Jehovah's Witnesses definitely follow the Arian model (and they take the extra step of concluding that Jesus Christ and the archangel Michael are one and the same).
Wouldn't that be a fun book: "Jesus Christ Is Not Michael."
Aside from Wierwille, I know only of Anthony Buzzard continuing with the Socinian model. I have no idea how large "his" following is (I think it's called Reformation Ministries or something).
CES is promoting this site on its Web page and in mailings, and the site itself makes numerous references to CES materials.
As for Mormons: most of mainstream Christianity identifies Jesus with Jehovah. I hesitate to say "all" only because I was taught it grade school never to use absolutes.
The school where Anthony Buzzard teaches holds a unitarian get together one weekend each spring. I went to one of them a few years ago, and I wouldn't mind going back again if I can ever get things in order again that time of the year.
There were Biblical Unitarians (as opposed to Unitarian Universalists), ex-World Wide Church of God, ex-Wafers, ex-Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians as well as Church of God, Abrahamic Faith, along with one athiest scholar who has specialized in the history of unitarianism.
It was one of the most cordual get-togethers I've experienced, much thanks to Anthony's amicability. It certainly wasn't the old TWI "speak the same things" group-think.
I learned that the Biblical Unitarians call Ralph Waldo Emerson "the Great Destroyer". And that the Biblical Unitarians still associate with the Unitarian Universalists because the UUs got control of the pension funds when the groups went their different theological ways.
The World Wide Choggers have been through as much acrimony and upheaval as the ex-Wafers have, only over different issues.
All for now.
Love,
Steve
P.S. - The phrase "the Trinity has finally met its match" strikes me as the kind of hyperbole the leaders of CES love so much. Unfortunately, all too often, they believe their own hype.
I just wanted to let you know that CES (Christian Educational Services) has no idea this thread is running. So if John Lynn, Mark Graeser, and John Schoenheit of CES don't know. Then your last comment would be a judgment issue in YOUR heart.
I (Jeff, a free will much older and wiser person than TWI days) started the thread (all by myself) and I (same I as above) put the subject on it.
Sounds like you have some withholds my friend.
This might be something you want to take a look at and seek the Lord on.
I loved the rest of your post and have heard GREAT things about A. Buzzard. He is on the CES mailing list and is in regular contact with John Schoenheit (of CES). Hope you don't hold that against him.
:)-->
I thought that the folks here would like to know about this new website but I am seeing a lot clearer that there are a lot of folks "stuck" in exTWI hang up junk. Oh well, and how sad. The website we have worked on all summer is reaching a lot of folks all over the globe that don't have exWay BAGGAGE. So, that makes it worth while.
I regret ever starting this thread. I trust at least one person had enjoyed the new site and does not see a CES conspiracy behind this post.
God bless,
Jeff
P.s. I love working at CES, you would too, www.CESonline.org But that had nothing to do with why I started the post. There is just a lot of folks "gun shy" from the past.
I also worked for CES as a volunteer on the old "Dialogue", back before they decided they would listen only to things they wanted to hear.
The last thing I heard from both John L. and Mark was that they would get back with me. It's been seven years, and they still haven't kept their words. I can't say that about John S. He just blew my question off. It was a question about being responsible as leaders.
There's no reason to regret starting this thread. I certainly haven't meant to imply any kind of CES "conspiracy" behind the thread or the new web site. Conspiracy implies secrecy, and I don't see anything secretive about the connection between biblicalunitarian.com and CES.
Jeff - Very much something to look and think about!
Where DID you learn to use the word "withholds" in that sense?
I followed the leaders of CES and they led me into a trap. I wouldn't necessarily hold that against them, but they still don't recognize that it WAS a trap. Their erroneous belief that they can't be fooled has gotten them into some terrific binds. Until they acknowledge the very real harm they caused their followers through their unthinking promotion of Momentus, I will not trust them as responsible leaders, nor will I sit silently by.
One of the reasons more believers in Jesus Christ don't believe that his existence began at his birth is because many of these believers were murdered in the middle ages. It seems the Pope sent his army after about 3 tribes of them and murdered them all. Where did I learn this unsavory bit of information you ask? From someone that believes in the validity of the trinity and calls himself a trinitarian. Great way to move the Word, huh?
I have no problem with Christ's preexistence. That does not make him God either. This clears up many scriptures in Hebrews, Colossians, Ephesions plus the before Abraham I was and the alpha and omega. After all he was sent from heaven. In Phillipians 2 He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form.
Footnote:
a) Or He laid aside his mighty power and glory.
b) Greek and was born in the likeness of men and was found in appearance as a man.
