for you…but there’s nothing to back it up…God is not a genie-in-the-PFAL bottle, to be at your beck and call.
That’s all I’ve got for now, Grease Spotters have a good night, sleep tight, and don’t let the emoticons bite.
Wow! This thread has turned into a Doctrinal Potpourri!
I need to fill in a score card to keep track of all the ideas.
I admitted before, some of this father/mother stuff is territory I felt needed no more checking decades ago, and no red flags popped up for me since. As a result I am very rusty on some of these micro-topics, and switching more to a learning mode as I catch up on reading.
The the human lying phenomenon I've studied much, not just from the Biblical perspective, but from the medical/scientific one as well.
As far as Jesus Christ and "white lies" I don't know. How about euphemisms? Could he use them in his speech?
I've wondered if he got the flu, and lean to a "yes." I've also wondered if he got spanked or rodded when a toddler. It says he fulfilled the law, so does that mean he was married at some point? There are lots of marriage laws in there.
Sometimes I think the Word does not spell out this stuff for us for the same reason God made Christ Jesus absent or invisible or whatever on that day of Ascension long ago.
If we knew the trivia on Young Jesus it would probably not lead us in the most desired direction. If we could text JC, and meet him at Starbucks it would probably undermine our ability to grow up to fill his shoes.
If you need me to explain this, you really aren't half as smart as you're advertising. I don't even have to expound- just post the verses, and the meaning of his fulfilling the law should be plain enough- for those not trying to be deliberately obtuse, that is.
Hebrews 4:14-16 KJV
"14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."
Hebrews 5:1-12 KJV
"1For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat."
Hebrews 7:23-28 KJV
"23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore."
Hebrews 9:24-28 KJV
"24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
BTW, this is part of the support for the idea that there are no degrees of sin with God. Do you see it? Even religious people who are nice and don’t bother people are dead inside due to sin. Some actions can be nice… for a while, but the human heart is rotten and it eventually reigns in human affairs.
So were you running on Waybrain autopilot when you wrote this?
What happened to the humans are complex creatures, they can do good and bad schtick?
Were Saint Vic's actions nice...for awhile, then his rotten heart reigned his affairs? You have no trouble telling everyone how rotten the human heart is, yet when you see that corruption in Saint Vic you have a million excuses.
Contrary to a popular belief in TWI there are many Bible passages that suggest there are degrees of punishment depending on the degree of sin - here are just a few:
Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town...Matthew 10:15 NIV
Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” ...John 19:11 NIV
20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodomand Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” ....Genesis 18:20, 21 NIV
13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[14]
15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are....Matthew 23:13-15 NIV
38 As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, 39 and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”...Mark 12: 38 - 40 NIV
I tend to think wierwille pushed the idea of all sin is the same in God’s eyes so his sexual predations wouldn’t look so bad when compared to someone just losing their temper with their spouse.
So were you running on Waybrain autopilot when you wrote this?
No, not Waybrian. I liken that to the TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions) we had in circulation back then. For 20 years now I’ve been moving away from both by moving toward the written material.
What happened to the humans are complex creatures, they can do good and bad schtick?
Humans are usually complicated and can imitate good for a while, but the nature is evil.
Were Saint Vic's actions nice...for awhile, then his rotten heart reigned his affairs? You have no trouble telling everyone how rotten the human heart is, yet when you see that corruption in Saint Vic you have a million excuses.
No excuses. We can rest in peace knowing in the long run God will repay. What a person earns is what they will eventually receive. I do not look at VPW as having “gotten away” with anything. He may be stuck with a lot less rewards than some grad who ministered love in life.
I don’t know and don’t have to judge. If I were working at HQ and saw something, then I’d have a decision to make. That never happened. My big decisions in this category were connected with how well I could see PFAL line up with the KJV and whatever deeper research I was capable of. It fits; it works; for me.
