If the determinism of the universe stated man did not receive spirit (at least for a time) what changed that allowed Jesus Christ to get spirit?
The determinism of the universe never stated that, that I know of.
You mean to tell me it ran contrary to the determinism you claim the universe has in every other instance?
4 hours ago, Mike said:
Determinism is a 5-senses thing, as is science.They are “ignorant” of all things spiritual. Spirit never comes up in scientific discussions about determinism.
Except with that Facebook group you've refered to. But then they're spiritual too, right?
4 hours ago, Mike said:
I believe Jesus got spirit the same way any other humans got spirit upon them, prior to Pentecost: he prepared his mind for it and was willing to do the work.
Okay, I'll rephrase that. What in the universe changed so John the Baptist could get spirit within him?
4 hours ago, Mike said:
In the OT it says that if God had His way, all of Israel could have spirit and be able to prophesy. He was willing and able, and Jesus was ready to receive it.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
And why wasn't he able with Moses? Or Cain or Able? Or even Adam?
4 hours ago, Mike said:
If Jesus Christ was a natural man, and as you've stated previously, Natural man is like a beast, the how did he get the free will to do what he had to do to get spirit? If Christ got spirit through water baptism, why don't we?
Jesus was a man of body and soul prior to his baptism like natural man, but he was NOT of the lineage of Adam, and not owned by the adversary like all other body and soul humans.So, I hesitate to call him a natural man, in that sense.
So once again we'll cheat by changing definitions.
4 hours ago, Mike said:
Either way, he had a human body and that includes all the DNA that grows a brain with decision abilities, and learning abilities, and eventually with some form of Biological free will, which I think may be minFW.This is a natural process.It works in spite of natural men being Biblical brute beasts.
So how does natural free will become free will?
4 hours ago, Mike said:
4 hours ago, Mike said:
Animals have soul, and they can make decisions, and they can learn. These abilities are severely muted in animals compared to humans, so if animals could have any minFW, it would be VERY, VERY minimal.
But animals never become spiritual, men do.
4 hours ago, Mike said:
I don’t know of Jesus getting spirit from water baptism, but it does happen around that same time… just after I think. I think he got it by believing and wanting it.
The why didn't Even get it by believing and wanting it. I have got a man from the lord, she said.
4 hours ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
If God can only communicate with what he is, spirit, how did He impregnate Mary
I am proposing a major SUPPLEMENT for the class, to better explain this idea that God cannot communicate with man any other way than by spirit.I think nearly everyone gets this wrong, so it should be amended in the way the class is run.
I would add this to the class coordinator’s syllabus to be read to students or handed out in printed for
And you'd be wrong. How'd God communicate with Noah? Moses? Adam after the fall?
4 hours ago, Mike said:
God cannot REALLY communicate with man without spirit.
Really?! And where was Joseph's spirit? Mary's? Moses'?
4 hours ago, Mike said:
God wants deep, detailed, involved discussion with His kids, and that can only be done via spirit.It is much like how “No man can REALLY say that Jesus is Lord, but by holy spirit.”
Pretty hard for a sophisticated robot with or without spirit.
4 hours ago, Mike said:
Any natural man can say “Jesus is Lord” but that is a crude mouthing of it only, with no depth and heart behind it. To REALLY say Jesus is Lord mean to do it spiritually, like the Father seeks, via S.I.T.
Yah, let's add a modifier that solves the dilemma.
4 hours ago, Mike said:
Similarly, God can do all sorts of phenomena to get some small point across.
He used phenomena that the children of Israel without spirit could see, but with Moses, who had spirit the communication was rich and detailed, and a two-way conversation at times.With most phenomena that is able to get the attention of a natural man, it also freaks them out, which cuts down on the quality of communication.
Extraneous information.
4 hours ago, Mike said:
But with Mary, I think she had spirit.Mary’s family had intense believers in it, with angelic visitations, a miraculous pregnancy, and John the Baptist having spirit in the womb.It looks to me that both cousin Elizabeth and Mary prophesied.
And just were is that in the bible?
4 hours ago, Mike said:
Angels communicated with Joseph telling him not to worry about Mary, does this mean angels are more powerful than God, as they didn't need the spirit-spirit connection?p
God often used angels to do His bidding in the OT and a little in the NT.
You don't have to tell me the astonishingly obvious the merely obvious is more than enough.
4 hours ago, Mike said:
This needed spirit-spirit connection is for RICH communication I explained above.
More of the astonishingly obvious.
4 hours ago, Mike said:
At best you won't decode him [Dennett]. You'll offer an opinion on what you think he's saying. Remember all those term papers and dissertations on what the white whale in Moby Dick means? … And, in all probability, he probably writes that way because he's trying to give himself wiggle room if somebody challenges him. … People also often write word salad style so people will read into the text what they want to read into the text. …Writers with nothing to hide, hide nothing. They write clearly and to the point. Top of Form
I mentioned that I am not sure at all what he saying, just guessing in places, and getting some of those guesses confirmed by his videos.
As far as Dennett giving himself some wiggle room, there may be something to that.There are two angles to this
The first angle comes from the history of the book
Dennett teases by not revealing his hand very clearly until late in Elbow RoomR. (This seems less the case in Freedom Evolves.
After seeing his strategy and his admissions, another piece fell into place from a clue in the Preface to Elbow Room. The chapters of that book originally were individual lectures held at Oxford University, famously called the John Locke Lectures
As a guest speaker he surely wanted his audience to attend every lecture. Planning his lectures must have included a strong element of wanting to keep the audience coming back after the first lecture. The best way to do that is to not tell the whole story that first night, but dangle some bait, a teaser to keep interest at its highest.p
So, the early chapters are very far from explanations of DD’s theory, and instead he spends a lot of time on every other thinker’s approach to free will. He seems to be trying to cover the whole subject, including its historic dead ends.
