• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Do you belong to a CULT?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by edpobre, Oct 16, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    Hello Evangelion and God bless-

    >

    Still pushing that strawman? :D
    I won't contend with the definition below [I agree with it :)]. But one must still wonder why this guy can't a least *try* to present himself as credible. Is it too hard to cite the BAGD, Ev?
    Precisely why this title is attributed to Christ Jesus. See 1Jn1:1-2; Rev19:13. See Jn1:1-3,10; Heb1:2..cf..Heb11:3; Prov8:30 etc..etc..
    He's going to go for the 'literal dabar'. What does this mean?
    That the word "Word" in John1, Rev20:4, and Matt5:37 must mean the same thing e.g. "A breath of air!". It's fallacy of equivocation.
    What do they actually mean?
    John1- Christ. See Gen1:2..cf..Ex3:2,4..cf..Isaiah9:6 [LXX]..cf..the Memra [Word of YHWH]. It's his role in creation. He is the voice of God, as the one who plows is the 'plower'.
    Rev20:4- If not Christ, the written word of God, more specifically, the Gospel.
    Matt5:37- A literal vibration of atmosphereic particles.
     
  2. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    This doesn't really make you "cool". :D

    So essentially you have admitted defeat. So be it. The act is not convincing. You've already demonstrated that you won't and cannot form a response. I'll cease requesting, until you can do so.

    "Nuh Uh!!" is not a response. And it certainly doesn't help your case.

    Assertion, assertion. I suppose John was a man sent from [a] 'divine'.

    Sent from an adjective?

    Ev evidently did not read any of the links provided. Try Dr. Harley again. And if you would like, check out the debate between him and Stafford @ www.jude3.net before you try to go any further on this.

    He suggests you ditch all material written by credible scholars and go the route of crazed "under the bridge" theologians. This is worse than the WTS citing 'Johannes Gerber' as an "authority". But gee, maybe I *should* listen to him. Afterall, he was the one who was "given" the translation of "a god' in 'visions'. :rolleyes: :D

    Rather, thank you for posting the opinions of men who know what they are talking about.
     
  3. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    Sure Ev, but who are we left with to cite? Greg Stafford? (Sound familiar?) Edgar Foster? :D I much prefer *respected*, honest scholars.

    No one wants credibilty with you. They just want to stamp out the obviously poor theology.

    It would be funny if he weren't serious. :(

    God bless--FM
     
  4. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    AV -

    Straw man. Name one "crazed, 'under the bridge' theologian" that I have quoted in my debates here. FYI, I have used Robertson, Barnes, Vincent, Clarke, Martin, Decker, and many others.

    Well, that's actually part of my point! :D

    But if you had been blessed with an adequate education, you would have a few names in mind already. :cool:
     
  5. SavedByGrace3

    SavedByGrace3 Whoever calls on the name of Jesus will be saved Supporter

    +1,193
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others

    The Anit-WOF has become a cult. Take for example:
    The Doctrine of Super Sovereignty.
    This is a manufactured doctrine designed solely for the purpose of refuting the faith movement teaching concerning faith and prayer. The doctrine of super sovereignty basically states that God is so sovereign, that He does no have to keep His own word, and essentially renders the new covenant invalid. This doctrine presumes that to take God at His word is an act of presumption, and is an attempt to "force God", or to make Him into a puppet. We cannot trust God to do what He said He would do, lest we elevate ourselves to Godhood and subjugate God to our will. In short, the anti-faith movement teaches that we cannot know or act on the word of God, since His will changes at a whim. We can only "trust Him to do what is best for us". This doctrine honors the gospel in word only, and when pressed will state that the promises of God are all subject to the immediate and individual will of God for each person.
    Despite the fact that the all the promises of God are in Him yes and in Him amen, the supersovereigntist insists that there is still some actions or deeds or religious observation we need to endure in order to bring God around to the place where He will decide to bless.
    Despite the fact that the word of God says that He has given us all things that pertain to live and godliness, the supersoverigntiest insists that God has in fact _not_ done this, and in fact is now withholding good things from us for some unknowable reason.
    Despite the fact that the Jesus repeatedly calls upon us to ask whatsoever we desire that our joy may be full, the supersovereigntist insists that these words are meaningless, and that there exists no promise in the Bible for our health, healing, or prosperity.
     
  6. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    What's your point, and how is it relevant to the current debate? :cool:
     
  7. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    +7
    Christian
    Posted by evangelion about someone: "But if you had been blessed with an adequate education, you would have a few names in mind already."

    Again... why do you feel the need to put others down because of your own opinions regarding their education? -- You have no idea of how or when anyone here has been educated.

    and... the refutations to your arguements are available for your browsing in the preceeding posts.

    take care

    FOW
     
  8. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Why don't you sit down and take a long, hard look at the stuff that's been coming my way, FOW? Why is it OK in your eyes for FutureMan to fire off his immature little barbs, but when I pull him back into line, you think that's wrong?

