#4, Eagle. "taking over the holy spirit within"...is that what the Way was teaching at some point? I'm not familiar with it but nothing would surprise me. Can you elaborate?
I have to ask about #4 also. Never heard that one before. As for numbers 1 and 2, there is more than adequate proof in the Word that they are true, despite docvic's "endorsement".
Number 3 is the most interesting to me. I always did think vpw was wrong about this, and it is his own teaching that condemns it. He taught that the devil can come up with nothing new on his own (right?) -- yet in the next breath he taught that the new birth (ie - born of seed) was hidden from the beginning of time, and not known to anybody.
Now -- if the advo can only copy (and cannot come up with anything original), how is it that one can be born again of the wrong seed, before it was available to be born again of the right seed??
If the original "born again by seed spiritually" first became available on the day of Pentecost, and if it was something that no one but God knew, how is it possible for the adversary to do so centuries before God did it?? -->
If the adversary can only copy, then new birth was available before Pentecost. If new birth was first available at Pentecost, then it was not available as "seed of the serpent" back whenever. I for one believe that those in the OT (who were really evil) could of been sold out, but I don't believe they were "born again" of the wrong seed. If Acts was the first time for mankind to be born again by seed, then it was not possible for it to have happened back in Genesis, on the reverse side of the coin.
quote:As for numbers 1 and 2, there is more than adequate proof in the Word that they are true, despite docvic's "endorsement".
I wonder. In no one record is there anything other than three denials, nor 2 others crucified. Sure, there are apparent contradictions among the various records, but is the bible necessarily to be understood as having "mathematical exactness and scientific precision"? The Semitic mind didn't work that way; strict chronology wasn't of paramount importanace. Do you really think God designed the bible to be a puzzle to be solved, or a plain and simple record?
Most of that stuff I don't worry about. I am no longer convinced the Bible was ever a perfect and always consistent thing. I think it is a history of humanity's relationship with God, usually told from the perspective of men.
Inconsistencies don't worry me, I just look for the truths that sit peacefully with me and leave the rest for another time. Afterall, is the number of people who were crucified with Christ really important or is it that Christ was crucified which matters?
In TWI we were so busy looking at the little details that we usually missed the point entirely.
I have to wonder....does knowing the pithey details of those questions REALLY matter in the grand scheme of things....outside of twi?
I wonder, does anybody really care if it was two or four with Jesus, does that change the story or point one iota?
In knowing how many times Peter denied Jesus...Does it make the denial anymore poignient?
Sounds like we were straining at gnats to me.
In hindsight, I wonder if it wasn`t all just head knowledge to puffeth ourselves up with so that we felt special...Most of us were taught to be so busy focusing on these silly details that we missed the whole point of the book....Jesus and the message he came to bring...ie love God n love your neighbor.. ..it has been my experience since leaving, to focus on that, and all of the rest of the details seem to fall into place.
Seems like I was much too busy in twi with our intense scriptural studies n operating those principles, taking/running classes and participating in programs and meetings in order to attain spirituality, to be bothered with either one.
Over 15 years in TWI. I don't believe them ever teaching that the holy spirit one had could be controlled by devil spirits. Multiple Advanced Classes (VPs and LCMs) DTA, DWA, etc. Never heard that. You may want to check your references.
3. Believe it. To dmiller, LCM explained this. The devil was well aware of the promise of the seed of the woman crushing his seed. He was not able to copy the Christian new birth, of course, but was able to mimic natural seed. This spiritual "seed" left his "children" open to posession at any time. Having committed the unforgivable sin, his children would never turn to the true God.
4. Believe it, with qualifications. Can a Christian get possessed? Yes. Does this mean the devil spirit "takes over" the holy spirit? I've never heard it put that way, and I would not believe it. A possessed Christian can still operate holy spirit.
Thanks for the input, guys. Lots of good talk here. I was asked to elaborate on a couple of things.
The Seed of the Serpent concept that VPW brought forth is known only to the Way and the off-shoots of it that still propound it. The rest of Christianity does not even think of that never mind go along with it. The reason? The devil would have to be a being everywhere at once and know everybody who is confessing him as Lord in order for him to impart unholy spirit, and since he is a fallen angel, a limited being, how much of himself can he impart?