Or maybe he's trying to hide that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
4 hours ago, Mike said:
On a completely different perspective about Dennett’s brand of FW, is my guess that he may actually offer no model of how his brand of FW (DenFW) works. Instead of proposing a model that incorporates his brand of DenFW, Dennett seems to merely be discussing the POSSIBILITY of such a model existing.
I'm waiting to see how fast this dog is going to chase its tail.
4 hours ago, Mike said:
The key to remember with this item is that a reader can’t expect Dennett to QUICKLY lay out a blueprint for making his version of FW happen. On that point I tried my best to differ from him, and bring as early as possible the strange timing aspects of minFW.
And I'll bet many in the audience were yawning and wishing he get to the point.
4 hours ago, Mike said:
The OTHER ANGLE to Dennett’s holding his cards close to the vest is computer phobia.I dared to come out in my Chapter 3 that I am proposing that in sense we are just robots, VERY sophisticated ones.I am able to talk this way in this Century because of the great advances and great expectations in A.I. compared to when Dennett was preparing his lectures in early 1980s.Computer phobia, fired by the 1968 movie “2001 A Space Odyssey,” was a big deal in our culture.I feel Dennett may have held back to avoid freaking people out.
Yah on one hand God wants deep heartfelt conversations and on the other hand he wants sophisticated robots.
And I'll bet many in the audience were yawning and wishing he get to the point.
I was probably one of the first to read his post after he worked on it most of the day yesterday. I say that cause he posted nothing else and then came through with the Britinaca BullShonta Edition. I read his post, understood it just fine, and gotta say it was like reading an instructional set to assemble a dishrack.
Your tome brings about a few interesting question:
If the determinism of the universe stated man did not receive spirit (at least for a time) what changed that allowed Jesus Christ to get spirit?
If Jesus Christ was a natural man, and as you've stated previously, Natural man is like a beast, the how did he get the free will to do what he had to do to get spirit? If Christ got spirit through water baptism, why don't we?
If God can only communicate with what he is, spirit, how did He impregnate Mary?
Angels communicated with Joseph telling him not to worry about Mary, does this mean angels are more powerful than God, as they didn't need the spirit-spirit connection?
On 11/18/2022 at 7:36 AM, OldSkool said:
My apologies, my intent was lost in cyberspace. You questions are awesome, not obvious. I was referring to myself stating the painfully obvious that mike would never shoot a straight answer...he will most likely try and bury them in bullshonta.
Mike proved my point 100% trollingly correct. You gonna answer these questions mike or continue to try and baffle us with bull-shonta?
Here - I will post them, they are questions from So_crates and I want them easily seen so I am repeating them out of the quote feature.
Your tome brings about a few interesting question:
If the determinism of the universe stated man did not receive spirit (at least for a time) what changed that allowed Jesus Christ to get spirit?
If Jesus Christ was a natural man, and as you've stated previously, Natural man is like a beast, the how did he get the free will to do what he had to do to get spirit? If Christ got spirit through water baptism, why don't we?
If God can only communicate with what he is, spirit, how did He impregnate Mary?
Angels communicated with Joseph telling him not to worry about Mary, does this mean angels are more powerful than God, as they didn't need the spirit-spirit connection?
This is what is known as a double bind: You can't get spirit until you say Jesus is Lord, but you can't say Jesus is Lord until you have spirit.
You can add the word REALLY wherever you want. It won't resolve the dilemma.
Aaaaaand the only place that you can say Jesus is Lord really at the same time as confessing Jesus is Lord is where?
Plaffy.
See how it all ties back together? Otherwise you are either an empty floating by or you don’t understand the holy spirit field. Which is way different than the Holy Spirit field.
This is what is known as a double bind: You can't get spirit until you say Jesus is Lord, but you can't say Jesus is Lord until you have spirit.
You can add the word REALLY wherever you want. It won't resolve the dilemma.
No, you got this entirely wrong.
A natural man with no spirit still has free will, and can believe in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, and he can say with his 5-senses brain that Jesus is lord. THAT gets him born again and having spirit.
Now that 5-senses saying wasn't REALLY saying Jesus is lord, but it is not required for him to REALLY say (via S.I.T.) Jesus is lord to get born again.
AFTER the new birth this man, now of body/soul/spirit, can S.I.T. in order to REALLY say Jesus is lord.
No double bind at all. It was your jumbled understanding that bound you.
Aaaaaand the only place that you can say Jesus is Lord really at the same time as confessing Jesus is Lord is where?
Plaffy.
See how it all ties back together? Otherwise you are either an empty floating by or you don’t understand the holy spirit field. Which is way different than the Holy Spirit field.
Got it?
You hit the nail on the head 100% !
What Im gatherhering from Mike is he is mostly the way I used to be, or maybe any of us who had adopted wierwille/way international theology to one degree or another. It's obvious from reading mike's posts he is desperately trying to make wierwille fit with science/neuroscience, etc. So he will bend reality to make it fit. Redefine words, subtly change positions, song and dance us to death, obfuscate, use passive/agressive methodology, disparage those who disagree - probably thinks were all posessed and hate-filled, on down the line. Wierwillian theology allows no dissent, it cannot be bargained with, its all or nothing, adversarial, divisive, and at the end of the day all reality must be bent to match the lies. Heres a prime example. He has to take
1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:3 doesn't say no man can REALLY say Jesus is Lord - that garbage is from PLAF. But check out his explanation of bull-shonta to make it fit. Even scripture must be bent to accept what wierwille say. Wierwille is his idol.
