I agree that Jesus Christ was a man. However CES seems to be over thinking it a bit. It almost seems in their so eagerness to show their skill using the keys to the Bibles interpretation and feed people with itching ears something new (to keep up membership and donations?) that they have so thoroughly proved that Jesus was a man that they are like the aeronautical engineers who could prove on paper that it is impossible for a bee to fly.
Jesus asked The Father to glorify Him with the Glory He had before the world was. He saw Satan fall from Heaven, like lightening. He was in the form of God, before He was in the form of a man. He said, that he said ye are gods. He followed the children if Israel in a cloud by day, and fire by night. A body was prepared for Him, and he partook of the the flesh....
Come have dinner with me...you have to be alive to eat it right? Jesus may not Be The Father, but He is and Was God...There are two of them, not one and not three.
I have not yet bothered to read much of Schoenheit's piece to which Jeff linked, but scrolled through it, noticing the assertion "Anyone who studies the subject of the kingdom of God knows that it has not come yet" -- the opening sentence of the last paragraph of Part 1 and the second paragraph of Part 2.
Just prior to that assertion, Schoenheit had maintained that Jesus did not know enough truth to state the truth when he said "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28).
And before that, Schoenheit wrote:
"People who say that the teaching of Christ cannot refer to the Second Coming for the
simple reason that it is future are using circular reasoning. The assumption is that Jesus
cannot be mistaken for any reason, then using that assumption, an 'explanation' for what
he meant other than what the clear implication of his words are elsewhere in Scripture is
sought for."
In making his arguments, Schoenheit, of course, has his own implicit assumptions:
1. That Jesus was fallible.
2. That Jesus could speak falsely concerning future events.
3. That he, Schoenheit, can and does possess eschatological knowledge more accurately and comprehensively than Jesus did.
4. That he, Schoenheit, can and does have an interpretive insight sufficient to have obtained and now to communicate an eschatological view that requires dismissing some of Jesus' words as error.
5. That where it has been obvious that his, Schoenheit's, eschatological view is utterly inconsistent with statements of Jesus, it is Jesus who failed, rather than he, Schoenheit, who is deficient in understanding and/or a captive of Socinian Christology and wielder of its resultant impieties.
Although I do not embrace as an inerrant eschatological statement the pieces at the following URLs (I would characterize myself eschatologically as generally clueless rather than as an amillennialist), this stuff appears biblically well-grounded in its recognition that an eschatological in-breaking of the Kingdom of God was occurring in Christ's incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension, and that the Kingdom of God is now "Already" and "Not-Yet."
In what appears faithful to biblical indications, but which could incinerate the circuits of a Bullingerite's brain, these pieces maintain that there is an overlap of the present age and the age to come.
Jesus is called God in John 1:1, TWI's slick handling nothwithstanding.
pros- according to Vines, does simply indicate location, but an intimate relationship.
Jesus forgave sins, — who can forgive sins but God.
In the story, where Jesus came to the disciples walking on the water, the crucial phrase is I am, which rests at the middle of the quote when he says don't be afraid, I am, and the goes on.
Colossians - Paul says Jesus created everything
Son of God and Son of Man are titles of divinity.
Hebrews, God calls Jesus God.
John 17:5 talks about the glory Jesus had before
John 8:58 says Jesus was existant before Abraham.
Take a look at the I am statements in John's Gospel and see if Jesus was wrong.
Cynic: While I generally disagree with you on religious matters, I'm afraid you might be right about Mr. Schoenheit. One of the problems with TWI was that they felt they constantly had to come up with "new research". While some things were sorely-needed clarifications (Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed) some were just ridiculous stretches indicative of too much research for iconoclastic novelty's sake (Athletes of the Spirit, pretty much anything by Martindale). Sometimes I think that Schoenheit has fallen into the same trap.
def59: Technically, no one is mentioned by name in John 1:1.
Although I do not embrace as an inerrant eschatological statement the pieces at the following URLs (I would characterize myself eschatologically as generally clueless rather than as an amillennialist), this stuff appears biblically well-grounded in its recognition that an eschatological in-breaking of the Kingdom of God was occurring in Christ's incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension, and that the Kingdom of God is now "Already" and "Not-Yet."
In what appears faithful to biblical indications, but which could incinerate the circuits of a Bullingerite's brain, these pieces maintain that there is an overlap of the present age and the age to come.
I am deeply concerned with the CES teaching on the fallibility of Jesus' words. Either he spoke the words given him by God or not. If he did not, he spoke presumptuously, a HUGE OT no-no that in and of itself disqualifies him as Messiah. If he did speak the words given him by God, then he was right and our understanding is wrong. I am "generally clueless" about what Jesus meant in those verses. I've been wondering about it. But I would sooner eat my Bible than print an article saying I'm right and Jesus was wrong.