The idea that born-again Christians can be possessed means that the devil spirits have to take control and operate a physical body that already has God's holy spirit within. If they are doing that, they are pretty much controlling what the Bible has called "the tabernacle" or "the temple" of the holy spirit.
This Seed of the Serpent concept VPW brought forth made the devil equal with God.
The idea that the devil or devil spirits can take over the temple of the holy spirit made the devil superior to God.
Remember, the Bible made it clear light and darkness do not cohabitate and that the clean and unclean had to be separated, especially in the temple.
Then remember the weird darkness that fell upon TWI after they began to propound heavily these doctrines.
As far as the four crucified, only two crucified with Christ were in each gospel and only three denials of Peter were in each gospel. I do not believe God had us wanting to read that far into the gospel records and leave a mystery as to how many were crucified and how many denials we could guess at.
In my quiet time right now I'm rereading the new testement. Seems to me that there were only 2 crucified with Christ and I only count 3 denials. If you want to compare the differant episals then maybe you want to start believing the DeVinci Code.
If VP said it I question it. Seems to me he was just trying to prove how smart he was.
Once we have the Spirit of God in us there is no way Satan can come in.
I believe #1 and #2 because it makes sense the way it was taught. The reason that stuff was in PFAL was to support the teaching that the written word is perfect if God is perfect. True, nobody misses salvation by not knowing either of those things, but nobody misses it by KNOWING them, either.
I believe #3 because of the verse in Matthew 12:32 where it says no forgiveness neither in this world nor that which is to come. Both God and the devil need people to be committed to them and serve them. I'm sure the devil penalizes those who waver on their committment to him. I don't believe God does this. TWI calling it "born of the wrong seed" was always a figure of speech. The devil has power. He ain't God, but from our human point of view, he (the devil) can certainly seem overwhelmingly powerful.
I have issues with #4. Not once does the word say ANY believer is possessed. Both Acts 16 and Acts 19 have unbelievers who are called possessed. The closest it comes to calling a believer possessed is a) satan entering into the heart of Judas Iscariot when Judas left to betray Jesus. and b) Ananias of Acts 5 being told by Peter, "why hath satan filled (pleroo) thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?" right before he died. (I used to hear this crap that Ananias died because the temperature of believing caused it or something. From Acts 5:2 it could be argued that Ananias was trying to infiltrate leadership with a bribe and Peter caught him and the spirits that were influencing him had enough control of his life that they killed him when they saw they would get no more "mileage" out of him in this situation.) I don't think it's far fetched to say that devil spirits can influence believers. They obviously did Judas, but if God in His word doesn't call believers possessed, perhaps we shouldn't either.
How does knowing those things help my walk with God and my relationship with Jesus? All it ever did was make me haughty that I knew more than the "average Christian." BFD!!
I haven't thought much about it except to determine that I don't care. I never did believe the 6 denials and couldn't make them fit no matter how much I tried.
I think close examinations of scripture reveal, at the very least, the first three doctrines to be in error.
In each of the four gospels, only two others are mentioned being crucified.
In each of the four gospels, only three denials are recorded. Not one gospel records more than three denials. The difficult must be interpreted in light of the clear, not vice versa. It's clear there were three denials and not more.
And the notion that one may be born of the devil's seed, irreversible, is simply unbiblical. God is able to save to the uttermost those who believe. If there exists a category of people God cannot save, then there is something beyond uttermost, which is silly. If there's something beyond uttermost, then THAT is the uttermost, and God can save them.
For this reason, I reject all three of those TWI doctrines. I was never exposed to the fourth.
Indeed. That was life in WayWorld, though. God's Word masquerading as a Rubic's Cube.
laughing a lot geo. Yeah it was the rubic cube bible. Somehow "the simplicity that was in Christ" was alarmingly complex. Of course, Biblical Research would have straightened that out.
Maybe the Apostle Paul had a twin brother who made those comments. One might have to come up with 3 Peters and 4 Johns to cover other "inconsistencies" because of the "inherent accuracy of the life and gospel of VPW"
quote: In each of the four gospels, only three denials are recorded. Not one gospel records more than three denials. The difficult must be interpreted in light of the clear, not vice versa. It's clear there were three denials and not more.
True -- but where did they take place, and who was involved?? ;)-->
John 18:17 place -- the door without, upon entering at the house of Annas -- and the questioner was the porteress;
Mat. 26:70 place -- in the hall, in the house of Caiaphas, and sitting -- questioner was a certain maid;
Mat. 26:71,73 place -- out on the porch of the house of Caiaphas -- questioner was another maid, and bystanders (two more accusations).