24 minutes ago, Mike said:
A natural man with no spirit still has free will, and can believe in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, and he can say with his 5-senses brain that Jesus is lord. THAT gets him born again and having spirit.
Now that 5-senses saying wasn't REALLY saying Jesus is lord, but it is not required for him to REALLY say (via S.I.T.) Jesus is lord to get born again.
AFTER the new birth this man, now of body/soul/spirit, can S.I.T. in order to REALLY say Jesus is lord
Similarly, God can do all sorts of phenomena to get some small point across.
I suppose God putting his plan of redemption in the stars....you know where God's plan of redemtion concerning Jesus Christ is plastered across all space and time to be read and understood by alll...is that "some small point" --- even your idol wierwille stated that just as much word is written in the stars. No spirit needed. God communicated with the entire world the same if you are natural man or a spirit filled Christian or a devil worshipping pagan. That's not the only example, but likely the most compreshensice and awesome example ever.
God only being able to communicate with spirit is complete bull-shonta. But go ahead and continue to show everyone how much of an epic fail way international theology REALLY is.
A natural man with no spirit still has free will, and can believe in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, and he can say with his 5-senses brain that Jesus is lord. THAT gets him born again and having spirit.
Now that 5-senses saying wasn't REALLY saying Jesus is lord, but it is not required for him to REALLY say (via S.I.T.) Jesus is lord to get born again.
AFTER the new birth this man, now of body/soul/spirit, can S.I.T. in order to REALLY say Jesus is lord.
No double bind at all. It was your jumbled understanding that bound you.
Learn to communicate clearly, effectually. Learn to organize your thoughts and express them. This way, you can avoid any jumbled understanding you might cause.
Before I wrote this reply, I said Jesus is Lord in three different tongues, but I only interpreted them into English. (I could have interpreted them into four additional man-made languages.) And, I can assure you, the interpretation was accurate and literal, according to usage: Jesus is Lord.
There. I did it. I REALLY said it, RICHLY, even though it's not required.
A natural man with no spirit still has free will, and can believe in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, and he can say with his 5-senses brain that Jesus is lord. THAT gets him born again and having spirit.
Now that 5-senses saying wasn't REALLY saying Jesus is lord, but it is not required for him to REALLY say (via S.I.T.) Jesus is lord to get born again.
AFTER the new birth this man, now of body/soul/spirit, can S.I.T. in order to REALLY say Jesus is lord.
No double bind at all. It was your jumbled understanding that bound you.
3 hours ago, OldSkool said:
You hit the nail on the head 100% !
What Im gatherhering from Mike is he is mostly the way I used to be, or maybe any of us who had adopted wierwille/way international theology to one degree or another. It's obvious from reading mike's posts he is desperately trying to make wierwille fit with science/neuroscience, etc. So he will bend reality to make it fit. Redefine words, subtly change positions, song and dance us to death, obfuscate, use passive/agressive methodology, disparage those who disagree - probably thinks were all posessed and hate-filled, on down the line. Wierwillian theology allows no dissent, it cannot be bargained with, its all or nothing, adversarial, divisive, and at the end of the day all reality must be bent to match the lies. Heres a prime example. He has to take
1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:3 doesn't say no man can REALLY say Jesus is Lord - that garbage is from PLAF. But check out his explanation of bull-shonta to make it fit. Even scripture must be bent to accept what wierwille say. Wierwille is his idol.
I think it may have been in wierwille’s twisted imagination that I Corinthians 12:3 was the trump card to win the argument that it was God’s will that every Christian speak in tongues as an undeniable proof that they are going to heaven and all hell can’t stop them from going.
To be fair – I can see how one might understand the passage that way: King James Bible Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but bythe Holy Ghost.
However, a case could also be made that wierwille had confirmation bias – from the alternative viewpoints I will present below.
1722 en (a preposition) – properly, in (inside, within); (figuratively) "in the realm (sphere) of," as in the condition (state) in which something operates from the inside (within).
English Standard Version Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.
Berean Literal Bible Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking in the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed," and no one is able to say, "Jesus is Lord," if not in the Holy Spirit.
Amplified Bible Therefore I want you to know that no one speaking by the [power and influence of the] Spirit of God can say, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is [my] Lord,” except by [the power and influence of] the Holy Spirit.
Young's Literal Translation wherefore, I give you to understand that no one, in the Spirit of God speaking, saith Jesus is anathema, and no one is able to say Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit.
Contemporary English Version Now I want you to know that if you are led by God's Spirit, you will say that Jesus is Lord, and you will never curse Jesus.
Good News Translation I want you to know that no one who is led by God's Spirit can say "A curse on Jesus!" and no one can confess "Jesus is Lord," without being guided by the Holy Spirit.
The above translations seem to suggest a Christian should be influenced by the Holy Spirit. And further – Barnes’ Notes on I Cor, 12:3, also observes the passage is in reference to religious practices in general and that it should be inspired by The Holy Spirit – that would cover a wider range of spiritual methods than just speaking in tongues:
Beginning excerpts from Barnes’ Notes:
Wherefore I give you to understand - I make known to you. The force of this expression is, "I give you this rule to distinguish," or by which you may know what influences and operations are from God. The design of the passage is, to give them some simple general guide by which they could at once recognize the operations of the Spirit of God, and determine whether they who claimed to be under that operation were really so. That rule was, that all who were truly influenced by the Holy Spirit would be disposed to acknowledge and to know Jesus Christ; and where this disposition existed, it was of itself a clear demonstration that it was the operation of the Spirit of God. The same rule substantially is given by John 1John 4:2, by which to test the nature of the spirit by which people profess to be influenced. "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God," compare also the note to Matthew 16:17.
