Do you belong to a CULT?

Talk to me, Ed.

"Being a CULT is relative depending on WHO is calling the shots. Catholics and Protestants REGARD non-Trinitarians as CULTS because to them, anyone who is NOT a Trinitarian is a CULT."

Who told you this, Ed? Is this an official statement from the Catholic Church? Is this an official statement from all the Protestant denominations?

Talk to me, Ed. Where do you get this stuff? Are you thinking that you may be in a cult? What church or denomination do you belong? Do you fellowship with other Christians?

Talk to me, Ed.

"Am I or am I not talking to you Bear?"

Not at this time, Ed.

Tell me more about yourself and your church. Where do you fellowship? What is the name of your church?

Talk to me, Ed.

Originally posted by amie
where in this definition does it say that?

Oxford essential dictionary: cult: 1.a ritualistic religious system. 2. a devotion to a person or thing (cult of aestheticism)

are you altering the definition to conform to your perception of what a cult is?

I THINK FIRST WE WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE ON AN ACCURATE DEFINITION OF CULT WHICH IS DIFFICULT SINCE TECHNICALLY SPEAKING IT MEANS DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFERENT PEOPLE.

ed, obviously people that are involved in cults do not perceive themselves as such so your statement of "come out" is a bit hard when people tend to not think of their religions as being "In" cults to begin with...

Click to expand...

Hi amie...

Check out this list of new religious movements with links to their own websites.  For those who might be interested.  Feel free to comment, but keep in mind..I'm not responsible for this list.

http://www.stthomasu.ca/~parkhill/nrm01/nrm1all.htm

I'd also like to add, that I never realized how Christians INSIST on categorizing each other (until landing randomly in this forum).  Ruh-Roh....ya'll have no idea what's hit yah! By some's definition...I was raised in a cult.  That is to say...everyone's activities, dress code, hair styles, entertainment, religious and educational studies were dictated by a select few.  Thank God I got away from that, broadened my educational background, and began to think and reason for myself without someone looking over my shoulder.

 

 

  Originally posted by gunnysgt
So who is your cult leader, Franklin?

Click to expand...

My leader is the Christ, the Son of the living God!  Who do you say He is sarge?  Oh, that's right, you say He is God right?  Contrary to what the scripture says!  Your the one with the cultish attitude about the whole issue here!  Because it's guys like you that are so blind to what the scripture is really saying that it's pathetic to the core!

Ed's is Felix Manalo. Men that want to be glorified, as God. Jesus isn't God according to you gents so basically you or Ed could have paid sin's penalty on the cross, right? [/B]

Click to expand...

No sarge, Jesus isn't God according to scripture, not Ed or I !  Your not making any sence at all in your statements !  

Please don't tell me a mere man did that, I don't buy it and any Christian born again of God's Spirit doesn't buy it.  [/B]

Click to expand...

If Jesus wasn't a man then was he something other then a man?  Was He tempted like every other man?  Was God tempted?  God cannot be tempted!  You need to study God's word deeper my friend before you go spouting off like you are!  

You take away Christ's diety, what are you left with, a man specially empowered from God for awhile. An angel, a prophet, a good teacher. [/B]

Click to expand...

It's guys like you sarge who destroy the glorious picture of who Christ really is by making Him an eternal, pre-existent, omnipotent, untemptable, co-equal God.  He was a "man made strong" (Psalms 80:17); a man specially and divinely begotten by the eternal Spirit-Power of God; a man in whom God dwelt, and through whom God spoke and worked and manifested Himself; a man who recognized that of himself he could do nothing - that all power, wisdom and goodness was of God, a man who rendered perfect submission and obedience to God - "Not my will, but Thine, be done" (Luke 22:42). 




 

May God's peace and blessings be with you, Franklin.

Originally posted by edpobre
Which God are you referring to now gunnysgt? Ed

Click to expand...

The Deity of Jesus Christ

I don't think anyone can say whether someone is saved or not

Click to expand...