NLT Copyright 1996 Tyndale Charitable
He gave up all his glory God had given him to appear in human form and became nothing to accomplish the mission. But he was a man, was tempted, could sin, had freedom of will and did not come preprogrammed with the knowledge of God's Word.
Here's what I am saying, and I'll break it down into pieces so that you can challenge any portion you choose.
1. The Father is greater than the Son and therefore they are not equal.
2. The Father has (or had) knowledge of the timing of future events that He did not share with the Son.
3. Points 1 and 2 lead me to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is not God.
4. Hebrews 1, through employment of the figure of speech erotesis (the asking of rhetorical questions, the answers to which are implied in the asking of the question), states that Jesus Christ is not "an angel," (for, to which of the angels did He say, sit on my right hand...).
5. If Jesus Christ is not God and not an angel, then he did not exist prior to his birth, and scriptural implications to the contrary need to be explained in light of that understanding. Any explanation of those proof texts that does not address the identity of Jesus Christ as a man whose existence began at birth are, in my opinion, invalid.
This is my position.
Point 5 seems to be the one that you're challenging.
Could Jesus have existed prior to his birth without being God or an angel?
I think other explanations of the proof texts make more sense to me.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on September 23, 2003 at 16:31.]
"1. The Father is greater than the Son and therefore they are not equal."
I agree that they are not equal in strength or power.
"2. The Father has (or had) knowledge of the timing of future events that He did not share with the Son."
I agree.
"3. Points 1 and 2 lead me to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is not God."
I agree.
"4. Hebrews 1, through employment of the figure of speech erotesis . . . states that Jesus Christ is not "an angel,"
I agree.
"5. If Jesus Christ is not God and not an angel, then he did not exist prior to his birth, and scriptural implications to the contrary need to be explained in light of that understanding. Any explanation of those proof texts that does not address the identity of Jesus Christ as a man whose existence began at birth are, in my opinion, invalid."
I think I see a error here. While I agree that Jesus Christ is not our Heavenly Father, I agree that Jesus Christ is not an angel, and I agree that Jesus Christ did not live before he was born. However logic would not conclude this.
"Could Jesus have existed prior to his birth without being God or an angel?"
As was discussed previously, the idea of time-line skipping that would enable Moses and Elijah to both show up and rap with Jesus, and both return to their own times, all without disturbing the idea that they both died and are now awaiting the return. Just as Paul needed to travel forward to see the return, to build his hope, so Moses and Elijah needed Hope. Since both Moses and Elijah knew Jesus personally, it could be said that Jesus' presence was known before his birth.
I see what you're saying, but forgive me if I don't concur. I simply don't see a "non-linear" time model in the Bible to explain those verses, and I vehemently disagree that Paul was shot forward in TIME to see the new heaven and earth. I think that was a vision of the future, and as a side note, I'm not convinced it was shown to Paul. Paul said it was someone else who saw that vision. Aside from Wierwille's word, I see no reason to dispute Paul's clear statement that he knew someone who had seen this, not that he himself had seen it.
I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong." I'm saying "if you're right, I just don't see it in the Bible, and I see alternate explanations that make more sense to me."
Let's form two churches over this disagreement. I'll call mine "First Church of the Linear Literalists," and you can call yours "First Church of the Non-Linear Visionaries."
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
44
33
28
45
Popular Days
Feb 7
41
Feb 21
24
Feb 9
21
Feb 10
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 44 posts
Tzaia 33 posts
Steve Lortz 28 posts
dmiller 45 posts
Popular Days
Feb 7 2005
41 posts
Feb 21 2005
24 posts
Feb 9 2005
21 posts
Feb 10 2005
14 posts
Trefor Heywood
If I remember rightly Raphael the viewpoint that believes that Jesus did not have an actual existence until birth was called Socinianism.
Arius never denied his pre-existence.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Did I imply otherwise? I thought I said the same thing: Wierwille could not adopt the Arian model because it affirms Christ's pre-birth existence.
On a casual reading, I agree that Socinianism is the model Wierwille appears to have followed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I didn't mean to infer that you did imply otherwise Rafael
:D-->
Of those who adopt the unitarian position I am not sure how many follow the Arian model though and how many follow the Socinian.
Any ideas?
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Jehovah's Witnesses definitely follow the Arian model (and they take the extra step of concluding that Jesus Christ and the archangel Michael are one and the same).
Wouldn't that be a fun book: "Jesus Christ Is Not Michael."
Aside from Wierwille, I know only of Anthony Buzzard continuing with the Socinian model. I have no idea how large "his" following is (I think it's called Reformation Ministries or something).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Yeah! And I could provide a pic of Micheal Jordan holding the PFAL book to match that title.