That no man - No one οἰδεὶς oideis. It may refer to a man, or to demons, or to those who pretended to be under inspiration of any kind. And it may refer to the Jews who may have pretended to be under the influence of God's Spirit. and who yet anathematized and cursed the name of Jesus. Or it may be intended simply as a general rule; meaning that "if anyone," whoever he might be, should blaspheme the name of Jesus, whatever were his pretensions, whether professing to be under the influence of the Holy Spirit among the Jews, or to be inspired among the Gentiles, it was full proof that he was an impostor. The argument is, that the Holy Spirit in all instances would do honor to Jesus Christ, and would prompt all who were under his influence to love and reverence his name.
Speaking by the Spirit of God - Under the influence of inspiration.
Calleth - Says, or would say; that is, no such one would use the language of anathema in regard to him.
Accursed - Margin, "Anathema" (ἀνάθημα anathēma); see the Acts 23:14 note; Romans 9:3 note; compare 1 Corinthians 16:22; Galatians 1:8-9. The word is one of execration, or cursing; and means, that no one under the influence of the Holy Spirit could curse the name of Jesus, or denounce him as execrable and as an impostor. The effect of the influences of the Spirit would be in all instances to inspire reverence for his name and work. It is probable that the Jews were here principally intended, since there is a bitterness and severity in the language which accords with all their expressions of feeling toward Jesus of Nazareth. It is possible, also, and indeed probable, that the priests and priestesses of the pagan gods who pretended to be under the influence of inspiration might denounce the name of Jesus, because they would all be opposed to the purity of his religion.
And that no man can say ... - That is, that it cannot occur, or even happen, that anyone will acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah who is not influenced by the Holy Spirit. The meaning is, not that no one has physical ability to say that Jesus is Lord unless aided by the Holy Spirit, since all people can say this; but that no one will be disposed heartily to say it; no one will acknowledge him as their Lord; it can never happen that anyone will confess him as the true Messiah who has not been brought to this state by the agency of the Holy Spirit.
Is the Lord - Is the Messiah; or shall acknowledge him as their Lord.
But by the Holy Ghost - Unless he is influenced by the Holy Spirit. This is a very important verse, not only in regard to the particular subject under consideration in the time of Paul, but also in its practical bearing at present. We may learn from it:
(1) That it is a proof that any man is under the influence of the Holy Spirit who is heartily disposed to honor the name and work of Jesus Christ.
(2) those forms and modes of religion; those religious opinions and practices, will be most in accordance with the designs of the Spirit of God, which do most to honor the name and work of Jesus Christ.
(3) it is true that no man will ever cherish a proper regard for Jesus Christ, nor love his name and work, unless he is influenced by the Holy Spirit. No man loves the name and work of the Redeemer by following simply the inclinations of his own corrupt heart. In all instances of those who have been brought to a willingness to honor him, it has been by the agency of the Holy Spirit.
(4) if any man, in any way, is disposed to disparage the work of Christ, to speak lightly of his person or his name; or holds doctrines that infringe on the fulness of the truth respecting his divine nature, his purity, his atonement, it is proof that he is not under the influence of the Spirit of God. Just in proportion as he shall disparage that work or name, just in that proportion does he give evidence that he is not influenced by the Divine Spirit; but by proud reason, or by imagination, or by a heart that is not reconciled to God.
(5) all true religion is the production of the Holy Spirit. For religion consists essentially in a willingness to honor, and love, and serve the Lord Jesus Christ; and where that exists, it is produced by the Holy Spirit.
(6) the influence of the Holy Spirit should be cherished. To grieve away that Spirit is to drive all proper knowledge of the Redeemer from the soul; to do this is to leave the heart to coldness, and darkness, and barrenness, and spiritual death.
Even modern theologians mention the possibility of a wider application of I Cor. 12:3
The validity of any speaking exercise is determined by the truthfulness of it. If the speaker affirms the lordship of Jesus, it is the truth from the Holy Spirit. What a person believes and says about Jesus Christ is the test of whether he speaks from the Holy Spirit. He always leads people to Christ’s lordship (cf. 2:8-14; Jn 15:26; I Jn 5:6-8)
A key point I gather from MacArthur’s comments is that what is said must be understood by the listener. So, it could cover tongues with interpretation, prophesy but it could also apply to anything said in a religious service – prayers in one’s understanding, songs, teaching and preaching.
A natural man with no spirit still has free will, and can believe in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, and he can say with his 5-senses brain that Jesus is lord. THAT gets him born again and having spirit.
Now that 5-senses saying wasn't REALLY saying Jesus is lord, but it is not required for him to REALLY say (via S.I.T.) Jesus is lord to get born again.
AFTER the new birth this man, now of body/soul/spirit, can S.I.T. in order to REALLY say Jesus is lord.
No double bind at all. It was your jumbled understanding that bound you.
Except the “via SIT” is 100% added and private interpretation against the holy tenets of the PLAF.
Not even consistent within itself.
As most copied works are…
Maybe he should have spent more than a weekend with JE Stiles and actually talked with the man as opposed to copying his book.
Come on now let’s get logical. Your local neighborhood pastor loves God Jesus the Bible but doesn’t believe in SIT.
He really in Gods estimation has a lower level of commitment and love for the Savior than the puffheaded lo shantaists? He really can’t say Jesus is Lord really? I mean he can enough to be born again but that doesn’t count?