This contradicts Jesus' words---"No good tree produces bad fruit, no bad tree produces good; therefore you will KNOW THEM by their FRUIT" (Matt7)

BTW, the KJV kinda messes up the translation of Philip2---it doesn't really say, "Jesus did not consider being equal with God a thing to be grasped"---the Greek uses "Harpagmos" (seize/robbery) and "isos" (equal in quantity or quality)...

So what Paul was REALLY writing, is: "Jesus did not consider being EQUAL to God to be ROBBERY, but laid aside His privileges ("Kenoo")... ...and being found in the appearance of a man, he became obedient ...even to death on a cross."

It's interesting that Ed's entire theology is founded upon two verses, which proclaim:

1. Jesus is a MAN
2. God is the ONLY GOD

...neither of which is contradicted by the "TRINITY THEOLOGY".

We-who-hold-to-Trinity, ALSO believe that "Jesus is a MAN". But obviously, if Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit, and has the soul of God, Jesus COULD be fully man, AND fully God!

And if there is only ONE GOD, Who is the ONLY SAVIOR (Is43:11), then that ONE GOD having THREE PERSONALITIES, meshes perfectly with the claims of Jesus being GOD---for JESUS is THE SAVIOR! If Jesus is not God, then how can Jesus be the Savior? Only one answer---God CHANGED!

But God CHANGING is commensurate with this theology; Ed has said, "Only GOD can be worshipped, but He GAVE that privilege to Jesus!" And, "Only GOD can forgive sins, but He GAVE that privilege to Jesus!"

So we re-define the attributes of deity, assigning certain qualities to a mere man in defense of our "JESUS-ISN'T-GOD" theology, based on verses that do not dispute the JESUS-IS-GOD theology. What then is our motivation to reject the idea that Jesus is God? It certainly can't be Scripture, there is no verse that says "JESUS-ISN'T GOD". We (literarily representing the INC) cannot find a single verse that speaks of Jesus having a beginning, but we cling to the idea that He HAD---contradicting many clear Scriptures. (Not the LEAST of which is, "and apart from Him came nothing into being that has COME into being"---how then did Jesus create Himself???) If I were to join the INC...



...what then would be my motivation? "Jesus is a MAN. There is only ONE GOD. A MAN cannot be GOD". Wait a minute, the first two statements can be found in Scripture, the third cannot. So am I to base my eternal future on an OPINION???

Surely I can find something more solid than an unsupportable opinion...

"1. Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40); and

2. The FATHER is the ONLY true God. "

And that's what the trinity docterine says as well.

Ed, please remind me (you know how old & forgetful I can be), what your "take" is on John1. Specifically, do you understand "JESUS" to be "The Word"?

(Excellent post, Louis!)

The Christadelphians, John 1:1, and

"The Word Became Flesh"