"My precioussss..."
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
And the Mormons identify Jesus as the Old Testament Jehovah!
So we do seem to have quite a variety of views about him to contend with!
Never heard of Mr (Dr, Rev or whatever) Buzzard.
I was wondering what TWI offshoots such as C.E.S. might think - do they still embrace what VPW taught?
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
CES most definitely embraces what VPW taught: see the web site that is the subject of this thread:
Biblical Unitarian
CES is promoting this site on its Web page and in mailings, and the site itself makes numerous references to CES materials.
As for Mormons: most of mainstream Christianity identifies Jesus with Jehovah. I hesitate to say "all" only because I was taught it grade school never to use absolutes.
Yes, I see the irony.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheManOfa Thousand ScreenNames
The book I want to see is:
Jesus Christ is not Eric Clapton
The lessons repeat until they are learned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The school where Anthony Buzzard teaches holds a unitarian get together one weekend each spring. I went to one of them a few years ago, and I wouldn't mind going back again if I can ever get things in order again that time of the year.
There were Biblical Unitarians (as opposed to Unitarian Universalists), ex-World Wide Church of God, ex-Wafers, ex-Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians as well as Church of God, Abrahamic Faith, along with one athiest scholar who has specialized in the history of unitarianism.
It was one of the most cordual get-togethers I've experienced, much thanks to Anthony's amicability. It certainly wasn't the old TWI "speak the same things" group-think.
I learned that the Biblical Unitarians call Ralph Waldo Emerson "the Great Destroyer". And that the Biblical Unitarians still associate with the Unitarian Universalists because the UUs got control of the pension funds when the groups went their different theological ways.
The World Wide Choggers have been through as much acrimony and upheaval as the ex-Wafers have, only over different issues.
All for now.
Love,
Steve
P.S. - The phrase "the Trinity has finally met its match" strikes me as the kind of hyperbole the leaders of CES love so much. Unfortunately, all too often, they believe their own hype.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeff USAF RET
Hi Steve,
I just wanted to let you know that CES (Christian Educational Services) has no idea this thread is running. So if John Lynn, Mark Graeser, and John Schoenheit of CES don't know. Then your last comment would be a judgment issue in YOUR heart.
I (Jeff, a free will much older and wiser person than TWI days) started the thread (all by myself) and I (same I as above) put the subject on it.
Sounds like you have some withholds my friend.
This might be something you want to take a look at and seek the Lord on.
I loved the rest of your post and have heard GREAT things about A. Buzzard. He is on the CES mailing list and is in regular contact with John Schoenheit (of CES). Hope you don't hold that against him.
I thought that the folks here would like to know about this new website but I am seeing a lot clearer that there are a lot of folks "stuck" in exTWI hang up junk. Oh well, and how sad. The website we have worked on all summer is reaching a lot of folks all over the globe that don't have exWay BAGGAGE. So, that makes it worth while.
I regret ever starting this thread. I trust at least one person had enjoyed the new site and does not see a CES conspiracy behind this post.
God bless,
Jeff
P.s. I love working at CES, you would too, www.CESonline.org But that had nothing to do with why I started the post. There is just a lot of folks "gun shy" from the past.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Jeff,
"Sounds like you have some withholds my friend."
Do I detect "Momentus" dialect there?
I also worked for CES as a volunteer on the old "Dialogue", back before they decided they would listen only to things they wanted to hear.
The last thing I heard from both John L. and Mark was that they would get back with me. It's been seven years, and they still haven't kept their words. I can't say that about John S. He just blew my question off. It was a question about being responsible as leaders.
Love,
Steve
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jeff USAF RET
Never went to "momentus."
I just saw what I think must be some judgments in your heart.
Something to look at and think about.
God bless!
Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Jeff,
There's no reason to regret starting this thread. I certainly haven't meant to imply any kind of CES "conspiracy" behind the thread or the new web site. Conspiracy implies secrecy, and I don't see anything secretive about the connection between biblicalunitarian.com and CES.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Jeff - Very much something to look and think about!
Where DID you learn to use the word "withholds" in that sense?
I followed the leaders of CES and they led me into a trap. I wouldn't necessarily hold that against them, but they still don't recognize that it WAS a trap. Their erroneous belief that they can't be fooled has gotten them into some terrific binds. Until they acknowledge the very real harm they caused their followers through their unthinking promotion of Momentus, I will not trust them as responsible leaders, nor will I sit silently by.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
One of the reasons more believers in Jesus Christ don't believe that his existence began at his birth is because many of these believers were murdered in the middle ages. It seems the Pope sent his army after about 3 tribes of them and murdered them all. Where did I learn this unsavory bit of information you ask? From someone that believes in the validity of the trinity and calls himself a trinitarian. Great way to move the Word, huh?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Eradication as a form of theological debate.
Interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BelieversTrumpet
I have no problem with Christ's preexistence. That does not make him God either. This clears up many scriptures in Hebrews, Colossians, Ephesions plus the before Abraham I was and the alpha and omega. After all he was sent from heaven. In Phillipians 2 He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form.
Footnote:
a) Or He laid aside his mighty power and glory.
b) Greek and was born in the likeness of men and was found in appearance as a man.
NLT Copyright 1996 Tyndale Charitable
He gave up all his glory God had given him to appear in human form and became nothing to accomplish the mission. But he was a man, was tempted, could sin, had freedom of will and did not come preprogrammed with the knowledge of God's Word.
I don't have a problem with this at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Hebrews 1 makes it pretty clear that Jesus was not an angel.
If he's not an angel and not God, how could he have existed before his birth?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BelieversTrumpet
Raphael, are you saying it would not be possible for God to create His Son as a spirit being other than an angel?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Here's what I am saying, and I'll break it down into pieces so that you can challenge any portion you choose.
1. The Father is greater than the Son and therefore they are not equal.
2. The Father has (or had) knowledge of the timing of future events that He did not share with the Son.
3. Points 1 and 2 lead me to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is not God.
4. Hebrews 1, through employment of the figure of speech erotesis (the asking of rhetorical questions, the answers to which are implied in the asking of the question), states that Jesus Christ is not "an angel," (for, to which of the angels did He say, sit on my right hand...).
5. If Jesus Christ is not God and not an angel, then he did not exist prior to his birth, and scriptural implications to the contrary need to be explained in light of that understanding. Any explanation of those proof texts that does not address the identity of Jesus Christ as a man whose existence began at birth are, in my opinion, invalid.
This is my position.
Point 5 seems to be the one that you're challenging.
Could Jesus have existed prior to his birth without being God or an angel?
I think other explanations of the proof texts make more sense to me.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on September 23, 2003 at 16:31.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Rafael 1969:
"1. The Father is greater than the Son and therefore they are not equal."
I agree that they are not equal in strength or power.
"2. The Father has (or had) knowledge of the timing of future events that He did not share with the Son."
I agree.
"3. Points 1 and 2 lead me to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is not God."
I agree.
"4. Hebrews 1, through employment of the figure of speech erotesis . . . states that Jesus Christ is not "an angel,"
I agree.
"5. If Jesus Christ is not God and not an angel, then he did not exist prior to his birth, and scriptural implications to the contrary need to be explained in light of that understanding. Any explanation of those proof texts that does not address the identity of Jesus Christ as a man whose existence began at birth are, in my opinion, invalid."
I think I see a error here. While I agree that Jesus Christ is not our Heavenly Father, I agree that Jesus Christ is not an angel, and I agree that Jesus Christ did not live before he was born. However logic would not conclude this.
"Could Jesus have existed prior to his birth without being God or an angel?"
As was discussed previously, the idea of time-line skipping that would enable Moses and Elijah to both show up and rap with Jesus, and both return to their own times, all without disturbing the idea that they both died and are now awaiting the return. Just as Paul needed to travel forward to see the return, to build his hope, so Moses and Elijah needed Hope. Since both Moses and Elijah knew Jesus personally, it could be said that Jesus' presence was known before his birth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I see what you're saying, but forgive me if I don't concur. I simply don't see a "non-linear" time model in the Bible to explain those verses, and I vehemently disagree that Paul was shot forward in TIME to see the new heaven and earth. I think that was a vision of the future, and as a side note, I'm not convinced it was shown to Paul. Paul said it was someone else who saw that vision. Aside from Wierwille's word, I see no reason to dispute Paul's clear statement that he knew someone who had seen this, not that he himself had seen it.
I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong." I'm saying "if you're right, I just don't see it in the Bible, and I see alternate explanations that make more sense to me."
Let's form two churches over this disagreement. I'll call mine "First Church of the Linear Literalists," and you can call yours "First Church of the Non-Linear Visionaries."
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
*adjusts his Archbishop robes*
Hey! Both of you play nice. I don't see the point in making up whole
denominations over this.
WordWolf.
Archbishop of the First Global Church of the Werewolf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Tee hee.
That was my way of saying I disagree but I don't want to argue about it.
We cool Galen? Trumpet?
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.