Condescending bullshonta.
God put the whole section right in the same vicinity about clanging cymbals and worthless noise in I Cor 12-14. Those 3 chapters check and balance each other. And none of it is accurately taught in PLAF
The further I get away from it the more ridiculous the Holy Spirit teachings of the Way seem to me. Like an iron man suit as opposed to a Lord and Savior.
hose 3 chapters check and balance each other. And none of it is accurately taught in PLAF
Oh...oh...wait .... wait... God raised up victor paul wierwille specifically for the holy spirit field....yeah...patent bullshonta.
I had that line regarding vpw and the hs field pounded into my cranium while in-residence. My corps coordinator said it like a mantra. Great point sir!
Come on now let’s get logical. Your local neighborhood pastor loves God Jesus the Bible but doesn’t believe in SIT.
He really in Gods estimation has a lower level of commitment and love for the Savior than the puffheaded lo shantaists? He really can’t say Jesus is Lord really? I mean he can enough to be born again but that doesn’t count?
Condescending bullshonta.
God put the whole section right in the same vicinity about clanging cymbals and worthless noise in I Cor 12-14. Those 3 chapters check and balance each other. And none of it is accurately taught in PLAF
The further I get away from it the more ridiculous the Holy Spirit teachings of the Way seem to me. Like an iron man suit as opposed to a Lord and Savior.
Real simple. Tell you local pastor to say, “Zimbabwe de Janeiro maka seetay.” Then, then, THEN, have him or someone else interpret that babble, literally according to usage, as, “Jesus is Lord.” And call it a day. Done. That’s all she wrote.
Now, only now, can your sweet local pastor say that he REALLY said, “Jesus is Lord.”
“No man can REALLY say that Jesus is Lord, but by holy spirit.”
That's pfal, not Bible. When you add "really", you add a word, and no longer have...?
Also, saying "by holy spirit" means "by speaking in tongues". you're changing what the Bible said. When you change the words, you no longer have.....
So, if that has nothing to do with s.i.t. (which it doesn't, that was vpw's unsupported claim,) then what does it mean that "No man can say that Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit"?
It's still taking about making Jesus your Lord/setting forth that Jesus is your Lord. What does it mean that he's your lord? It means he's your sovereign, and you have sworn fealty to him. He commands, you obey. (Yes, as your sovereign, he has responsibilities, also, so this goes both ways in a formal relationship.)
So, how does 'by the Holy Spirit" figure in? In the more obvious manner.
Matthew 13.
"3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."
=======================
John 12: 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
--------------------------------
Once you look at it without trying to shoehorn vpw's error-ridden doctrines into the verses where they do not appear, they make a lot more sense.
“No man can REALLY say that Jesus is Lord, but by holy spirit.”
That's pfal, not Bible. When you add "really", you add a word, and no longer have...?
Also, saying "by holy spirit" means "by speaking in tongues". you're changing what the Bible said. When you change the words, you no longer have.....
So, if that has nothing to do with s.i.t. (which it doesn't, that was vpw's unsupported claim,) then what does it mean that "No man can say that Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit"?
It's still taking about making Jesus your Lord/setting forth that Jesus is your Lord. What does it mean that he's your lord? It means he's your sovereign, and you have sworn fealty to him. He commands, you obey. (Yes, as your sovereign, he has responsibilities, also, so this goes both ways in a formal relationship.)
So, how does 'by the Holy Spirit" figure in? In the more obvious manner.
Matthew 13.
"3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."
=======================
John 12: 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
--------------------------------
Once you look at it without trying to shoehorn vpw's error-ridden doctrines into the verses where they do not appear, they make a lot more sense.
Mike proved my point 100% trollingly correct. You gonna answer these questions mike or continue to try and baffle us with bull-shonta?
Here - I will post them, they are questions from So_crates and I want them easily seen so I am repeating them out of the quote feature.
Your tome brings about a few interesting question:
If the determinism of the universe stated man did not receive spirit (at least for a time) what changed that allowed Jesus Christ to get spirit?
If Jesus Christ was a natural man, and as you've stated previously, Natural man is like a beast, the how did he get the free will to do what he had to do to get spirit? If Christ got spirit through water baptism, why don't we?
If God can only communicate with what he is, spirit, how did He impregnate Mary?
Angels communicated with Joseph telling him not to worry about Mary, does this mean angels are more powerful than God, as they didn't need the spirit-spirit connection?
I think a major problem in the whole free will vs. determinism debate is the failure to understand that we're dealing with nominalizations.
Nominalizations are verbs that are disguised as nouns.
Saint Vic addressed this in the class when he talked on not being able to warm love in a test tube and having a test tube of hot love.
Love doesn't exist, but being loving does.
Terry Pratchett mentions this in one of novels when he suggests: "Grind the universe to a fine powder, then sift it through the finest screen, and show me one molecule of duty, one atom of mercy."
Duty doesn't exist but being dutiful does
Mercy doesn't exist, but being merciful does.
Put simply, you're thinking you're dealing with things, determinism and free will, when you're actually dealing with processes.
There is no determinism, only a regulation process.
There is no free will, only a process of choice.
There are no subdivisions of choice any more than there are subdivisions of gravity or electricity.