The Bible bears witness of Jesus (John 5:39). He is our Savior, our King, and Lord. But not all who call themselves Christian agree on who Jesus is. Some say He is God in flesh, others that He is an angel who became a man, and still others teach He only came into existence at His birth. Such is the position of the Christadelphians. To them, Jesus did not exist as God. To them, He was just a man who first existed at His birth.
If you are a Christian who knows His Bible, then you will immediately recognize the error of the Christadelphians. The Bible says that whoever denies that Jesus has come in the flesh is of the spirit of the Antichrist (1 John 4:1-2). Of course, the Christadelphians agree that Jesus came in the flesh. But they will not agree that He is God in flesh.
John wrote 1 John and the gospel of John. In John 1:1,14, he said, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . .and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. . ." Obviously, from the context, John is not simply saying that you must believe that Jesus lived, you must believe that He is the Word made flesh. And since he already said that the Word was God, Jesus, therefore, is God in flesh.
This seems simple enough. But it isn’t for the Christadelphians. In their pamphlet "Who is Jesus Christ?", the "Word" is discussed. On page 12, in reference to John 1:1, the pamphlet says, "The Greek term translated 'word' is logos. It signifies the outward form of inward thought or reason, or the spoken word as illustrative of thought, wisdom and doctrine. The Bible teaching is that in the very beginning, God’s purpose, wisdom or revelation was proclaimed through His Word. This Word was 'with God' in that it emanated from Him; it 'was God' in that it represented Him to mankind. . ."
The problem with their reasoning is not that their definition, in itself, is incorrect. For it can be said that the Word was indeed the wisdom and emanation from God. But that is not all it is saying. It is saying that the Word WAS God. Jesus IS the Word. He isn’t simply a manifestation of some divine attribute or quality. Also, what about the context?
In John 1:2-3 it says, "He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" (NIV). First, the word is referred to as masculine. Wisdom in Proverbs 8:1-2 is personified as feminine. There is a difference. Second, the Word is who created all things (See also Colosians 1:16-17). Of course, it is naturally understood that this does not include God Himself. But all that is made, has been made by the Word that became flesh. Third, the Word is revered to as a person, not a quality which the Christadelphians have imposed into the text.
In reference to Acts 1:14, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, glory of the only begotten full of grace and truth," the pamphlet states on page 13, "When did the begettal take place? When the Holy Spirit came upon Mary. By that means, the Declaration of Divine wisdom found its substance and reality in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ." It is interesting to note that they call wisdom ‘divine.’ They are saying that divine wisdom became flesh. Is not Jesus, then, divine since He is the incarnation of divinity? They would disagree. But that is what they are saying, though they don’t realize it.
If Jesus is not God in flesh, then why is He worshiped (Matt. 2:2, 11, 14:33, John 9:35-38, Heb. 1:6)? This is especially important since Jesus said that you are to worship God (the Father) only (Matt. 4:10). Yet, Jesus receives worship and never rebukes anyone for it.
If Jesus is not God, then why is He called God by Thomas who said to Jesus in John 20:28, "My Lord and my God." Jesus didn’t correct him for his error.
Once while in a Christadelphian church (known as a Hall; their body of believers who are Christadelphians are called an ecclesia), a woman challenged me to find any place in the Bible where Jesus is called God. When I showed her the verse, she was silent. No one there has answered it yet. The verse is Hebrews 1:8. Here is the context: Heb. 1:5-8 . . .

For to which of the angels did He [God] ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"? 6But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him." 7And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire." 8But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom."

Jesus is called God by God. If He is not God, then why does the Father call Him God? Is the Father wrong? Is the writer of Hebrews wrong. Or, are the Christadelphians wrong?
While at another ecclesia, I asked some Christadelphians about Jesus being worshiped. They told me they thought He was worthy of worship. They said they never worshiped Jesus. I asked them why not. They didn’t have an answer.
In the Christadelphian pamphlet, "Who is Jesus Christ?" none of the verses about Jesus being worshiped or called God were addressed. I think this is revealing. It is easy to produce clever arguments against various proof texts of Jesus deity (Col. 1:16-17; John 8:58, etc.), as the pamphlet does. But when it doesn’t address the most basic of verses that deal with Jesus’ being worshiped and called God, I must conclude that they have not done all the research needed and that their conclusions are in error. And they are in error.
Remember, faith is only as good as who it is placed in. The Christadelphian Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Christadelphian Jesus isn't God. The Jesus of the Bible is.



CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY

Perhaps the problem arises by the way one studies the Word of God?
Christ said that we are to live by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (mistakes are because of our poor diet)

Your subject thread is a DROCTINE one! 2 Tim. 3:16-17 tells us that again, EVERY WORD, only in these verses we see it spoken to us as, ALL SCRIPTURE is needed. Very few Words of Inspiration stand alone! The rain decending on the just & the unjust alike is one of the few.

So when one thinks of who Christ was? Is? It needs complete 66 Bible verses to understand the Truth. No. 1 for some, might be John 1? So if the Master is the WORD, which He is, then it was 'Holy men of God ' that penned [His Word!] With the only exception being the Tables of Stone! He did this TRUTH Himself! See Isa. 8:20 for how one is to find LIGHT/vrs/ NO LIGHT?

Christ became God/man at His birth. Christ is & was God only in eternity,
not God/man. Yet, understand that Christ IS GOD ETERNALLY in both combinations. (do you understand this remark?) The Father as we call Him today, IS GOD. They, two at least, carried on the conversation saying, "Let US" go down and confound their speech in Gen.
Also, upon the human entrance of sin in Gen. it states in His Word, "Man has become as one of US", to know good and evil.