There are 4 denials right there, 3 in one location, and another in a different location. Care to wager that there are two more, equally substantiated?? :D--> I'm betting on 6, not 3 -- regardless of what docvic taught. Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut, and that (imo) is an accurate description of vpw and his so-called "research". :)-->
Rather than get into a doctrinal debate, I refer you to http://www.christianheritageonline.com and the related article, which seeks to answer your questions on this.
And -- I'll go it one further. :)--> If words mean anything at all, then looking at the greek words for "other", "robber", and "malefactor" have got to be taken in context with what they meant when written.
"Allos" does not mean "heteros", nor does "lestai" mean "kakourgoi", just the same as "agape" does not mean the same as "phileo". Docvic was a "blind squirrel", who stumbled on a "nut" of truth, and just because he taught it, doesn't mean that it isn't so.
4 crucified with Christ makes absolute sense, as do the 6 denials from Peter. Looking at time, location, people involved, and greek words used (in the Word), it is evident that these teachings are not just some ranting from a small town preacher who hit the "big-time", but rather something worth considering, if you have any consideration for usage of words, and their meaning.
And -- I'll go it one further. :)--> If words mean anything at all, then looking at the greek words for "other", "robber", and "malefactor" have got to be taken in context with what they meant when written.
"Allos" does not mean "heteros", nor does "lestai" mean "kakourgoi", just the same as "agape" does not mean the same as "phileo". Docvic was a "blind squirrel", who stumbled on a "nut" of truth, and just because he taught it, doesn't mean that it isn't so.
4 crucified with Christ makes absolute sense, as do the 6 denials from Peter. Looking at time, location, people involved, and greek words used (in the Word), it is evident that these teachings are not just some ranting from a small town preacher who hit the "big-time", but rather something worth considering, if you have any consideration for usage of words, and their meaning.
The blind squirrel, docvic(praise be his name), didn't stumble onto a nut of truth, but rather stole it from EW Bullinger.
True, malefactor does not mean robber. However, as ol vic pointed out, ALL robbers are malefactors, so the fact that they used two different words does not negate the possibility that the same people are being discussed.
Allos does not mean heteros, tis true, but GOP and Republican are synonyms. As seen on the Actual Errors thread and list, Wierwille's definitions of allos and heteros are provably false, again blurring the distinctions between the robbers and the malefactors.
Wierwille highlighted the use of the word THEN in discussing the four crucified to show that two people were crucified at the same time as Jesus, and THEN two people were crucified afterward. Only by accepting THEN as meaning "after all that we have previously discussed" can one come to the conclusion that four were crucified with Christ. If one reads that verse as saying "at that time," or "around that time, giving less concern to the chronology than to the actuality of the events, one can easily conclude we're talking about the same people.
I agree that these positions are worth considering, and I considered and held them for more than a decade. After careful thought, I've discarded them, not as the rantings of a small town preacher turned cult leader, but as the well-intentioned but mistaken attempts to harmonize scriptures that appear to contradict each other. Alternative explanations of the apparent contradictions make more sense to me.
Steve -- yep -- I know he stole those nuts, and didn't stumble on them. (I was trying to be kind -- mea culpa!)
Raf -- For what it is worth, my favourite version of the bible is still THE COMPANION BIBLE (kjv) by Bullinger. I have several other versions here at the house that I look at frequently, yet I always seem to gravitate back to Bullinger.
He has so much more (included in his notes), than any of the others I have here. And even though he has a certain doctrinal stance that I do not agree with, he offers much more than others do. I take a look at his various appendixes, and even though they are not "God-breathed", they certainly afford more than the average "commentary".
The fact that information (taught by twi), was out there for many years previously -- is something I can latch onto, and take a look at, and not discard -- and just because vpw found it also, doesn't invalidate it.
When I ignore twi, and vpw, I still see 6 denials, and 4 crucified as a very real, and viable entity -- given the greek words used. There are many folks out there who are smarter than I am, and I'll let them put their reputation on the line -- making all the claims.
