For NathanielS: Let's Thrash "Jesusfamilies.org"

[jpholding]

I've had an inquiry from an earnest reader who is signed up here as NathanielS to review this site:

http://www.jesusfamilies.org/

This is one of those head in the sand, everyone's-going-to-hell-but-me type sites, and since I'm too sick of this sort of idiocy to do it all myself I want to open the floor to comments. Starting with this article:

http://www.jesusfamilies.org/Articles/Education-olotry.htm

I've already given Nathaniel the rundown on why Mark 10:15 and Acts 4:13 are being wrongly interpreted in the heading.

And yeah, I think this jesusfamilies guy deserves a Screwball Award. I'll give him one shortly.

Nathaniel, if you're reading would you mind relating what you told me about when you wrote this turkey?

[NathanielS]

Thanks.

Basically, after reading much of this man's commentary and interpretation of the Scriptures (which included rejecting a significant portion of the New Testament), I decided to e-mail this guy to try and:

1) Question his reasons for his ideas. After all, on a website a person can say anything and, since he does not have a message board, no one can directly challenge him.

2) To try and better understand his side so I can know whether he is correct or not.

I sent him an e-mail with various questions about his claims and attempts to back up my questions (I tried to be as polite as possible). He responded with his side and I responded again. At this point, instead of answering my challenges, he nitpicked on an error I made (I claimed Luke was one of the 12 disciples, which is incorrect) and claimed that was proof that I didn't even know my own Scripture.

Interestingly, my error kind of supported my argument. Basically, I had been saying that since this man (Spiess) trusts Luke's account of Jesus in his Gospel, why doesn't he trust Luke's account of Paul in Acts? Since Luke was only a compiler of witness testimony (and not one of the original 12), that begs the question of why would he believe Luke's compilation of testimony on Jesus, but not Paul?

At that point, he accused me of being a "prideful young man" (I am 21) and then stated that "ardent Bible believers are more hippocritical than most" and he still refused to answer my response to the 'Luke controversy' and he never even touched on the other questions (which had nothing to do with Luke and his apostolic position).

In my response, I stated how Jesus never refused to answer questions (even if they were purposely asked to try and trip him up). His last e-mail was his attempt to try and tell me the "truth" one last time since [I was young and had made some good points] and gave me his cell phone number. At this point, I deleted the e-mails and have not attempted to contact him again.

Some interesting links:

http://jesusfamilies.org/wwbelieve/Core.htm (His core beliefs)

http://jesusfamilies.org/preflections/tims_testimony.htm (Mr. Spiess's testimony)

http://jesusfamilies.org/hot_topics/church.htm (Why real followers of Jesus shouldn't go to church)

http://jesusfamilies.org/hot_topics/theway.htm (His idea of what the 'real' Jesus is like)

http://jesusfamilies.org/Articles/womensrole.htm (What women should do)

http://jesusfamilies.org/Articles/Education-olotry.htm (Why 'real' followers should forsake education)

http://jesusfamilies.org/Articles/trinity.htm (Why the Trinity is wrong)

http://jesusfamilies.org/hot_topics/PastorWonder.htm (Questions for the Pastor)

http://jesusfamilies.org/pamphlets/ACWG.pdf (A man's conversation with God)

http://jesusfamilies.org/wwbelieve/paul.htm (About Paul)

http://jesusfamilies.org/wwbelieve/inspiration.htm (Why the Bible, except for Jesus' words, should not be trusted)

http://jesusfamilies.org/wwbelieve/bibleinterpretation.htm (Tim's view on Biblical interpretation)

There are many more articles on his website, these are just a few of them.

Lastly:

http://cubelodyte.com/2005/12/page/2/ (This was a blog by a person who knew Spiess outside of religion and had much to say about him. The article should be down at the bottum WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE).

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

http://jesusfamilies.org/Articles/trinity.htm
Oh, goodness, I could answer these objections in my sleep! How is it the writer can use terms like 'omniscience' when this is not a word explicitly used in the gospels? (cf JP's link to the writer's education article where he complains that 'dean' is not a title mentioned in the gospels)

Consistency, please.

[energyman]

I've had an inquiry from an earnest reader who is signed up here as NathanielS to review this site:

http://www.jesusfamilies.org/

This is one of those head in the sand, everyone's-going-to-hell-but-me type sites, and since I'm too sick of this sort of idiocy to do it all myself I want to open the floor to comments. Starting with this article:

http://www.jesusfamilies.org/Articles/Education-olotry.htm

I've already given Nathaniel the rundown on why Mark 10:15 and Acts 4:13 are being wrongly interpreted in the heading.

And yeah, I think this jesusfamilies guy deserves a Screwball Award. I'll give him one shortly.

Nathaniel, if you're reading would you mind relating what you told me about when you wrote this turkey?

[best redneck accent] How dare you try to get us edumakated! We is happy bein' dumb! We is PROUD being dumb! We is don't care what your Satanic "Skolarship" says![/redneck]

Please note, all spelling and grammar errors were intentional.

To Punkish: What?! You expect fundies of ANY stripe to be CONSISTENT?! :lol:

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

To Punkish: What?! You expect fundies of ANY stripe to be CONSISTENT?!


Yes. Especially if you're going to condemn people who don't agree with your worldview. (oh, more consistency) He's a strange fundy, he rejects most of the NT.

[NathanielS]

I asked him these kinds of questions. He condems Paul for incorrectly speaking for God, yet Spiess, on several occasions, has people talking to God AND God answering them back (and not just like Bible quotes or something).