OK: Here are two who are GOD, yet seperate beings, but in total unity! It needs to be noted that when Moses went upon the Mountain, that God told him that he could not look upon Him and live! Yet, he would see His hind parts & that He would put His hand over His face. (You look it up for the exact Wording) Yet the message is, is that both Christ & the Father as we call Him, have an image with these described features! (that of a face, hand & hindparts, AND we are made in their likeness)

And that leaves us next with God the Holy Spirit. We are told that GOD IS A SPIRIT! This IS GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT! We see this THIRD PERSON of the GodHead, the HOLY 'SPIRIT' or the HOLY 'GHOST' with NO form or shape implied, yet He is GOD in the fullest since!

If you check? You will see that it was His work to span the heavens, BY THE WORD OF CHRIST GOD! See Gen. 1.

If one can handel this? Read in Rom. 4:17's last part where God ... "CALLETH THOSE THINGS WHICH BE NOT AS THOUGH THEY WERE". In this verse we can see that Christ is the Son of God, [before He actually was]! Notice Heb. 1:1-5! Verse 5 states that "THIS DAY" have I begoten thee. And in Psalm's 2:7 it tells us that .. "I WILL DECLARE THE DECREE". (you look it up for exact rendering)

Now: This DOCTRINE was the PLAN from eternity! It was to be BROUGHT FORTH at the 'time' that it was to be! Even the rebellion in heaven did not catch the God/Head by supprise.

The BOTTOM LINE is seen in Rev. 14:6! It is called the [EVERLASTING GOSPEL]. (never a time that it was not. It is ETERNAL! Yet it came forth,
THE PLAN, ONLY WHEN IT WAS NEEDED) One of the God/Head would become the LAMB SLAIN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. We call Him Jesus!
----P/N/B/

Hi Ed,
Yes it seems that we see things 'somewhat' alike!
Yet, how about Matt., Mark, Luke, & John that we call the four Gospels?
If their 'inspirational' recording was the EXACT WORDINGS of God, why have FOUR, and with much of the same thoughts in their description? Or do we not see eye to eye on this? (even contredictions)

I believe with the only EXCEPTION being the Royal Law of God, (see Isa. 8:20) and that these 'holy men of God spake as they were [moved] by the Holy Ghost'. Yet using their own words for descriptive meaning in most if not all cases.

Case in point: Do you think that the Holy Spirit, or God the Father as we know Him, or our blessed Savior's inspired the words seen in these verses?
(I would print them but something else comes up, .

Heb. 12:8, Isa. 36:12, 1 kings 14:10, (FOR JUST A FEW)

I believe that ALL 66 Bks. are the Word of God (CHRIST) in mans discriptive common day language. Try 2 Tim. 3:16!

Thanks for the response! Your next one might not be so cheery? ---P/N/B/


**********

Originally posted by edpobre
Agreed!

Most people THINK that CONCLUSIONS arrived at as a result of INTERPRETATION of some verses can ALTER the meaning of CLEARLY-STATED (self-explanatory) TRUTHS written in the Bible.



Agreed!

But do you AGREE that EVERY word that CAME out of Jesus' mouth are WORDS of God? Do you also AGREE that EVERY word of God is TRUE? Therefore, do you AGREE that EVERY word that CAME out of Jesus' mouth is TRUE?

Now, if you TRULY agree to these and CHANGE the way you study the Bible by MAKING those CLEARLY-STATED (self-explanatory) TRUTHS be your GUIDE in INTERPRETING scriptures, don't you think that would be a better solution to the problem?

Let's do an exercise Pastor.

Take John 8:40 where Jesus CLEARLY states the TRUTH that he is a MAN. Take John 17:1 where apostle John  CLEARLY states the TRUTH that Jesus was PRAYING to the FATHER and in John 17:3 where Jesus CLEARLY states that the Father is the ONLY true God.

In the light of John 8:40 and John 17:3 which YOU say are WORDS of God and are TRUE, do you then agree the CONCLUSION that Jesus is God because of HOW one INTERPRETS John 1:1, John 14:9, John 10:30 and John 8:58  is FALSE?

Ed

 

Click to expand...