As long as their works are published, I'll take a look at them, and consider myself lucky to have the opportunity to do so, and make an informed choice. :)-->
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
16
16
18
Popular Days
Oct 26
27
Nov 11
15
Nov 13
13
Oct 30
13
Top Posters In This Topic
GeorgeStGeorge 23 posts
Raf 16 posts
Eagle 16 posts
dmiller 18 posts
Popular Days
Oct 26 2004
27 posts
Nov 11 2004
15 posts
Nov 13 2004
13 posts
Oct 30 2004
13 posts
JustThinking
This is probably bad but I haven't worried about any of it. My family and our transition into a non-Wayfer life seemed way more important.
I think it's a good question though. I suppose I still do believe them as they have not been disproven to me.
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
#4, Eagle. "taking over the holy spirit within"...is that what the Way was teaching at some point? I'm not familiar with it but nothing would surprise me. Can you elaborate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I have to ask about #4 also. Never heard that one before. As for numbers 1 and 2, there is more than adequate proof in the Word that they are true, despite docvic's "endorsement".
Number 3 is the most interesting to me. I always did think vpw was wrong about this, and it is his own teaching that condemns it. He taught that the devil can come up with nothing new on his own (right?) -- yet in the next breath he taught that the new birth (ie - born of seed) was hidden from the beginning of time, and not known to anybody.
Now -- if the advo can only copy (and cannot come up with anything original), how is it that one can be born again of the wrong seed, before it was available to be born again of the right seed??
If the original "born again by seed spiritually" first became available on the day of Pentecost, and if it was something that no one but God knew, how is it possible for the adversary to do so centuries before God did it??
-->
If the adversary can only copy, then new birth was available before Pentecost. If new birth was first available at Pentecost, then it was not available as "seed of the serpent" back whenever. I for one believe that those in the OT (who were really evil) could of been sold out, but I don't believe they were "born again" of the wrong seed. If Acts was the first time for mankind to be born again by seed, then it was not possible for it to have happened back in Genesis, on the reverse side of the coin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"Do you really think God designed the bible to be a puzzle to be solved, or a plain and simple record"
Indeed. That was life in WayWorld, though. God's Word masquerading as a Rubic's Cube. No solution? NO SALVATION FOR YOU!
Gawd, we were so gullible...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
ROTFLMAO! "Salvation Nazis"!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Most of that stuff I don't worry about. I am no longer convinced the Bible was ever a perfect and always consistent thing. I think it is a history of humanity's relationship with God, usually told from the perspective of men.
Inconsistencies don't worry me, I just look for the truths that sit peacefully with me and leave the rest for another time. Afterall, is the number of people who were crucified with Christ really important or is it that Christ was crucified which matters?
In TWI we were so busy looking at the little details that we usually missed the point entirely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I have to wonder....does knowing the pithey details of those questions REALLY matter in the grand scheme of things....outside of twi?
I wonder, does anybody really care if it was two or four with Jesus, does that change the story or point one iota?
In knowing how many times Peter denied Jesus...Does it make the denial anymore poignient?
Sounds like we were straining at gnats to me.
In hindsight, I wonder if it wasn`t all just head knowledge to puffeth ourselves up with so that we felt special...Most of us were taught to be so busy focusing on these silly details that we missed the whole point of the book....Jesus and the message he came to bring...ie love God n love your neighbor.. ..it has been my experience since leaving, to focus on that, and all of the rest of the details seem to fall into place.
Seems like I was much too busy in twi with our intense scriptural studies n operating those principles, taking/running classes and participating in programs and meetings in order to attain spirituality, to be bothered with either one.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Eagle,
Over 15 years in TWI. I don't believe them ever teaching that the holy spirit one had could be controlled by devil spirits. Multiple Advanced Classes (VPs and LCMs) DTA, DWA, etc. Never heard that. You may want to check your references.
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
1. Believe it.
2. Believe it.
3. Believe it. To dmiller, LCM explained this. The devil was well aware of the promise of the seed of the woman crushing his seed. He was not able to copy the Christian new birth, of course, but was able to mimic natural seed. This spiritual "seed" left his "children" open to posession at any time. Having committed the unforgivable sin, his children would never turn to the true God.
4. Believe it, with qualifications. Can a Christian get possessed? Yes. Does this mean the devil spirit "takes over" the holy spirit? I've never heard it put that way, and I would not believe it. A possessed Christian can still operate holy spirit.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Thanks for the input, guys. Lots of good talk here. I was asked to elaborate on a couple of things.