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Oh. So Spiess should write his own inspired bible then :tongue:

Edit:
http://www.jesusfamilies.org/hot_topics/forsakeall.htm

I challenge him to sell his website and his computer :wink:

[NathanielS]

This was my first letter to Mr. Spiess:


To Whom It May Concern:

After looking over your website, I had a few questions to ask about your claims. I hope you will answer them and we can dialogue further.

QUESTIONS:

1) You claim Paul was not a legitimite apostle and that he never saw Jesus, yet the Book of Acts claims that Paul did see a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus and that Ananias prophesied that Paul would be "bear [God's] name before the gentiles, kings and children of Israel". Also, Peter (who was one of the 12 Disciples) claims that Paul's writings were correct.

-A) Is the Book of Acts (and thus its author, Luke) incorrect? If so, why do you quote from Acts several times as if it was accurate? Further, if Luke is incorrect in Acts, how can his gospel be trusted?

-B) Why would Peter purposely promote an incorrect doctrine, for he was an Apostle and was with Jesus? Perhaps Peter was corrected by Paul at an earlier period, but then why would Peter support Paul unless he thought Paul's claims were correct?

2) You condemn the church and education (religious and secular), as well as attempts to know God through facts and understanding.

-A) What about the numerous Christians who say they feel a calling to an educated profession (whether secular, like being a doctor, a chemist, an engineer, a lawyer, etc.; or religious)? Are you saying they are liars or merely misguided? I will admit that I am a college student and many of the people that I fellowship with are college students? Now, only God knows a person's heart, but these people appear to truly seek God's will and to obey him. Are you claiming to know God's will for every human being?

-B) You condemn the church for 'nullifying the words of Jesus' and not following God's will. Now, I will admit there are various churches that are wayward, as well as various individuals, but does this mean that the modern church is wrong? Again, are you claiming to know God's will for everyone and for all His people/followers? One argument you use is the verse where Jesus tells His disciple to call no one rabbi, father or master, yet Jesus Himself, in a way, elevates his 12 Disciples/Apostles by giving them great authority over demons and to preach His gospel. In fact, by claiming that since Paul never saw Jesus 'in the flesh', he cannot be an Apostle, you are elevating the 12 Disciples/Apostles yourself.

-C) You talk a lot about the importance of a childlike faith, yet is it childlike faith to divide the Bible, accept some parts of certain books (Acts, 1 John, both of which you quote), yet reject other parts (esp. of Acts)? Would a child, if told by people granted authority by Jesus (Luke and Peter) that a third person (Paul) was also granted that authority (as an Apostle), question the words of Luke and Peter? Would a child claim to know God's will for pretty much the entire world? Furthermore, Jesus never says to have the intellect of a child. In fact, a little child would most likely not read, so how can, if you're going to be like a child in your approach, you read the gospels? In fact, Jesus commands us to love God with, among other things, our minds.

-D) You claim the church got it wrong in using the various letters of Paul and others. If this is true, how can we trust that four gospels (which were put into the canon by the early church)? You claim God is able to supernaturally ensure that the gospels are correct, so are you saying He is unable/unwilling to ensure the authenticity/canonization of the rest of Scripture?

-E) You condemn Paul and the church for nullifying the words of God and speaking a false message of God? Yet, in your pamphlet "A Conversation with God" you (or the author [if different], which you tacitly endorse by linking the pamphlet on your site) are quite willing to speak for God and to contradict God's words. Specifically, you have God say, "I would not order the killing of women and children, nor would I tell men to capture young women for their sexual pleasure. In fact, I did not tell anyone to do that." Doesn't this contradict several of God's orders to the Israelites in the Torah and early histories? At the time of Jesus walking upon the earth, the canonization of the Old Testament by the Jews had occurred and Jesus never questioned the accuracy, the authenticity or the canonization of the Old Testament. Please explain this contradiction and outright rejection of parts of God's word?


-------------------------------

I hope you will take the time to thoughtfully respond to my questions. If you truly believe you are correct, then you should be willing to back up your claims. Furthermore, I hope the directness and pointedness of some of my questions does not offend you, for that is not my goal.

Thank you for your time and, as I mentioned earlier, I look forward to further written dialogue.

Sincerely,

[NathanielS]

((Sorry for multiple posts, but I thought these letters were kind of important))

Spiess's response (in brackets).



1) You claim Paul was not a legitimite apostle and that he never
saw Jesus, yet the Book of Acts claims that Paul did see a vision
of Jesus on the road to Damascus and that Ananias prophesied that
Paul would be "bear [God's] name before the gentiles, kings and
children of Israel". Also, Peter (who was one of the 12 Disciples)
claims that Paul's writings were correct.

-A) Is the Book of Acts (and thus its author, Luke) incorrect? If
so, why do you quote from Acts several times as if it was
accurate? Further, if Luke is incorrect in Acts, how can his
gospel be trusted?

[First of all, I don’t claim that my writings (or my reasoning) are perfect. I tell all people to listen to Jesus of Nazareth only, and I am not him nor do I perfectly represent him. My web site is a work in progress as I am continually seeking to know the Father and his Son better, and the washing by his Words from all the christian religion I was indoctrinated into over the years is a process.

Your question confuses an issue. The book of Acts, I believe, contains much historical truth as well as subjective commentary on events. Some of that commentary was not first hand witness, but second or third hand related. Luke did not witness the damascus road event, did he? Who do you think told luke of the event?

Luke can be correct about most things, but incorrect about a few, just like yourself or myself. Just because someone was given wrong information and wrote that down along with the vast majority which was correct, doesn’t mean I can’t ‘trust’ their writings.

Ultimately, you can’t prove that every single thing recorded in any book in the bible is 100 percent perfectly accurate, any more I can prove other wise.