Choice is choice and free will is free will, just as soup is soup and apple butter is apple butter.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
330
267
271
186
Popular Days
Nov 12
118
Nov 13
107
Nov 20
105
Nov 9
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 330 posts
T-Bone 267 posts
OldSkool 271 posts
Nathan_Jr 186 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2022
118 posts
Nov 13 2022
107 posts
Nov 20 2022
105 posts
Nov 9 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I do want to address this Mike. You constantly come at me like I have forgotten, or have been talked out of the truth of wierwille, or that I just don't understand where you are coming from. Personall
waysider
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collecte
Charity
I agree with So_Crates when he said "Here's a wild idea: why don't YOU become meek and I'll tell you about all the fruit in my life since I stopped making PLAF the center of my life." There have
Posted Images
T-Bone
oh, so you are God's spokesperson
two can play this game.
My God says wierwille was a sexual predator, pathological liar, drunkard, thief, and an unabashed plagiarist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You mean to tell me it ran contrary to the determinism you claim the universe has in every other instance?
Except with that Facebook group you've refered to. But then they're spiritual too, right?
Okay, I'll rephrase that. What in the universe changed so John the Baptist could get spirit within him?
So once again we'll cheat by changing definitions.
So how does natural free will become free will?
But animals never become spiritual, men do.
The why didn't Even get it by believing and wanting it. I have got a man from the lord, she said.
And you'd be wrong. How'd God communicate with Noah? Moses? Adam after the fall?
Really?! And where was Joseph's spirit? Mary's? Moses'?
Pretty hard for a sophisticated robot with or without spirit.
Yah, let's add a modifier that solves the dilemma.
Extraneous information.
And just were is that in the bible?
You don't have to tell me the astonishingly obvious the merely obvious is more than enough.
More of the astonishingly obvious.
Or maybe he's trying to hide that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I'm waiting to see how fast this dog is going to chase its tail.
And I'll bet many in the audience were yawning and wishing he get to the point.
Yah on one hand God wants deep heartfelt conversations and on the other hand he wants sophisticated robots.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I was probably one of the first to read his post after he worked on it most of the day yesterday. I say that cause he posted nothing else and then came through with the Britinaca BullShonta Edition. I read his post, understood it just fine, and gotta say it was like reading an instructional set to assemble a dishrack.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Mike proved my point 100% trollingly correct. You gonna answer these questions mike or continue to try and baffle us with bull-shonta?
Here - I will post them, they are questions from So_crates and I want them easily seen so I am repeating them out of the quote feature.
Your tome brings about a few interesting question:
If the determinism of the universe stated man did not receive spirit (at least for a time) what changed that allowed Jesus Christ to get spirit?
If Jesus Christ was a natural man, and as you've stated previously, Natural man is like a beast, the how did he get the free will to do what he had to do to get spirit? If Christ got spirit through water baptism, why don't we?
If God can only communicate with what he is, spirit, how did He impregnate Mary?
Angels communicated with Joseph telling him not to worry about Mary, does this mean angels are more powerful than God, as they didn't need the spirit-spirit connection?
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Aaaaaand the only place that you can say Jesus is Lord really at the same time as confessing Jesus is Lord is where?
Plaffy.
See how it all ties back together? Otherwise you are either an empty floating by or you don’t understand the holy spirit field. Which is way different than the Holy Spirit field.
Got it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
shonta shonta bo bonta, banana fana fo fanta
That's it. That's it. You move your tongue. You move your lips. You put your right foot in and your left foot out.
That's what it's all about...My little children.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I answered all of them last night, on page 35 at the 75% point, 14 hours ago.
So_crates did not accept my answers in a very long response on page 36, 11 hours ago, and I am in the process of responding to him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, you got this entirely wrong.
A natural man with no spirit still has free will, and can believe in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, and he can say with his 5-senses brain that Jesus is lord. THAT gets him born again and having spirit.
Now that 5-senses saying wasn't REALLY saying Jesus is lord, but it is not required for him to REALLY say (via S.I.T.) Jesus is lord to get born again.
AFTER the new birth this man, now of body/soul/spirit, can S.I.T. in order to REALLY say Jesus is lord.
No double bind at all. It was your jumbled understanding that bound you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
You hit the nail on the head 100% !
What Im gatherhering from Mike is he is mostly the way I used to be, or maybe any of us who had adopted wierwille/way international theology to one degree or another. It's obvious from reading mike's posts he is desperately trying to make wierwille fit with science/neuroscience, etc. So he will bend reality to make it fit. Redefine words, subtly change positions, song and dance us to death, obfuscate, use passive/agressive methodology, disparage those who disagree - probably thinks were all posessed and hate-filled, on down the line. Wierwillian theology allows no dissent, it cannot be bargained with, its all or nothing, adversarial, divisive, and at the end of the day all reality must be bent to match the lies. Heres a prime example. He has to take
1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:3 doesn't say no man can REALLY say Jesus is Lord - that garbage is from PLAF. But check out his explanation of bull-shonta to make it fit. Even scripture must be bent to accept what wierwille say. Wierwille is his idol.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I suppose God putting his plan of redemption in the stars....you know where God's plan of redemtion concerning Jesus Christ is plastered across all space and time to be read and understood by alll...is that "some small point" --- even your idol wierwille stated that just as much word is written in the stars. No spirit needed. God communicated with the entire world the same if you are natural man or a spirit filled Christian or a devil worshipping pagan. That's not the only example, but likely the most compreshensice and awesome example ever.
God only being able to communicate with spirit is complete bull-shonta. But go ahead and continue to show everyone how much of an epic fail way international theology REALLY is.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yes you did. My apologies, I stand corrected. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
You do know that people have more than 5 senses. A neuroscientist such as yourself should know that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Learn to communicate clearly, effectually. Learn to organize your thoughts and express them. This way, you can avoid any jumbled understanding you might cause.