And by the way, Cynic, thanks to your "generally clueless" line, my respect for you just quadrupled. :)-->
(with all apologies in advance to those of you that were "in" it)
Was any research work ever done because veepee came to you (the department) and said something like "it must be this way, I know it must, find me something to back it up"... anything like that ever happen?
Jesus forgave sins, — who can forgive sins but God.
In the story, where Jesus came to the disciples walking on the water, the crucial phrase is I am, which rests at the middle of the quote when he says don't be afraid, I am, and the goes on.
Colossians - Paul says Jesus created everything
Son of God and Son of Man are titles of divinity.
Hebrews, God calls Jesus God.
_____________________________________
This verse has nothing to do with Jesus being God. Check out this article and see why.
As I remember it, VPW was adamant about some Hebrew word in the O.T. He claimed it had to mean something other than what was it was translated as, otherwise "the whole WURD would fall to pieces", yada, yada,...
He said that the research boys couldn't find any usage or definition that backed up his take on the word. He then got real animated and said, "Well it's GOT to be there, so keep looking! That's why they call it RESEARCH!"
To which I could only think "HUH?"
I remember having SERIOUS reservations about WayWorld after that. It still took years for me to finally shake off the notion of TWI being "God's Ministry" or other such twaddle.
The dictionary definition of "demean" (Funk and Wagnell's Collegiate Dictionary - 1968) has "To lower in dignity or reputation".
Please tell me how demoting someone from the job of "creator of all the known universe" to that of errand boy, doesn't demean him?
What, because he had to work really hard, it doesn't matter what his station in life is? It's not "demeaning" to go from "Ultimate, Omnipotent Holy Thunderer", to that of "perfect MAN"?
I guess the #1 rule of TWI still applies? That is "Things mean what we say they mean (dammit!)"
What CES is trying to say is that it's not "demeaning" to be acknowledged for what you are. Rather, it improperly promotes Jesus to make him God the creator.
Of course, if you believe Jesus Christ is God, then such an opinion is inherently demeaning. But CES doesn't hold that belief.
Does saying Prince Charles is not the King of England demean him?
Does saying Mickey Rooney is not tall demean him?
Does saying Patrick Stewart is not Captain Kirk demean him?
If Jesus Christ is God, then saying he's not God demeans him.
If he's not, then saying he's not doesn't demean him.
Appreciating the implications of JAL's argument, the anti-theist curmudgeon resolves never to let his eyes wander from JAL's hands during a game of poker.
quote:O.K., so JL is trying to establish a point by making a statement that could only be considered true if you accept the point he's trying to establish?
I was going to say it's something of a loaded question, but I didn't want to criticize the question.
Understand the target audience: someone who believes changing his mind about Jesus would demean Jesus. I would have phrased the question as such:
Does changing your mind about the nature of Jesus demean him in your eyes?
Re: "It makes him bigger..." I think their point is that it's not hard to imagine God living without sinning. It is harder to imagine a man resisting temptation his whole life. To think that someone was able to do that is pretty big, bigger than thinking that God can resist temptation.
"God, who is incapable of being tempted, resisted temptation his whole life." No duh.
"Christ, who was capable of sin, resisted temptation his whole life." Big.
I guess I see it a little more sinister than that. (Hey, I'm an agnostic, I'm not required to think no evil - just another of the perks of giving up my religious propensities)
To me the whole argument is formed into cutesy bite-sized nibblets. "One-liners" that are supposed to convey some larger truth, but in actuality overlook the convoluted, difficult aspects of a philosophy in order to keep their "troops" satisfied.
No need to think, just accept what the learned MOG has said. More than a little reminiscent of the ministry that spawned this one.
I'm sorry, the whole line of reasoning smacks of WaySpeak, and gives me the creeps.
(and I'd certainly follow Cynic's admonition with regards to poker or any other noteworthy endeavor)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
6
10
7
Popular Days
Feb 21
16
Feb 19
11
Jul 12
7
Jul 14
7
Top Posters In This Topic
George Aar 6 posts
GarthP2000 6 posts
Cynic 10 posts
markomalley 7 posts
Popular Days
Feb 21 2006
16 posts
Feb 19 2006
11 posts
Jul 12 2004
7 posts
Jul 14 2004
7 posts
dmiller
Right.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckeer
Jeff I don't know if JAL fully supports this but you might want to ask him. Perhaps he can clarify it I'd love to see a clear answer.