I believe that the Father successfully recorded those Words of His Son that a person needs to know the Way to be with the Father. I don’t need to prove or disprove that to anyone. It is not contradictory, and thus is a valid thing to believe if it cannot be disproven.]


-B) Why would Peter purposely promote an incorrect doctrine, for
he was an Apostle and was with Jesus? Perhaps Peter was corrected
by Paul at an earlier period, but then why would Peter support
Paul unless he thought Paul's claims were correct?

[Why would you or I purposely promote an incorrect doctrine? I purposely preached bible-anities doctrines for years for I believed they were true, but I was decevied. I’m not sure which doctrine of Peter’s you are referring to, but I assume that Paul’s writings were correct. Can you prove that Peter was aware of all of Paul’s doctrine? Can you prove that Peter was able to understand all of Paul’s doctrine currently contained in the new testament we have?

You are already in the wrong ‘ball park’ anyway. Who is Paul? Is he the Son of God to whom “all judgment” has been given? I’m not going to be judged by Peter or Paul, so it seems reasonable to me for my focus to be on understanding and obeying the one who will judge me. And he doesn’t tell me to seek other spiritual teachers or leaders…in fact, he teaches just the opposite in Matt. 23 and several other places.]


2) You condemn the church and education (religious and secular),
as well as attempts to know God through facts and understanding.

[Nathaniel, those are not my words, but rather your emotional reaction to some of my writings. In fact, I am a member of the true ekklesia and am very grateful for other disciples. The only “education” I judge as wrong is education that either contradicts Jesus’ teachings, or which promotes the love of this world.]

-A) What about the numerous Christians who say they feel a calling
to an educated profession (whether secular, like being a doctor, a
chemist, an engineer, a lawyer, etc.; or religious)? Are you
saying they are liars or merely misguided? I will admit that I am
a college student and many of the people that I fellowship with
are college students? Now, only God knows a person's heart, but
these people appear to truly seek God's will and to obey him. Are
you claiming to know God's will for every human being?

[Do you see me making such a claim somewhere on my web site? If you would show me where I make such a claim, I will definitely remove it promply!

You need to seek to understand what the Light means when he says,

"He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.”
(John 12:25); and, “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple…So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26-27,33)

People can ‘feel’ all kinds of ‘callings’, but Jesus says what he says, and he says nothing about “callings”, but rather obediance to his person, teachings and kingdom.]


-B) You condemn the church for 'nullifying the words of Jesus' and
not following God's will. Now, I will admit there are various
churches that are wayward, as well as various individuals, but
does this mean that the modern church is wrong?

[Which of the thousands of current christian sects are you referring to with the phrase “modern church”? Every person who disobeys Jesus - while at the same time claiming to represent him - is wrong. Every person who claims to follow Jesus, and yet approves of another person who claims to represent him yet disobeys him, is wrong.]

Again, are you
claiming to know God's will for everyone and for all His
people/followers?

[No, I merely attempt to repeat Jesus’ teachings.]

One argument you use is the verse where Jesus
tells His disciple to call no one rabbi, father or master, yet
Jesus Himself, in a way, elevates his 12 Disciples/Apostles by
giving them great authority over demons and to preach His gospel.

[Jesus chose 12 men to teach them the Way. The Greek word translated to the English term “Apostle” simply means “sent ones”, and of course the special meaning is found in that they were personally send by Jesus during his first visit. Jesus does not contradict himself. He plainly teaches that those who follow him are to be the lowest servant of all. Jesus send all his true followers to go and tell other’s his good news. Current disciples have authority over demons.]

In fact, by claiming that since Paul never saw Jesus 'in the
flesh', he cannot be an Apostle, you are elevating the 12
Disciples/Apostles yourself.

[No, I simply state that he was not sent by Jesus. You are the one elevating the 12 above what Jesus plainly teaches, “the lowest servant”, “those with no knowledge of my Father love to exercise authority over each other, but it is NOT to be that way among you”.]

-C) You talk a lot about the importance of a childlike faith, yet
is it childlike faith to divide the Bible, accept some parts of
certain books (Acts, 1 John, both of which you quote), yet reject
other parts (esp. of Acts)?

[Child-like faith has NOTHING to do with a perfect intellectual understanding of the bible…faith is about a personal trusting of the God the bible points to.]

Would a child, if told by people
granted authority by Jesus (Luke and Peter) that a third person
(Paul) was also granted that authority (as an Apostle), question
the words of Luke and Peter?

[What authority did Jesus grant to his “apostles”, Nathaniel? Did he grant to them the sole right to propagate his Words? Children will believe what they are told…if they are told error, they will believe error…if they are told truth, they will believe truth.]

Would a child claim to know God's
will for pretty much the entire world?

[No. Who is doing that? If you accuse me, then please provide the quote.]

Furthermore, Jesus never
says to have the intellect of a child. In fact, a little child
would most likely not read, so how can, if you're going to be like
a child in your approach, you read the gospels? In fact, Jesus
commands us to love God with, among other things, our minds.

[You are confused between faith and intellectual knowledge. Faith’s only relation to intellectual knowledge is the intellect can point to the person or thing that a person might choose to have faith in. Love is not faith, and the intellect is not faith.]

-D) You claim the church got it wrong in using the various letters
of Paul and others. If this is true, how can we trust that four
gospels (which were put into the canon by the early church)?

[Another false characterization of what I believe. People are wrong to trust in a book, period. People are wrong to trust in anything other than the Father and his Son, period. I don’t trust the four gospels…I trust the one the gospel’s reveal, and I believe that God was able to successfully record the Words of His Son he wanted preserved…you don’t like this belief because it runs contrary to your christian dogma, but it is not contradictory, nor is it disprovable.]