The Seed of the Serpent concept that VPW brought forth is known only to the Way and the off-shoots of it that still propound it. The rest of Christianity does not even think of that never mind go along with it. The reason? The devil would have to be a being everywhere at once and know everybody who is confessing him as Lord in order for him to impart unholy spirit, and since he is a fallen angel, a limited being, how much of himself can he impart?
The idea that born-again Christians can be possessed means that the devil spirits have to take control and operate a physical body that already has God's holy spirit within. If they are doing that, they are pretty much controlling what the Bible has called "the tabernacle" or "the temple" of the holy spirit.
This Seed of the Serpent concept VPW brought forth made the devil equal with God.
The idea that the devil or devil spirits can take over the temple of the holy spirit made the devil superior to God.
Remember, the Bible made it clear light and darkness do not cohabitate and that the clean and unclean had to be separated, especially in the temple.
Then remember the weird darkness that fell upon TWI after they began to propound heavily these doctrines.
As far as the four crucified, only two crucified with Christ were in each gospel and only three denials of Peter were in each gospel. I do not believe God had us wanting to read that far into the gospel records and leave a mystery as to how many were crucified and how many denials we could guess at.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Eagle,
When were you taught those things and by whom?
I have no memory of that ever being taught in TWI. It almost sounds as if you are extrapolating ideas from what they taught.
Can you provide details on where you heard it?
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex70sHouston
In my quiet time right now I'm rereading the new testement. Seems to me that there were only 2 crucified with Christ and I only count 3 denials. If you want to compare the differant episals then maybe you want to start believing the DeVinci Code.
If VP said it I question it. Seems to me he was just trying to prove how smart he was.
Once we have the Spirit of God in us there is no way Satan can come in.
Thats the way I see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I believe #1 and #2 because it makes sense the way it was taught. The reason that stuff was in PFAL was to support the teaching that the written word is perfect if God is perfect. True, nobody misses salvation by not knowing either of those things, but nobody misses it by KNOWING them, either.
I believe #3 because of the verse in Matthew 12:32 where it says no forgiveness neither in this world nor that which is to come. Both God and the devil need people to be committed to them and serve them. I'm sure the devil penalizes those who waver on their committment to him. I don't believe God does this. TWI calling it "born of the wrong seed" was always a figure of speech. The devil has power. He ain't God, but from our human point of view, he (the devil) can certainly seem overwhelmingly powerful.
I have issues with #4. Not once does the word say ANY believer is possessed. Both Acts 16 and Acts 19 have unbelievers who are called possessed. The closest it comes to calling a believer possessed is a) satan entering into the heart of Judas Iscariot when Judas left to betray Jesus. and b) Ananias of Acts 5 being told by Peter, "why hath satan filled (pleroo) thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?" right before he died. (I used to hear this crap that Ananias died because the temperature of believing caused it or something. From Acts 5:2 it could be argued that Ananias was trying to infiltrate leadership with a bribe and Peter caught him and the spirits that were influencing him had enough control of his life that they killed him when they saw they would get no more "mileage" out of him in this situation.) I don't think it's far fetched to say that devil spirits can influence believers. They obviously did Judas, but if God in His word doesn't call believers possessed, perhaps we shouldn't either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I'm in the does it really matter? camp.
How does knowing those things help my walk with God and my relationship with Jesus? All it ever did was make me haughty that I knew more than the "average Christian." BFD!!
I haven't thought much about it except to determine that I don't care. I never did believe the 6 denials and couldn't make them fit no matter how much I tried.
It's comforting to know I'm not camping alone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think close examinations of scripture reveal, at the very least, the first three doctrines to be in error.
In each of the four gospels, only two others are mentioned being crucified.
In each of the four gospels, only three denials are recorded. Not one gospel records more than three denials. The difficult must be interpreted in light of the clear, not vice versa. It's clear there were three denials and not more.
And the notion that one may be born of the devil's seed, irreversible, is simply unbiblical. God is able to save to the uttermost those who believe. If there exists a category of people God cannot save, then there is something beyond uttermost, which is silly. If there's something beyond uttermost, then THAT is the uttermost, and God can save them.