This is a document on their site: in reference to Jesus Christ
http://christianeducational.org/faq/v4i6b.pdf
I learned about it on this thread at LES
http://mail.bluzecentral.net/smf/index.php?topic=36.0
I agree that Jesus Christ was a man. However CES seems to be over thinking it a bit. It almost seems in their so eagerness to show their skill using the keys to the Bibles interpretation and feed people with itching ears something new (to keep up membership and donations?) that they have so thoroughly proved that Jesus was a man that they are like the aeronautical engineers who could prove on paper that it is impossible for a bee to fly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rachel
Jesus asked The Father to glorify Him with the Glory He had before the world was. He saw Satan fall from Heaven, like lightening. He was in the form of God, before He was in the form of a man. He said, that he said ye are gods. He followed the children if Israel in a cloud by day, and fire by night. A body was prepared for Him, and he partook of the the flesh....
Come have dinner with me...you have to be alive to eat it right? Jesus may not Be The Father, but He is and Was God...There are two of them, not one and not three.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Wheww! For minute there, I thought another trinity debate would be brewing!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeff USAF RET
For further study on the subject you posted above, try these two links and see if they help.
http://christianeducational.org/articles/D..._Near_Part1.pdf
http://christianeducational.org/articles/D..._Near_Part2.pdf
If you have any problems with the content, please feel free to e-mail John Schoenheit.
jschoen777@aol.com
I know he would be very open to what you have to say!
:-)
Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
I have not yet bothered to read much of Schoenheit's piece to which Jeff linked, but scrolled through it, noticing the assertion "Anyone who studies the subject of the kingdom of God knows that it has not come yet" -- the opening sentence of the last paragraph of Part 1 and the second paragraph of Part 2.
Just prior to that assertion, Schoenheit had maintained that Jesus did not know enough truth to state the truth when he said "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28).
And before that, Schoenheit wrote:
"People who say that the teaching of Christ cannot refer to the Second Coming for the
simple reason that it is future are using circular reasoning. The assumption is that Jesus
cannot be mistaken for any reason, then using that assumption, an 'explanation' for what
he meant other than what the clear implication of his words are elsewhere in Scripture is
sought for."
In making his arguments, Schoenheit, of course, has his own implicit assumptions:
1. That Jesus was fallible.
2. That Jesus could speak falsely concerning future events.
3. That he, Schoenheit, can and does possess eschatological knowledge more accurately and comprehensively than Jesus did.
4. That he, Schoenheit, can and does have an interpretive insight sufficient to have obtained and now to communicate an eschatological view that requires dismissing some of Jesus' words as error.
5. That where it has been obvious that his, Schoenheit's, eschatological view is utterly inconsistent with statements of Jesus, it is Jesus who failed, rather than he, Schoenheit, who is deficient in understanding and/or a captive of Socinian Christology and wielder of its resultant impieties.
Although I do not embrace as an inerrant eschatological statement the pieces at the following URLs (I would characterize myself eschatologically as generally clueless rather than as an amillennialist), this stuff appears biblically well-grounded in its recognition that an eschatological in-breaking of the Kingdom of God was occurring in Christ's incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension, and that the Kingdom of God is now "Already" and "Not-Yet."
In what appears faithful to biblical indications, but which could incinerate the circuits of a Bullingerite's brain, these pieces maintain that there is an overlap of the present age and the age to come.
http://two-age.org/beliefs_index/two-age.htm
http://two-age.org/beliefs_index/eschatology.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Ok for the record
Jesus is called God in John 1:1, TWI's slick handling nothwithstanding.
pros- according to Vines, does simply indicate location, but an intimate relationship.
Jesus forgave sins, — who can forgive sins but God.
In the story, where Jesus came to the disciples walking on the water, the crucial phrase is I am, which rests at the middle of the quote when he says don't be afraid, I am, and the goes on.
Colossians - Paul says Jesus created everything
Son of God and Son of Man are titles of divinity.
Hebrews, God calls Jesus God.
John 17:5 talks about the glory Jesus had before
John 8:58 says Jesus was existant before Abraham.
Take a look at the I am statements in John's Gospel and see if Jesus was wrong.
Jesus sin? Get thee behind me Satan.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
And Rachel
It's one God in three persons. Not two gods or three.
Jesus is Lord.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Cynic: While I generally disagree with you on religious matters, I'm afraid you might be right about Mr. Schoenheit. One of the problems with TWI was that they felt they constantly had to come up with "new research". While some things were sorely-needed clarifications (Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed) some were just ridiculous stretches indicative of too much research for iconoclastic novelty's sake (Athletes of the Spirit, pretty much anything by Martindale). Sometimes I think that Schoenheit has fallen into the same trap.
def59: Technically, no one is mentioned by name in John 1:1.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I am deeply concerned with the CES teaching on the fallibility of Jesus' words. Either he spoke the words given him by God or not. If he did not, he spoke presumptuously, a HUGE OT no-no that in and of itself disqualifies him as Messiah. If he did speak the words given him by God, then he was right and our understanding is wrong. I am "generally clueless" about what Jesus meant in those verses. I've been wondering about it. But I would sooner eat my Bible than print an article saying I'm right and Jesus was wrong.