You
claim God is able to supernaturally ensure that the gospels are
correct, so are you saying He is unable/unwilling to ensure the
authenticity/canonization of the rest of Scripture?

[No. I am saying that His Son’s Words were successfully recorded in the gospels, and His Son’s Words are the only sure, trustworthy source to know the Father and how to live one’s life to please the Father. ‘Cannonization’ is entirely a concept of men, not of Jesus of Nazareth.]


-E) You condemn Paul and the church for nullifying the words of
God and speaking a false message of God?

[It seems, Nathaniel, you equate “condemnation” with a pointing out one’s intellectual or behavoral errors agains some standard. This is a very grave error. I don’t condemn people, for I am not their judge. I do seek to understand their beliefs versus my standard, Jesus of Nazareth. It is a bad thing to say you represent Jesus of Nazareth, yet say or do things contrary to his revealed will and teachings.]

Yet, in your pamphlet "A
Conversation with God" you (or the author [if different], which
you tacitly endorse by linking the pamphlet on your site) are
quite willing to speak for God and to contradict God's words.
Specifically, you have God say, "I would not order the killing of
women and children, nor would I tell men to capture young women
for their sexual pleasure. In fact, I did not tell anyone to do
that." Doesn't this contradict several of God's orders to the
Israelites in the Torah and early histories?

[Only if you believe that EVERYTHING written in the bible is truthful or historically accurate. So, Nathaniel, does your God order men to forcibly capture young women for their sexual pleasure?]

At the time of Jesus
walking upon the earth, the canonization of the Old Testament by
the Jews had occurred and Jesus never questioned the accuracy, the
authenticity or the canonization of the Old Testament. Please
explain this contradiction and outright rejection of parts of
God's word?

[The tradition of men of the cannonization of the OT Jesus doesn’t even address except to warn us of the traditions of men. Just because Jesus quoted a true saying of Isaiah, for example, does not mean he approved of everything written in the book of Isaiah. Just because Jesus made references of true things, and used the terms the people were used to (scripture) does not mean he gives a blanket endorsement of the entire book. In fact, if you are willing to listen, Jesus rebukes Moses in Matt. 5-6, for Moses teachings were imperfect, incomplete and unfulfilled. And just because Moses was wrong on some things, didn’t mean he didn’t have faith…he did the best he could with what he knew, and Jesus’ Father is very merciful.]

[NathanielS]

((My rebuttal, Spiess's statements in brackets))


[First of all, I don?t claim that my writings (or my reasoning) are perfect. I tell all people to listen to Jesus of Nazareth only, and I am not him nor do I perfectly represent him. My web site is a work in progress as I am continually seeking to know the Father and his Son better, and the washing by his Words from all the christian religion I was indoctrinated into over the years is a process.]

I will agree with you that Christianity has made many mistakes, as did even the Apostles when Jesus walked the Earth (Peter even went so far as to deny Christ three times), yet they were still accepted as disciples and preached the kingdom of God. If Jesus wanted us to only learn DIRECTLY from Him, why did he send His disciples out to preach the kingdom of God?

[Your question confuses an issue. The book of Acts, I believe, contains much historical truth as well as subjective commentary on events. Some of that commentary was not first hand witness, but second or third hand related. Luke did not witness the damascus road event, did he? Who do you think told luke of the event?]

So, are you saying that Luke, who was one of the original 12 disciples of Jesus and had seen Jesus 'in the flesh' couldn't discern between the truth (whether eyewitnessed personally or learned from others) and lies? Yet, you, who (as far as I know) have never met Paul or Luke or seen Jesus 'in the flesh', can?

[Luke can be correct about most things, but incorrect about a few, just like yourself or myself. Just because someone was given wrong information and wrote that down along with the vast majority which was correct, doesn?t mean I can?t ?trust? their writings.]

Again, are you trying to say the you can discern between truth and error, yet Luke and Peter can't?

[Ultimately, you can?t prove that every single thing recorded in any book in the bible is 100 percent perfectly accurate, any more I can prove other wise.]

[I believe that the Father successfully recorded those Words of His Son that a person needs to know the Way to be with the Father. I don?t need to prove or disprove that to anyone. It is not contradictory, and thus is a valid thing to believe if it cannot be disproven.]

You just said you cannot proved that the Bible is inaccurate, yet you don't believe in it. You say you believe the words of Jesus Christ are accurately recorded (yet you say you can't prove that) and you believe that. I am confused. It seems you are doing what you accuse Paul and much of Christianity of doing: hearing what they want to hear, and ignoring/questioning the rest.

[Why would you or I purposely promote an incorrect doctrine? I purposely preached bible-anities doctrines for years for I believed they were true, but I was decevied. I?m not sure which doctrine of Peter?s you are referring to, but I assume that Paul?s writings were correct. Can you prove that Peter was aware of all of Paul?s doctrine? Can you prove that Peter was able to understand all of Paul?s doctrine currently contained in the new testament we have?]

What made you realize you were deceived? I read your testimonies and I am sorry that you were mistreated by certain people who claimed to represent Jesus and His Church. Our beliefs are obviously effected by what we have experienced. You saw many wrong things perpetrated by various churches, so I can fully understand why you question the entire operation.