Before I wrote this reply, I said Jesus is Lord in three different tongues, but I only interpreted them into English. (I could have interpreted them into four additional man-made languages.) And, I can assure you, the interpretation was accurate and literal, according to usage: Jesus is Lord.
There. I did it. I REALLY said it, RICHLY, even though it's not required.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think it may have been in wierwille’s twisted imagination that I Corinthians 12:3 was the trump card to win the argument that it was God’s will that every Christian speak in tongues as an undeniable proof that they are going to heaven and all hell can’t stop them from going.
To be fair – I can see how one might understand the passage that way:
King James Bible
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
However, a case could also be made that wierwille had confirmation bias – from the alternative viewpoints I will present below.
I red bolded the preposition “by” in the above KJV. In the Greek text “by” is the word “en”. See Bible Hub.com/interlinear 1 Corinthians 12-3
Concerning the Greek word “en”:
“en”: in, on, at, by, with
1722 en (a preposition) – properly, in (inside, within); (figuratively) "in the realm (sphere) of," as in the condition (state) in which something operates from the inside (within).
From: Bible Hub: Greek "en" Strong's # 1722
~ ~ ~ ~
Now look at some alternate translations from Bible Hub: 1 Corinthians 12:3 :
English Standard Version
Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.
Berean Literal Bible
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking in the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed," and no one is able to say, "Jesus is Lord," if not in the Holy Spirit.
Amplified Bible
Therefore I want you to know that no one speaking by the [power and influence of the] Spirit of God can say, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is [my] Lord,” except by [the power and influence of] the Holy Spirit.
Young's Literal Translation
wherefore, I give you to understand that no one, in the Spirit of God speaking, saith Jesus is anathema, and no one is able to say Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit.
Contemporary English Version
Now I want you to know that if you are led by God's Spirit, you will say that Jesus is Lord, and you will never curse Jesus.
Good News Translation
I want you to know that no one who is led by God's Spirit can say "A curse on Jesus!" and no one can confess "Jesus is Lord," without being guided by the Holy Spirit.
The above translations seem to suggest a Christian should be influenced by the Holy Spirit. And further – Barnes’ Notes on I Cor, 12:3, also observes the passage is in reference to religious practices in general and that it should be inspired by The Holy Spirit – that would cover a wider range of spiritual methods than just speaking in tongues:
Beginning excerpts from Barnes’ Notes:
Wherefore I give you to understand - I make known to you. The force of this expression is, "I give you this rule to distinguish," or by which you may know what influences and operations are from God. The design of the passage is, to give them some simple general guide by which they could at once recognize the operations of the Spirit of God, and determine whether they who claimed to be under that operation were really so. That rule was, that all who were truly influenced by the Holy Spirit would be disposed to acknowledge and to know Jesus Christ; and where this disposition existed, it was of itself a clear demonstration that it was the operation of the Spirit of God. The same rule substantially is given by John 1 John 4:2, by which to test the nature of the spirit by which people profess to be influenced. "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God," compare also the note to Matthew 16:17.
That no man - No one οἰδεὶς oideis. It may refer to a man, or to demons, or to those who pretended to be under inspiration of any kind. And it may refer to the Jews who may have pretended to be under the influence of God's Spirit. and who yet anathematized and cursed the name of Jesus. Or it may be intended simply as a general rule; meaning that "if anyone," whoever he might be, should blaspheme the name of Jesus, whatever were his pretensions, whether professing to be under the influence of the Holy Spirit among the Jews, or to be inspired among the Gentiles, it was full proof that he was an impostor. The argument is, that the Holy Spirit in all instances would do honor to Jesus Christ, and would prompt all who were under his influence to love and reverence his name.
Speaking by the Spirit of God - Under the influence of inspiration.
Calleth - Says, or would say; that is, no such one would use the language of anathema in regard to him.
Accursed - Margin, "Anathema" (ἀνάθημα anathēma); see the Acts 23:14 note; Romans 9:3 note; compare 1 Corinthians 16:22; Galatians 1:8-9. The word is one of execration, or cursing; and means, that no one under the influence of the Holy Spirit could curse the name of Jesus, or denounce him as execrable and as an impostor. The effect of the influences of the Spirit would be in all instances to inspire reverence for his name and work. It is probable that the Jews were here principally intended, since there is a bitterness and severity in the language which accords with all their expressions of feeling toward Jesus of Nazareth. It is possible, also, and indeed probable, that the priests and priestesses of the pagan gods who pretended to be under the influence of inspiration might denounce the name of Jesus, because they would all be opposed to the purity of his religion.
And that no man can say ... - That is, that it cannot occur, or even happen, that anyone will acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah who is not influenced by the Holy Spirit. The meaning is, not that no one has physical ability to say that Jesus is Lord unless aided by the Holy Spirit, since all people can say this; but that no one will be disposed heartily to say it; no one will acknowledge him as their Lord; it can never happen that anyone will confess him as the true Messiah who has not been brought to this state by the agency of the Holy Spirit.
Is the Lord - Is the Messiah; or shall acknowledge him as their Lord.
But by the Holy Ghost - Unless he is influenced by the Holy Spirit. This is a very important verse, not only in regard to the particular subject under consideration in the time of Paul, but also in its practical bearing at present. We may learn from it:
(1) That it is a proof that any man is under the influence of the Holy Spirit who is heartily disposed to honor the name and work of Jesus Christ.
(2) those forms and modes of religion; those religious opinions and practices, will be most in accordance with the designs of the Spirit of God, which do most to honor the name and work of Jesus Christ.