    For your information, I've been debating this boy for the best part of a year - and he has tacitly confessed that he has no more than a high school education (as if it wasn't obvious from his posts.)

    The point I am making here, is that people who do not have the requisite education, are in no position to talk down to those of us who do.

    Selah. :cool:
     
  9. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    FOW -

    The what?

    I see no refutations. I see only spam.

    Why can't you think for yourself? :cool:
     
  10. SavedByGrace3

    SavedByGrace3 Whoever calls on the name of Jesus will be saved Supporter

    +1,193
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others

    That is a good joke....
    I work at a State college in the IT department. I regularly work with people who have masters degrees and doctorates. I always find it funny when someone starts lording it over people because he thinks his "education" somehow makes his words more meaningful and important than someone without that education. I am not lying when I say that most of them must have gotten these sheepskins off of road kill. A degree is absolutely nothing. In 90% of the real world, all it means is that mommy and daddy had enough money to send you to a party school where you skinned through and learned just enough to get by.
    I had the opportunity to spend a number of my early years working in a cotton mill. These people are hard working, honest, and most do not even have a HS education (the average is 10th grade). Yet in terms of pure common sense, I would trust them more than your average college graduate.
    It is not the HS and less graduate who has placed the world in the mess it is in. It is the college grad who does not have the sense God gave him. So don't assume that because you have some sort of education that people should listen to you about anything.
    Give me a man with common sense any day.
     
  11. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    +7
    Christian
    evangelion... I could easily go into all of the info that I have "pasted" and paraphrase it all... I could make it look just like your's. Do you get the idea here... the ideas you have are disagreed with by the great majority of "scholars" out there.

    You forget the fact that God was with those that translated His word. They were extremely knowledgable in every area needed for this task, and regardless... God was with them. If you don't believe that, then why believe any of it.

    I believe the word... as it is right here before me. I have posted numerous web-cites that use information or quote information from the "scholars" pertaining to Christ's Deity. You do not refute them at all. If you would like to attempt to begin doing so... go for it.

    take care

    FOW
     
  12. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    Hello Evangelion and God bless-

    >

    You seem to misunderstand the entire scenario. "Crazed, 'under the bridge' theologians" is in referrence to whom WE are left to cite. Not you. Re-read:
    >
    "Now I would like you to argue your case by quoting scholars whose Christology is in opposition to your own, as I have done."
    >
    Robertson, Barnes, Vincent, Clarke, etc.. are theologians opposite to YOUR view, not necessarily ours. Now I repeat, who does that leave US with i.e. in opposition to our view.
    >
    I may also state just how unecessary this method is. One should judge citations by the evidence presented in *comparison* with all else. Wether or not they are in "opposition" to one's view is irrelevent as you cite them in order to agree with you in any event. This is called laying out 'facts' not mere anti-bias material.
    If I want to demonstrate that the earth is a globe, a 'flat-earther' publication is the last source of information I am going to research in order to prove my argument.
    The only valid reason for implementing your methodology is to avoid the accusation of 'bias'. However if you weigh the evidence carefully you will not need to make this cry. :rolleyes:.
    Think about it.

    Please don't tout your "education" again. I'm glad you seek such, but it's not enough to impress me or anyone else.
    In fact, most main stream apologists would scoff. ;)

    >

    Interestingly that is all the education one needs in dealing with you. Takes little imagination as to *why* you don't debate the hard-hitters out there. :idea:

    And this is the common form of response I usually recieve. I've learned to take this in stride as he does this with apologists and their arguments he's never even read. :rolleyes:

    And this is a persistent problem with Ev on other forums. EVERYONE has to hear about his education. When pressed for an answer in a correspondence with JPHolding, he resorted to a condescending attitude in expressing his "superior education" over that of JP.

    When everyone sees him fall on his face, in his own mind he's rising. :)

    God bless--FM
     
  13. MizDoulos

    MizDoulos <font color=6c2dc7><b>Justified by grace through f

    +3
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Before this thread deteriorates into more bickering and personal conflicts, I suggest everyone cool off for awhile and review Rule 1.

    Thank you.


    [noflame][/noflame]
     
  14. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    AV -

    Quite easy if you have a copy on your desk.

    But since I don't own one, I have to use Thayer and LSJ. Happy now? :cool:
     
  15. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    AV -

    No, you're missing the point.

    The point is that you're trying to treat me like an idiot, with your condescension and patronising posts. But you are in no position to lord it over me, especially since you don't even have (a) a consistent hermeneutic, and (b) a coherent Christological schema.

    If you patronise me as if I'm a 3rd grade moron, I will defend myself by reminding you of my education. That's not boasting - it merely emphasises the fact that you are in no position to get uppity. So if you don't want to hear about my education, all you have to do is lay off the petty jibes, and stop pretending that you're a Rhodes scholar with a world-wide reputation and a Nobel prize on the shelf.

    Selah. :cool:
     
  16. MizDoulos

    MizDoulos <font color=6c2dc7><b>Justified by grace through f

    +3
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Because of the continued bickering and the warning message unheeded, the thread has been closed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...