Personally, my testimony would be full of fear. I've always been obsessive-compulsive (I admit I am using a term coined by secular psychiatry, yet I have read about about OCD and its religious variant, Scrupulosity, and I see many of those symptoms in myself and others see it within me). I became a Believer when I was 18 after taking a class on apocalypse in literature and flim in high school (I went to a small private school). I've always enjoyed war novels (Tom Clancy, etc.) and one of the books we read was Left Behind (by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins), which is a novelization of the 'Earth's last days' and the return of Jesus. I read the book and I went out and bought the series and I enjoyed it. Wars. Plagues. Dictators (the antichrist). Eventually, I realized that, if there was any part of this series that was right, I was going to suffer eternally in Hell. After numerous sleepless nights and fear and watching various evangelists (Pat Robertson, Zola Levitt, Joel Osteen), I saw that they all agreed on one thing: if you aren't Saved, you go to Hell. Eventually, I made the decision to accept Jesus into my heart and prayed the prayer as it were (I know you question that in your site). I was eventually baptized (out of fear) and have taken communion several times (as Jesus commanded in the Last Supper). So for me, my testimony is full of fear of God, not love of God. When I read your website, the first inclination was fear. After all, my reading of yours views is something like this: "If you do not follow my interpretation of the the words of Jesus Christ as spoken in the four gospels, you're going to Hell and that you are not Saved by grace, but by doing exactly as I interpet Jesus saying." I was once speaking to a friend of mine and I admitted that, to me, Jesus is the scariest figure in the entire Bible (Old or New Testament). After all, Pharaoh killed and enslaved, Haman sought genocide and God as revealed in the Old Testament) killed a lot of people, but He never threatened to send them to Hell for all eternity.

So, I could preach the kingdom of God based entirely on fear (numerous passages in the gospels themselves which would back me up), yet would I be preaching the 'proper' gospel?

You ask if I can prove that Peter knew all of Paul's doctrine and understood it or not. Obviously, I cannot prove that. Again though, are you saying that Peter would be unable to discern between truth and falsehood, even though he knew Paul, yet you can discern these truths?

"Our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which some things are hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15,16).

[You are already in the wrong ?ball park? anyway. Who is Paul?
Is he the Son of God to whom ?all judgment? has been given? I?m not going to be judged by Peter or Paul, so it seems reasonable to me for my focus to be on understanding and obeying the one who will judge me. And he doesn?t tell me to seek other spiritual teachers or leaders?in fact, he teaches just the opposite in Matt. 23 and several other places.]

[Nathaniel, those are not my words, but rather your emotional reaction to some of my writings. In fact, I am a member of the true ekklesia and am very grateful for other disciples. The only ?education? I judge as wrong is education that either contradicts Jesus? teachings, or which promotes the love of this world.]

[Do you see me making such a claim somewhere on my web site? If you would show me where I make such a claim, I will definitely remove it promply!]



[You need to seek to understand what the Light means when he says,

"He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.? (John 12:25); and, ?If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple?So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.? (Luke 14:26-27,33)]

When he sees 'forsake', is that a direct command to forsake immediately (as in give up your family, your life and your possessions) or is that a command to be WILLING to give up everything. Even in your website, you talk about people who have personal property and are married and you yourself say that you're married and own certain things. If his command is to give up everything, then we have both disobeyed Jesus.

Finally, is discipleship the same as Salvation?

In Acts 16:30, a man asks Paul and Silas what he must do to be Saved, and they respond:

"And they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.' And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed [their] stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." (Acts 16:31-33)

[People can ?feel? all kinds of ?callings?, but Jesus says what he says, and he says nothing about ?callings?, but rather obediance to his person, teachings and kingdom.]

Well, you said that after many years of 'Biblianity' you realized you were decieved. Is that not a 'calling' of some sort? If other people's callings are wrong, why not yours?

[Which of the thousands of current christian sects are you referring to with the phrase ?modern church?? Every person who disobeys Jesus - while at the same time claiming to represent him - is wrong. Every person who claims to follow Jesus, and yet approves of another person who claims to represent him yet disobeys him, is wrong.]

I think we both agree it is paramount to obey Jesus. What is at issue is what is His will? You have an interpretation and claim it is right, but Paul claimed his interpretation was right as well. You have said that the words of the Bible are not disprovable, yet you don't believe it, except for certain parts.

[Jesus chose 12 men to teach them the Way. The Greek word translated to the English term ?Apostle? simply means ?sent ones?, and of course the special meaning is found in that they were personally send by Jesus during his first visit. Jesus does not contradict himself. He plainly teaches that those who follow him are to be the lowest servant of all. Jesus send all his true followers to go and tell other?s his good news. Current disciples have authority over demons.]

I never said Jesus contradicted Himself. Several of Jesus followers (including Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea) were depicted as holding fairly important jobs in their society, Nicodemus was a Pharisee and it says Joseph was wealthy and a council member), but it says and implies that both were followers of Jesus.

[No, I simply state that he was not sent by Jesus. You are the one elevating the 12 above what Jesus plainly teaches, ?the lowest servant?, ?those with no knowledge of my Father love to exercise authority over each other, but it is NOT to be that way among you?.]

How do you know Paul was not sent by Jesus? Aren't you taking a big step in speaking for Jesus? Even among servants and slaves, there were ranks for some knew more than others and had been serving longer.

[Child-like faith has NOTHING to do with a perfect intellectual understanding of the bible?faith is about a personal trusting of the God the bible points to.]

I don't think anyone (least of all me) has a 'perfect intellectual understanding' of the Bible. If you do not trust the Bible, then how can you trust that the words recorded of Jesus are correct and that the things it reveals about God are correct?

[What authority did Jesus grant to his ?apostles?, Nathaniel? Did he grant to them the sole right to propagate his Words? Children will believe what they are told?if they are told error, they will believe error?if they are told truth, they will believe truth.]