(3) it is true that no man will ever cherish a proper regard for Jesus Christ, nor love his name and work, unless he is influenced by the Holy Spirit. No man loves the name and work of the Redeemer by following simply the inclinations of his own corrupt heart. In all instances of those who have been brought to a willingness to honor him, it has been by the agency of the Holy Spirit.
(4) if any man, in any way, is disposed to disparage the work of Christ, to speak lightly of his person or his name; or holds doctrines that infringe on the fulness of the truth respecting his divine nature, his purity, his atonement, it is proof that he is not under the influence of the Spirit of God. Just in proportion as he shall disparage that work or name, just in that proportion does he give evidence that he is not influenced by the Divine Spirit; but by proud reason, or by imagination, or by a heart that is not reconciled to God.
(5) all true religion is the production of the Holy Spirit. For religion consists essentially in a willingness to honor, and love, and serve the Lord Jesus Christ; and where that exists, it is produced by the Holy Spirit.
(6) the influence of the Holy Spirit should be cherished. To grieve away that Spirit is to drive all proper knowledge of the Redeemer from the soul; to do this is to leave the heart to coldness, and darkness, and barrenness, and spiritual death.
From: Bible Hub: commentaries I Corinthians 12:3
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
Even modern theologians mention the possibility of a wider application of I Cor. 12:3
The validity of any speaking exercise is determined by the truthfulness of it. If the speaker affirms the lordship of Jesus, it is the truth from the Holy Spirit. What a person believes and says about Jesus Christ is the test of whether he speaks from the Holy Spirit. He always leads people to Christ’s lordship (cf. 2:8-14; Jn 15:26; I Jn 5:6-8)
From page 1715, comments on I Cor. 12:3 of The Macarthur Study Bible: New American Standard Bible
A key point I gather from MacArthur’s comments is that what is said must be understood by the listener. So, it could cover tongues with interpretation, prophesy but it could also apply to anything said in a religious service – prayers in one’s understanding, songs, teaching and preaching.
Edited by T-Bonemucho typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Except the “via SIT” is 100% added and private interpretation against the holy tenets of the PLAF.
Not even consistent within itself.
As most copied works are…
Maybe he should have spent more than a weekend with JE Stiles and actually talked with the man as opposed to copying his book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Come on now let’s get logical. Your local neighborhood pastor loves God Jesus the Bible but doesn’t believe in SIT.
He really in Gods estimation has a lower level of commitment and love for the Savior than the puffheaded lo shantaists? He really can’t say Jesus is Lord really? I mean he can enough to be born again but that doesn’t count?
Condescending bullshonta.
God put the whole section right in the same vicinity about clanging cymbals and worthless noise in I Cor 12-14. Those 3 chapters check and balance each other. And none of it is accurately taught in PLAF
The further I get away from it the more ridiculous the Holy Spirit teachings of the Way seem to me. Like an iron man suit as opposed to a Lord and Savior.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Oh...oh...wait .... wait... God raised up victor paul wierwille specifically for the holy spirit field....yeah...patent bullshonta.
I had that line regarding vpw and the hs field pounded into my cranium while in-residence. My corps coordinator said it like a mantra. Great point sir!
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Real simple. Tell you local pastor to say, “Zimbabwe de Janeiro maka seetay.” Then, then, THEN, have him or someone else interpret that babble, literally according to usage, as, “Jesus is Lord.” And call it a day. Done. That’s all she wrote.
Now, only now, can your sweet local pastor say that he REALLY said, “Jesus is Lord.”
See? Isn’t that wonderful!
Edited by Nathan_JrSnow gloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
“No man can REALLY say that Jesus is Lord, but by holy spirit.”
That's pfal, not Bible. When you add "really", you add a word, and no longer have...?
Also, saying "by holy spirit" means "by speaking in tongues". you're changing what the Bible said. When you change the words, you no longer have.....
So, if that has nothing to do with s.i.t. (which it doesn't, that was vpw's unsupported claim,) then what does it mean that "No man can say that Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit"?
It's still taking about making Jesus your Lord/setting forth that Jesus is your Lord. What does it mean that he's your lord? It means he's your sovereign, and you have sworn fealty to him. He commands, you obey. (Yes, as your sovereign, he has responsibilities, also, so this goes both ways in a formal relationship.)
So, how does 'by the Holy Spirit" figure in? In the more obvious manner.
Matthew 13.
"3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."
=======================
John 12: 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
--------------------------------
Once you look at it without trying to shoehorn vpw's error-ridden doctrines into the verses where they do not appear, they make a lot more sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Prepositions are the trickiest thing to learn in any language. They're trickier when someone's misusing them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Uh-oh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
There are literally thousands of these unsupported claims among victor’s writings and sermons.
No amount of beleeeving or absorbing will make these claims honest or accurate.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I think a major problem in the whole free will vs. determinism debate is the failure to understand that we're dealing with nominalizations.
Nominalizations are verbs that are disguised as nouns.
Saint Vic addressed this in the class when he talked on not being able to warm love in a test tube and having a test tube of hot love.
Love doesn't exist, but being loving does.
Terry Pratchett mentions this in one of novels when he suggests: "Grind the universe to a fine powder, then sift it through the finest screen, and show me one molecule of duty, one atom of mercy."
Duty doesn't exist but being dutiful does
Mercy doesn't exist, but being merciful does.
Put simply, you're thinking you're dealing with things, determinism and free will, when you're actually dealing with processes.
There is no determinism, only a regulation process.
There is no free will, only a process of choice.
There are no subdivisions of choice any more than there are subdivisions of gravity or electricity.
Choice is choice and free will is free will, just as soup is soup and apple butter is apple butter.
@Mike
Edited by So_cratesLink 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.