And by the way, Cynic, thanks to your "generally clueless" line, my respect for you just quadrupled.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Re: the research department at TWI.
(with all apologies in advance to those of you that were "in" it)
Was any research work ever done because veepee came to you (the department) and said something like "it must be this way, I know it must, find me something to back it up"... anything like that ever happen?
Thanks for understanding a genuine question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Oddone,
I was never in the research dept. at all, but I heard him say as much in an open meeting (that became a SNS tape!).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
George: I remember that, too. Wasn't it VPW badgering Walter C. into backing him up on the AoS thing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
But guys! Wouldn't that be making the word say what you want it to? bending it to suit your needs? veepee wouldn't have done that would he?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeff USAF RET
_________________________________________
For a biblical explaination of the above stuff, check out this link.
http://biblicalunitarian.com/html/modules....article&sid=109
And last but not least, here is a great article showing Jesus HAS a God.
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html/modu...=article&sid=28
Hope this helps!
Jeff
May the God & Father OF our Lord Jesus bless you!
Hey, didn't Paul say something like that in the first few verses of Ephesians????
WOW...Jesus has a God & a Father????
Hmmmmmm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Zixar and TomOdd,
As I remember it, VPW was adamant about some Hebrew word in the O.T. He claimed it had to mean something other than what was it was translated as, otherwise "the whole WURD would fall to pieces", yada, yada,...
He said that the research boys couldn't find any usage or definition that backed up his take on the word. He then got real animated and said, "Well it's GOT to be there, so keep looking! That's why they call it RESEARCH!"
To which I could only think "HUH?"
I remember having SERIOUS reservations about WayWorld after that. It still took years for me to finally shake off the notion of TWI being "God's Ministry" or other such twaddle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
And just sos I don't get accused of derailing,
The dictionary definition of "demean" (Funk and Wagnell's Collegiate Dictionary - 1968) has "To lower in dignity or reputation".
Please tell me how demoting someone from the job of "creator of all the known universe" to that of errand boy, doesn't demean him?
What, because he had to work really hard, it doesn't matter what his station in life is? It's not "demeaning" to go from "Ultimate, Omnipotent Holy Thunderer", to that of "perfect MAN"?
I guess the #1 rule of TWI still applies? That is "Things mean what we say they mean (dammit!)"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Aw come on, fair is fair.
What CES is trying to say is that it's not "demeaning" to be acknowledged for what you are. Rather, it improperly promotes Jesus to make him God the creator.
Of course, if you believe Jesus Christ is God, then such an opinion is inherently demeaning. But CES doesn't hold that belief.
Does saying Prince Charles is not the King of England demean him?
Does saying Mickey Rooney is not tall demean him?
Does saying Patrick Stewart is not Captain Kirk demean him?
If Jesus Christ is God, then saying he's not God demeans him.
If he's not, then saying he's not doesn't demean him.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
O.K., so JL is trying to establish a point by making a statement that could only be considered true if you accept the point he's trying to establish?
Oh, my head! Now I'm thoroughly (throughly?) confused.
Of course, if Jesus is just another myth among the many, it's makes it all a rather pointless.
How did I end up in this conversation anyway?
feh...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Oh, and BTW, I guess the CORRECT answer from the CES crowd is "NO, it makes him bigger!"
(see 1st post).
He's not God, he's BIGGER than God?
I give up. I just don't get religious thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Perhaps they just meant he was bigger than The Beatles?
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Appreciating the implications of JAL's argument, the anti-theist curmudgeon resolves never to let his eyes wander from JAL's hands during a game of poker.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I was going to say it's something of a loaded question, but I didn't want to criticize the question.
Understand the target audience: someone who believes changing his mind about Jesus would demean Jesus. I would have phrased the question as such:
Does changing your mind about the nature of Jesus demean him in your eyes?
Re: "It makes him bigger..." I think their point is that it's not hard to imagine God living without sinning. It is harder to imagine a man resisting temptation his whole life. To think that someone was able to do that is pretty big, bigger than thinking that God can resist temptation.
"God, who is incapable of being tempted, resisted temptation his whole life." No duh.
"Christ, who was capable of sin, resisted temptation his whole life." Big.
That's my read on this stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I guess I see it a little more sinister than that. (Hey, I'm an agnostic, I'm not required to think no evil - just another of the perks of giving up my religious propensities)
To me the whole argument is formed into cutesy bite-sized nibblets. "One-liners" that are supposed to convey some larger truth, but in actuality overlook the convoluted, difficult aspects of a philosophy in order to keep their "troops" satisfied.
No need to think, just accept what the learned MOG has said. More than a little reminiscent of the ministry that spawned this one.
I'm sorry, the whole line of reasoning smacks of WaySpeak, and gives me the creeps.
(and I'd certainly follow Cynic's admonition with regards to poker or any other noteworthy endeavor)
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.