"And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach," (Mark 3:14)

"And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew 10:7)

"And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick." (Luke 9:2)

"And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God [to be] the Judge of quick and dead." (Acts 10:42).

These verses seem to point that his disciple were granted authority to preach His words to others. If you do not trust the words of the disciples/apostles (you question the importance of listening to John, Peter and the other apostles in one of your hymns), then aren't you saying you don't trust Jesus' judgement as to who He sent to preac His word?

[You are confused between faith and intellectual knowledge.
Faith?s only relation to intellectual knowledge is the intellect can point to the person or thing that a person might choose to have faith in. Love is not faith, and the intellect is not faith.]

But faith without knowledge of WHAT you're having faith in and WHY you have faith in would be blind faith and easily manipulated who claim various things.

[Another false characterization of what I believe. People are wrong to trust in a book, period. People are wrong to trust in anything other than the Father and his Son, period. I don?t trust the four gospels?I trust the one the gospel?s reveal, and I believe that God was able to successfully record the Words of His Son he wanted preserved?you don?t like this belief because it runs contrary to your christian dogma, but it is not contradictory, nor is it disprovable.]

But what if that book is the revelation of God to His people and the world? If you don't trust the gospels, then how can you trust what they say about Jesus? If God is able to successfully record the Words of His Son he wanted preserved, wouldn't it also make sense that the Bible was preserved because God wanted it preserved?

I don't 'like' the belief because it makes very little sense. You say you don't trust the gospels, yet you do trust what they reveal? You claim that God preserved the Words of His Son for a reason, but then why was the rest of the Bible preserved? Are you saying that God is not powerful enough to preserve what He wants preserved and to destroy what He wants destroyed (remember, there are apocryphal gospels and apocryphal books of OT and NT that were nearly universally rejected)?

Also, you claim that the words of the Son as recorded in the gospels are all we need, yet Jesus Himself, in John 16:12 states, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." Does this not point to the fact that God will continue to reveal Himself beyond just the words of Jesus in the gospels? There is certainly a historical precedent for God revealing Himself through men (i.e. the prophets whom Jesus quotes from).

[No. I am saying that His Son?s Words were successfully recorded in the gospels, and His Son?s Words are the only sure, trustworthy source to know the Father and how to live one?s life to please the Father. ?Cannonization? is entirely a concept of men, not of Jesus of Nazareth.]

If you say we cannot trust the gospels or any other book, then how can we trust what is written in the gospels, including the recorded words of Jesus? You can either believe that God is able/willing to ensure that what is preserved is what He wants preserved or you don't believe that. I don't see how you can basically say in some cases God was able/willing to preserve the truth, yet in other cases, He didn't.

You admit there are historical truths in the Bible beyond just the words of Jesus in the four gospels. Basically, it seems to me as if you're saying: "The parts of the Bible I agree with or like, I accept. Anything I don't agree with, I just ignore."

[It seems, Nathaniel, you equate ?condemnation? with a pointing out one?s intellectual or behavoral errors agains some standard.
This is a very grave error. I don?t condemn people, for I am not their judge. I do seek to understand their beliefs versus my standard, Jesus of Nazareth. It is a bad thing to say you represent Jesus of Nazareth, yet say or do things contrary to his revealed will and teachings.]

Perhaps condemnation was the wrong word; however, in reading your website, I felt a great level of condemnation coming forth from it. You speak for Jesus (as in "A Conversation with God" where you actually write what He is saying), you accuse people who you do not know of not following your interpretation of Jesus' words, you reject any part of the Bible which goes against your interpretation of Jesus' words as recorded in the gospels.

And I agree with your statement and I will be the first person to confess I am a sinner (yea, a willful sinner, even choosing sin when I know it was sinful) and that I do deserve Hell.

[Only if you believe that EVERYTHING written in the bible is truthful or historically accurate. So, Nathaniel, does your God order men to forcibly capture young women for their sexual pleasure?]

First, please find where God orders the Israelites to capture women for sexual pleasure. I do know that the Israelites are ordered to commit what we would call 'genocidal war' and lay waste to pagan areas. I admit that seems to me as wrong, yet who am I to judge God? Isaiah says that God's way are not our ways and that they are incomprehensible.

Basically, what you're telling me is that if God says something you don't want to hear, you reject it. Yes, by our modern standards, that kind of genocide seems harsh, but those are by the standards of the world, not necessarily by God's standards. Remember, it says those pagans were idolaters and would, if left to live as the Israelites ended up doing, lead the Israelites into sin and rebellion, which ended up happening.

[The tradition of men of the cannonization of the OT Jesus doesn?t even address except to warn us of the traditions of men. Just because Jesus quoted a true saying of Isaiah, for example, does not mean he approved of everything written in the book of Isaiah.
Just because Jesus made references of true things, and used the terms the people were used to (scripture) does not mean he gives a blanket endorsement of the entire book. In fact, if you are willing to listen, Jesus rebukes Moses in Matt. 5-6, for Moses teachings were imperfect, incomplete and unfulfilled. And just because Moses was wrong on some things, didn?t mean he didn?t have faith?he did the best he could with what he knew, and Jesus? Father is very merciful.]

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:18-20).

"Abraham saith unto him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.' And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.'" (Luke 16:29-31)

"'Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is [one] that accuseth you, [even] Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?'" (John 5:47)

Saying that if a person believes Moses and the prophets they would believe Him (Jesus) and stating that none of the Mosaic law shall not be changed until Heaven and Earth pass does not sound like a rebuke. If anything is rebuked, it is us for being unwilling/unable to obey God's law and to truly trust Moses and the prophets.