You used the word “reigned” above. I don’t think that quite lines up with the 24/7 cycle at HQ and on the field. There may have been a few times and places where that happened for a short duration, but I think “reigned” is an exaggeration. I think that’s a part of the Pure Evil model creeping in and taking over.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
27
19
21
Popular Days
Feb 18
31
Feb 15
29
Feb 16
23
Feb 19
20
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 21 posts
Mike 27 posts
T-Bone 19 posts
So_crates 21 posts
Popular Days
Feb 18 2018
31 posts
Feb 15 2018
29 posts
Feb 16 2018
23 posts
Feb 19 2018
20 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
Hi Grease Spotters, Just wanted to mention why I am incredulous with some of the posts on this thread (like the ones quoted above). It just seems like a trick to outmaneuver other posters wh
T-Bone
“dulled to questionable behavior, and therefore a pushover for any rationalization. Dulled to it yes; spiritually mature, pretty unlikely.” Hmmmmm… wierwille supposedly the most “spiritually mature”
Bolshevik
The answer usually given has been cognitive dissonance. They've been lied to. They've accepted the lies. They live in a false reality. They now lie to themselves and have to protect that reali
Rocky
Disingenuous and evasive. No, it's not funny; no, what's happening is you pretend to make an argument but don't really make any such argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
How about lacking motivation?
I'm far more interested in why you folks are having a hard time with such elementary ideas. Is it the case that you are using these simple ideas merely as goads to get me into a long blown out debate on a topic I find not very interesting.
All men liars= intriguing;
JC not liar=elementary.
For which of these two are you craving proofs and scriptures?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Neither, remember you said it was so simple. Now prove how simple it is.
The subject is Mary's linage to Adam and how she too is of the race of adam, therefore jesus christ is of the race of adam.
You opened the can, now spill the beans.
Your not going to change the subject
The following page shows my point:
http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Sorry... not relevant. If you don't want to do the work then don't clamor about what some nebulous other group might say that agrees with you.
Invoking the word, "proofs" is again disingenuous and evasive... not only that but in this case, misdirection. Nobody asked you for or demanded proofs.
ALL things that you suggest those with whom you discuss/debate go look for what would amount to spelling out your argument, are your responsibility.
Think back several weeks to when I told you I believe you are toying with people here. You're doing it again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I have a little time before I go out tonight.
By "race of Adam" I mean "progeny owned by Adam."
Please don’t ask me about “owned.” My knowledge trails off here. I just don’t know.
Jesus was owned by his Father, Who was not in Adam's progeny. Therefore Jesus was not owned by the adversary.
But the adversary does own everyone else. When I see portions of verses like “all men are liars” I think of Romans 3:10-19 which is a compilation of OT verses:
***
As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[e]
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
***
Add to that Romans 7 and you have the answer to Mary, and all her ancestors.
BTW, this is part of the support for the idea that there are no degrees of sin with God. Do you see it? Even religious people who are nice and don’t bother people are dead inside due to sin. Some actions can be nice… for a while, but the human heart is rotten and it eventually reigns in human affairs.
Jesus had chromosomes from both Mary and God, but was owned by God.
This is all the homework for your spiritual nourishment I care to put work into, because I’m sure no matter how much I do, it won’t satisfy you.
I’m satisfied with this much proof, for now. It you want more PLEASE find someone else to explain it to you, and don’t make me have to evade you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
But usually the child is owned by both parents, so he was also owned by Mary, who was Adam's progeny. So your explanation falls flat.
You said it wouldn't satisfy me and I'm here to please. (By the way, that's called negative believing)
You know, in PLAF, Saint Vic said there was nothing wrong with being stupid. The problem is when you choose to be ignorant.
The difference? Stupid means you don't know. Ignorant means you know but choose to ignore it.
Now, when you take someone who honestly doesn't know something and you chide him with how easy it is and then you leave gaping holes in your explanation, you make yourself look bad.
It apparently isn't as easy as you claim, since you don't understand "owned"
All the other stuff, the we're all evil, the red text, is irrelevent and just stuff thrown in to cloud the issue.
The fact that Saint Vic left out any info on owned tells me he was trying to pull a fast one. Why else give incomplete information?
Evade away. Most of these questions are rhetorical anyway.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
It's not proof. It's argument.
Btw, your argument that all people are dead inside is one paradigm. I believed it 30 - 40 years ago... because Wierwille said that's what the bible meant.
I no longer believe that to be the case. I read too much to still accept that paradigm.
There are MANY references online to explore that issue. Here's one that I found.