For this reason, I reject all three of those TWI doctrines. I was never exposed to the fourth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Geo:
your comment:
Indeed. That was life in WayWorld, though. God's Word masquerading as a Rubic's Cube.
laughing a lot geo. Yeah it was the rubic cube bible. Somehow "the simplicity that was in Christ" was alarmingly complex. Of course, Biblical Research would have straightened that out.
Maybe the Apostle Paul had a twin brother who made those comments. One might have to come up with 3 Peters and 4 Johns to cover other "inconsistencies" because of the "inherent accuracy of the life and gospel of VPW"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
True -- but where did they take place, and who was involved??
;)-->
John 18:17 place -- the door without, upon entering at the house of Annas -- and the questioner was the porteress;
Mat. 26:70 place -- in the hall, in the house of Caiaphas, and sitting -- questioner was a certain maid;
Mat. 26:71,73 place -- out on the porch of the house of Caiaphas -- questioner was another maid, and bystanders (two more accusations).
There are 4 denials right there, 3 in one location, and another in a different location. Care to wager that there are two more, equally substantiated??
:D--> I'm betting on 6, not 3 -- regardless of what docvic taught. Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut, and that (imo) is an accurate description of vpw and his so-called "research". 
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Rather than get into a doctrinal debate, I refer you to http://www.christianheritageonline.com and the related article, which seeks to answer your questions on this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
And -- I'll go it one further.
:)--> If words mean anything at all, then looking at the greek words for "other", "robber", and "malefactor" have got to be taken in context with what they meant when written.
"Allos" does not mean "heteros", nor does "lestai" mean "kakourgoi", just the same as "agape" does not mean the same as "phileo". Docvic was a "blind squirrel", who stumbled on a "nut" of truth, and just because he taught it, doesn't mean that it isn't so.
4 crucified with Christ makes absolute sense, as do the 6 denials from Peter. Looking at time, location, people involved, and greek words used (in the Word), it is evident that these teachings are not just some ranting from a small town preacher who hit the "big-time", but rather something worth considering, if you have any consideration for usage of words, and their meaning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Good link.
I like to go to the Think Tank as well. Somehow, their arguements, and various positions come off as pretty anemic.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
The blind squirrel, docvic(praise be his name), didn't stumble onto a nut of truth, but rather stole it from EW Bullinger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
True, malefactor does not mean robber. However, as ol vic pointed out, ALL robbers are malefactors, so the fact that they used two different words does not negate the possibility that the same people are being discussed.
Allos does not mean heteros, tis true, but GOP and Republican are synonyms. As seen on the Actual Errors thread and list, Wierwille's definitions of allos and heteros are provably false, again blurring the distinctions between the robbers and the malefactors.
Wierwille highlighted the use of the word THEN in discussing the four crucified to show that two people were crucified at the same time as Jesus, and THEN two people were crucified afterward. Only by accepting THEN as meaning "after all that we have previously discussed" can one come to the conclusion that four were crucified with Christ. If one reads that verse as saying "at that time," or "around that time, giving less concern to the chronology than to the actuality of the events, one can easily conclude we're talking about the same people.
I agree that these positions are worth considering, and I considered and held them for more than a decade. After careful thought, I've discarded them, not as the rantings of a small town preacher turned cult leader, but as the well-intentioned but mistaken attempts to harmonize scriptures that appear to contradict each other. Alternative explanations of the apparent contradictions make more sense to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Steve -- yep -- I know he stole those nuts, and didn't stumble on them. (I was trying to be kind -- mea culpa!)
Raf -- For what it is worth, my favourite version of the bible is still THE COMPANION BIBLE (kjv) by Bullinger. I have several other versions here at the house that I look at frequently, yet I always seem to gravitate back to Bullinger.
He has so much more (included in his notes), than any of the others I have here. And even though he has a certain doctrinal stance that I do not agree with, he offers much more than others do. I take a look at his various appendixes, and even though they are not "God-breathed", they certainly afford more than the average "commentary".
The fact that information (taught by twi), was out there for many years previously -- is something I can latch onto, and take a look at, and not discard -- and just because vpw found it also, doesn't invalidate it.
When I ignore twi, and vpw, I still see 6 denials, and 4 crucified as a very real, and viable entity -- given the greek words used. There are many folks out there who are smarter than I am, and I'll let them put their reputation on the line -- making all the claims.
As long as their works are published, I'll take a look at them, and consider myself lucky to have the opportunity to do so, and make an informed choice.
:)-->
Link 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.