When the Pharisees try to trick Jesus on a divorce issue, Jesus does seem to say that the law of Moses was incomplete in that issue, but that it was because of the hard-heartedness of the Israelites, not Moses. Also, to prove his point, Jesus points to a verse from Genesis.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is showing how the pharisees tried to obey the law outwardly, but inwardly, they disobeyed it, as we all do. After all, committing lust of the heart violates the commandment to not covet and speaking words of anger and hate to others violates the precept to love your neighbor as yourself.

When Jesus says that the two most important laws are love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and sould and love your neighbor as yourself, he is not saying to ignore the rest of the law, only that all laws and the prophets are contained in those two.

After all, if you love your neighbor as yourself, are you going to bear false witness against them, lie to them, steal from them or covet their family and possessions? Currently, as I am reading from the various prophets (I decided I'd read the ten minor prophets), I can see that if the Israelites has loved God (and not idols) and had treated their neighbors properly, they would not be facing punishment for those sins.

[NathanielS]

((Spiess's 'rebuttal' on my Luke error))


Hi Nathaniel,

You say, "are you saying that Luke, who was one of the original 12
disciples of Jesus and had seen Jesus 'in the flesh'..."

Nathaniel, you are trying so hard to prove me wrong, and yet for a bible person, you are remarkably ignorant of some very basic new testament facts.

If you are ignorant (wrong about) of the fact that Luke was not one of the 12 chosen by Jesus of Nazareth, shouldn't you be concerned you are wrong about other important things regarding the book you so highly exault?

Can you admit that your being ignorant of the fact that Luke was not one of the original 12 disciples, casts doubt about the soundness of the rest of your understanding of the content of the new testament?

Tim

[NathanielS]

((My rebuttal))


I admit I am wrong on that note. I have never claimed to understand the Bible perfectly, although think I try to better understand. And the fact that I was wrong and ignorant of a certain fact does not throw question onto my entire argument, since my entire argument was not based on the point about Luke.

In fact, there is still the fact that Peter (in 2 Peter) recognized Paul's legitimacy and Peter was an Apostle/one of 12 Disicples of Jesus.

Further, you are willing to quote from the Gospel of Luke (especially the words of Jesus as recorded within) even though Luke was not one of the 12, but was only gathering eyewitness accounts from others. Yet, you do not trust Luke's gathering of eyewitness accounts through much of Acts (although you quote some as being truthful). If Luke is unable to provide proper accounts of much of Acts, then how can we trust the eyewitness accounts he gathers of Jesus? If God is able/willing to preserve properly the words of His Son, why not the rest of the Bible?

"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" (Matthew 7:11)

"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (Luke 11:13)

In those two verses, quotes of Jesus' spoken words, it appears that God is a good God who wants to bless and help His children. Why would God allow a false message to get to the point where it is dragging a vast majority of Believers onto the road that leads to destruction? Certainly, God can supernaturally preserve anything (Jesus said that nothing is impossible for God) and it makes sense that He would want His children to have proper doctrine/truth. Historically, we know there were numerous other written gospels and letters (the apocryphal writings) which you never quote from, so I assume you agree that the apocrypha is incorrect. We have to assume the early church was able to discern which gospels were truthful (whether through wisdom/intellect granted by God or direct revelative involvement by the Holy Spirit or by some other means...I do not know), why would they not have been granted the same discernment in regards to the various letters (Pauline and otherwise)? Jesus sends His disciples to preach the kingdom of God and we can assume He intended for them to it CORRECTLY; thus, wouldn't it make sense Jesus' disciples would be able to discern between truth and falsehood in terms of various writings?

Finally, you did not respond to the rest of my arguments (which were in response to your arguments), even those which had nothing to do with my error relating to Luke's position.

Again, I do thank you for a prompt response to my e-mails.

[NathanielS]

((Tim's response))


Hi Nathaniel,

Unfortunately, you appear to be a prideful young man playing with words, and sadly you are not able to see just how poorly your reasoning is...nor do you see that reason will not enable you to know the Father nor the Son.

My Master does not call me to argue empty words with prideful young men, so, I do hope you will turn from your sad religion and your life of contradictions (for all who are ardent bible believers are more hypocritical than most), and instead receive the Life.

If you someday see your need to try and follow the real Jesus who reveals himself by his own Words in the gospels, then please contact me by phone...it can be found on the web site.

"He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal." (John 12:25)

"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. "Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple... So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:26-27, 33)

May you see the Father's blessings to you this day! : )

[NathanielS]

((My final statement))


You accuse me of being prideful, hypocritical and living a life of contradictions and maybe I am. I do recognize I'm a sinner and I admit that I have trouble understanding the Bible and understanding God's will. Where have I shown pride and hypocracy? Is it in asking you to explain your interpretation of the truth or is it in questioning some of the claim you made? Even when the scripes and pharisees sought to challenge Jesus only to trip Him up, He still always answered there questions. When Paul was challenged, he too explained himself and his beliefs. If a person does not question a person's interpretation truth, then they will be led astray. After all, a Muslim can tell me what they think the truth is, as can a Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a humanist/atheist. If I blindly believe what you or anyone else claim is the truth, then will I not live a life of stumbling around in the dark? Jesus warned people to watch out for false prophets and teachers. Isn't the only way to realize what is truthful and what is not is to question it?

I find it saddening that you use the term bible believer as though it is an insult. What makes the Bible different from any other book in the world is that it is the revelation of God to mankind. From Genesis to Revelation, we see how God has worked in the lives of human beings, despite our shortcoming. Even after Adam sinned, God still cared for him (Genesis 3:21). We see the nature and character of God, both His justice, but also His mercy and love. Even after David committed adultery and murder, God promised that the Messianic line (fulfilled in Jesus Christ) would continue through him. The Scriptures do reveal God.