I didn't prove anything, but I did present an argument to support what I said I believe... (or don't believe)
The significance of this paradigm, as I see it, is that the Wierwille fundamentalist (extremist) mindset is the basis for abusing children and spouses. I regret having bought into that paradigm for far too long. Yes, regrets... I have a few. (I think there's a song about that) I can also say that I'm thankful my daughter (and son-in-law) know(s) better than I did when she was the age my grandchildren are now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
You know, that's an interesting observation. Let me just say that I've been the recipient of getting a Word from Balaam's donkey (Somebody I have little respect for) a few times at least. I'm sure we all have. Anyway, interesting replies to this thread. I'm editing this to say that sometimes I think He may give a Word to us from somebody we think isn't worthy of hearing His Word from is to humble us too. At least that's what it usually is in my case. Like it's HIS WORD and not the person or personality cult that's important.
Edited by RottieGrrrlI'm editing this to add another thought
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
A really great post, Rocky !!!!
That Yale link is fascinating!!!!
Awhile back I revisited an old thread I started called TWI’s Sedative to the Conscience - there was a poster or two that argued that basically the conscience was nothing more than what we have been taught what’s right or wrong.
My last comment on that thread summarized...and perhaps refocused the thread to state that in my opinion - whether you believe the conscience was something a higher power endowed us with or that it was simply a function that developed in the evolutionary process - I think it is safe to say that the conscience is something innate to our makeup - and that one insidious aspect of the mindset that TWI promoted was how it tended to sabotage a follower’s conscience.
Rocky, if you have time at some point - could you repost your post & link on that thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
The whole "owned" thing points out another hole in Saint Vic's "logically logical" presentation.
Initial research points to the relationship to husbands/fathers to wives and children is similar to that of a master and slave. Wives and children in bibical times were considered no more than property.
https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/07/10/does-the-bible-teach-the-concept-of-human-property/
Now, as we were of the world, we were bought with a price, Jesus Christ.
So, Adam and Eve were given the Garden of Eden, they in return, according to Saint Vic, transfered the property to the devil. So, as God had to pay a price to get us back, what price did the devil have to pay to get us in the first place?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Back there in the back back, the question about 'all men being liars' and if Jesus Christ was a man did He lie....
It is an excellent question! and one that allows vigorous discussion, discussion that ultimately leads to a greater appreciation for who and what Jesus Christ was and is.
To me the answer is simple, if it's true that Jesus didn't lie it's true because he decided not to lie but decided to tell the truth. One could probably say it would be against his "nature", abnormal.
(Example - I love my wife. I have never once in the 50 years I've known here said anything to anyone else about her that is critical or negative, and I have literally never whined over a beer with a buddy about how lousy she treats me. Why? First, she doesn't treat me lousy, second I don't have lingering negative feelings about her and lastly I would never go to someone else and tell them something we hadn't already worked out, because - I just wouldn't do that and have never had to do that. It's against the nature of our relationship and how I think about her. So it's a choice but it's not a difficult one to make. I just don't do it. Other things, not so much, so I'm not perfect in this regard by even the slightest bit but in regards to this I don't think of it as perfection I think of it as natural. I see Jesus, the Son of God, as having God's intentions and thoughts, His "will", foremost in his natural inclinations.)
So - for a baseline, let's consider two verses we've all probably heard in relation to this and if not here 'tis:
Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man that he should repent: hath he said and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken and shall he not make it good?
And Psalm 116:11 - I said in my terror all men are liars.
And to expand the topic a little Matthew 5: 33-37 - Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 4 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.
So - if Jesus was a man, part of humanity and with the faculties and capacities of humanity he clearly had the human faculty to, if not the capacity, to "Lie" and I would extend that to mean something different than telling someone their horrible haircut looked fine, or that Martha's lentil soup tasted good when it didn't. If Jesus dealt with his family and friends in the order of life and it's affairs to any degree I could probably assume that while he didn't get too wrapped up in things outside of his scope and interest he probably developed social skills to maintain a gracious presence in all his relationships. That's a guess, but it's arguable.
On matters relating to God and our relationship with God Jesus was more specific - as in making oaths - don't use the values of things outside your range of authority like "by God I'll be there no matter what", or "as heaven and earth stand today, I will pay you back tomorrow" or such things. Just say what you mean and then do it, don't promise, as any number of things can, might and will change whatever it is you're swearing to do or be. Yes/No, and go with that.
To me the answer is simple, if it's true that Jesus didn't lie it's true because he chose not to. A good example is the series of questions asked him in the desert after his fasting, in Matthew 4. We begin to see in the life of Jesus a different frame of reference than whether he would lie or not.
We can examine this scenario in light of his humanity since the questions address things that he could choose how to respond and he didn't actually answer them all directly -
And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
He didn't answer no I can't or yes I can to provide proof of who He was, rather he answered by saying it was not most important. In fact for all three "temptations" he didn't argue whether he was able to do them, rather he placed them in a different or correct context. Imagine if he had said well, I could get angels to help me sure, but that wouldn't be profitable, as angels have better things to do. No, they do, you know that, I'm not going to waste God's time or theirs or - no, I'm sure they would if I asked but...." etc. etc. etc.
Another place it says the people were amazed when he spoke to them with "authority" rather than like the teachers they were used to hearing. Like the time the man asked him to settle an inheritance squabble and Jesus told he wasn't a judge over him in those matters....who wouldn't want Jesus settling whether or not you get the vacation home or the dog house, in the will? He stayed out of it - "not my job, sorry".
Anyhoo - did Jesus lie? No. Why? Because he chose not to. How did he accomplish that is another question really, but given that he was the Son of God, sent forth as the Living Logos and fathered by the Creator whatever genetics produced him were above average it would seem. It's not a case for having an "Uber Jesus-Man" like Martindale created to get Jesus down to his level, rather Jesus was literally "the son of God".
And the bloodline of Adam is a non issue in this question IMO, as all men were under the "curse" at that time, and while you had a "believers line", it didn't endow any of those people with the ability to not be in sin and subject to the fruit of sin, death. All mankind was then born of a "human nature" that would ultimately die if not reborn as we see later, through Christ. David states this in -
Psalm 51:5 - Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me...
Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned...
Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...
And of course 1 Cor. 15:45 - "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
Peace, beautiful people!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
RottieGrrrl,
You got it. I feel the same way.
Oops! Maybe I go a little farther with it. :)
I think if God had given us His Word via a person that is easy to like and very charming and lovable, then we’d all rush to that PERSON (not the message) and salaam him/her for ever, even more than lots of vpw worshippers did in TWI-1. We’d measure our spirituality, not on how well we absorb the message, but how close can we get to the person, just like in TWI.
I liken it to a sirloin steak smothered in $hitsauce. You gotta really want that meat real bad, to clean it off well and eat it.
<gag>
Even I do a double take at that, but it’s true.
***
I apologize for temporarily ignoring lots of posts this morning. It’s a busy weekend.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And what's that say about what the person thinks about you that they would hand you a sirloin steak like you described?
Would you call him a loving father?
As Saint Vic, himself, said in PLAF: "If that's so with your biological father, how much more your spiritual father?"
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Again, it's not the person that's important, it's all those gathered messages that I'm interested in. I find the person to be a major distraction. I prefer to look away from him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mike, this is simply your opinion. If it's "true", as you say, please provide some documentation to that effect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So in a veiled discussion of the person, you don't want to discuss the person?
Do you read what you type? Or do you fade in and out?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Some of The Way implied that Mary was a guinea pig and that both the egg and semen/sperm was created by God to prevent blood transfusion, both had different DNA/genome. Adam was with Eve when Satan deceived them when eating from tree of Good and Evil, which meant we don't want God chaperoning/spying on us, thus the 2 of them did treason against God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In PFAL, VPW presented the following course of logic:
"Life of the flesh is in the blood"...Leviticus
1. This component is supplied by the male via the sperm.
(In the case of divine conception, supplied by God)
2. Blood does not cross the placenta.
(Preventing contamination by Mary's human blood)
Thus, Christ's blood was pure, as it represented only the divine component.
Well, that all sounds very concise and neatly packaged.
The problem, though, is that it is grossly incorrect on both counts.
*Blood is composed of components supplied by both the male and female.
*Blood can, in fact, in certain circumstances, cross the placenta.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Wow! This thread has turned into a Doctrinal Potpourri!
I need to fill in a score card to keep track of all the ideas.
I admitted before, some of this father/mother stuff is territory I felt needed no more checking decades ago, and no red flags popped up for me since. As a result I am very rusty on some of these micro-topics, and switching more to a learning mode as I catch up on reading.
The the human lying phenomenon I've studied much, not just from the Biblical perspective, but from the medical/scientific one as well.
As far as Jesus Christ and "white lies" I don't know. How about euphemisms? Could he use them in his speech?
I've wondered if he got the flu, and lean to a "yes." I've also wondered if he got spanked or rodded when a toddler. It says he fulfilled the law, so does that mean he was married at some point? There are lots of marriage laws in there.
Sometimes I think the Word does not spell out this stuff for us for the same reason God made Christ Jesus absent or invisible or whatever on that day of Ascension long ago.
If we knew the trivia on Young Jesus it would probably not lead us in the most desired direction. If we could text JC, and meet him at Starbucks it would probably undermine our ability to grow up to fill his shoes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Some great points, RottieGrrrl - I think along those same lines and enjoy garnering things from other belief systems and philosophies…
I just wanted to add a few comments…not really addressing you or anyone in particular…
…anyway…
there’s been some threads on Grease Spot that basically ask “did you throw out the baby with the bathwater?” (I think there’s even a thread by that name too) – personally I don’t really consider PFAL / TWI-doctrine as a valid belief system or philosophy simply because it’s a cobbled-together mess by an incompetent plagiarist ( a theological liar and thief). If a Christian is that concerned about “the baby” how about the baby Jesus…keep it simple, start from the gospels and work your way around the rest of the scriptures – concentrically speaking - with Jesus Christ at the center of it all.
And I don’t think it’s a bad idea for Christians to rethink their attitude toward the Bible anyway - after leaving TWI…it wasn’t really declared out loud – but TWI followers tended to worship the Bible…perhaps even to the point of sometimes overshadowing the reverence and adoration that’s truly due to the glory of God displayed in the face of Jesus Christ (II Corinthians 4:6). I think Christianity should be more about a relationship with our Lord than about your relationship with some book.
Looking for what is of value in PFAL is like looking for what is valuable in counterfeit money.
Counterfeit money looks like real money but has deleterious side effects – like reducing the value of real money, causing inflation, and losses to citizens and businesses; it hurts the economy because it’s not based on something of value but on deception. A lie ! It is the illusion of resources. But there’s nothing to back up those fake bills.
PFAL and TWI-doctrine is an illusion of resources – lots of promises…lots of claims about what PFAL can do for you…but there’s nothing to back it up…God is not a genie-in-the-PFAL bottle, to be at your beck and call.
That’s all I’ve got for now, Grease Spotters have a good night, sleep tight, and don’t let the emoticons bite.
Edited by T-Boneclarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If you need me to explain this, you really aren't half as smart as you're advertising. I don't even have to expound- just post the verses, and the meaning of his fulfilling the law should be plain enough- for those not trying to be deliberately obtuse, that is.
Hebrews 4:14-16 KJV
"14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."
Hebrews 5:1-12 KJV
"1For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat."
Hebrews 7:23-28 KJV
"23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore."
Hebrews 9:24-28 KJV
"24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So were you running on Waybrain autopilot when you wrote this?
What happened to the humans are complex creatures, they can do good and bad schtick?
Were Saint Vic's actions nice...for awhile, then his rotten heart reigned his affairs? You have no trouble telling everyone how rotten the human heart is, yet when you see that corruption in Saint Vic you have a million excuses.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Contrary to a popular belief in TWI there are many Bible passages that suggest there are degrees of punishment depending on the degree of sin - here are just a few:
Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town...Matthew 10:15 NIV
Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” ...John 19:11 NIV
20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodomand Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” ....Genesis 18:20, 21 NIV
13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[14]
15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are....Matthew 23:13-15 NIV
38 As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, 39 and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”...Mark 12: 38 - 40 NIV
I tend to think wierwille pushed the idea of all sin is the same in God’s eyes so his sexual predations wouldn’t look so bad when compared to someone just losing their temper with their spouse.
Edited by T-BoneClarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Edited by MikeLink 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.