If the Scriptures were not important then:

"Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?" (Matthew 21:42)

"And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?" (Mark 12:24)

Jesus backs up His claims with Scripture, in a way appealing to human reason (in the sense of people should read the Scriptures and be able to recognize the Messianic propheices for what they are). Also, Jesus points out that, because the sadducees do not know the Scriptures, they have a mistaken doctrine (in terms of the resurrection in this case).

You can say I'm wrong to base my belief on the Scriptures' revealing of God and maybe I am, and in that case, as with the many other mistakes and sin I have made, I pray for mercy and grace. And I ask this: would God condemn a man for wanting to make sure that what he was hearing from another man was the truth?

Lastly, I ask that you not judge me too harshly.

Sincerely,

[NathanielS]

((Tim's final response before I deleted the e-mails...his statements are in brackets))


You accuse me of being prideful, hypocritical and living a life of
contradictions and maybe I am. I do recognize I'm a sinner and I
admit that I have trouble understanding the Bible and
understanding God's will. Where have I shown pride and hypocracy?

[You come at me with your communication like a lawyer trying to trap me, and that is the exact sign of pride that the religious leaders came at Jesus...and where there is pride, there is hypocrisy.]

Is it in asking you to explain your interpretation of the truth or
is it in questioning some of the claim you made? Even when the
scripes and pharisees sought to challenge Jesus only to trip Him
up, He still always answered there questions.

[You are wrong here again...Jesus regularly avoided the religious leaders and their followers and often did not answer their questions directly...]

When Paul was
challenged, he too explained himself and his beliefs.

[So, your point is that I don't explain my beliefs...gee, with a web site clearly explaining everything I believe that I think is important; AND I clearly answered each of your first round of questions after you were unwilling to receive the simple truths of Jesus (I quote him extensively) but instead come at me like a pharisee...that is a bizzare claim... the reality is that you don't like the Truth, and you fight against it.]

If a person
does not question a person's interpretation truth, then they will
be led astray.

[The Truth need not be 'interpreted', it just needs to be received once a person does their best to understand it...and again, your questions and responses do not speak of a sincere, humble seeking, but rather trying to prove your preconceived bible notions you've picked up from the religious system...]

After all, a Muslim can tell me what they think the
truth is, as can a Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness, a Buddhist, a
Hindu, a humanist/atheist. If I blindly believe what you or anyone
else claim is the truth, then will I not live a life of stumbling
around in the dark? Jesus warned people to watch out for false
prophets and teachers. Isn't the only way to realize what is
truthful and what is not is to question it?

[Sure, but you claim to be a christian, right? As such, you make some claim to have Jesus of Nazareth as your "Lord", right? And my web site takes Jesus of Nazareth's teachings and repeats them, and you have a big problem with that...you believe the bible, NOT Jesus of Nazareth and you are questioning HIM although you will deny this and point your finger at one of his messengers; or run and hide in the darkness of 'interpretations'...]


I find it saddening that you use the term bible believer as though
it is an insult. What makes the Bible different from any other
book in the world is that it is the revelation of God to mankind.

[Here you go with your regurgitating the junk you've learned from the churchmen. Where does Jesus of Nazareth say that "the bible is the revelation of God to mankind"???]

From Genesis to Revelation, we see how God has worked in the lives
of human beings, despite our shortcoming. Even after Adam sinned,
God still cared for him (Genesis 3:21). We see the nature and
character of God, both His justice, but also His mercy and love.
Even after David committed adultery and murder, God promised that
the Messianic line (fulfilled in Jesus Christ) would continue
through him. The Scriptures do reveal God.

If the Scriptures were not important then:

"Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The
stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of
the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our
eyes?" (Matthew 21:42)

[First of all, this statement of Jesus says, 'the scriptures reveal God'? In fact, it does not say that at all. And who is the stone the builder's rejected? I no where deny that the OT has some truth in it, including some accurate prophesies. But NOW THAT THE MESSIAH CAME, WE ARE TO LISTEN TO HIM, AND NOT GO BACK INTO THE SHADOWS AND THUS TURN AWAY FROM THE LIGHT.]


"And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err,
because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?"
(Mark 12:24)

[So, that statement of Jesus says that the scriptures reveal God? Again, very poor reasoning. It merely says that they didn't know their own scriptures, nor the power of the Father".]


Jesus backs up His claims with Scripture, in a way appealing to
human reason (in the sense of people should read the Scriptures
and be able to recognize the Messianic propheices for what they
are). Also, Jesus points out that, because the sadducees do not
know the Scriptures, they have a mistaken doctrine (in terms of
the resurrection in this case).

You can say I'm wrong to base my belief on the Scriptures'
revealing of God and maybe I am, and in that case, as with the
many other mistakes and sin I have made, I pray for mercy and
grace. And I ask this: would God condemn a man for wanting to make
sure that what he was hearing from another man was the truth?

[Why do you pray for "grace"? Where does Jesus of Nazareth teach such a thing? In fact he does not, but at this time you are not sincerely interested in listening to him. What you fail to see is that you are currently condemning yourself by virtue of saying you know the truth, and yet you reject the Truth.

"If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains." (John 9:41)]

Lastly, I ask that you not judge me too harshly.

[I don't condemn you, Nathaniel, but I do judge your words...you, like the vast majority of people who have been innoculated with christianity's lies, condemn yourselves by clinging to those lies instead of responding, repenting and receiving the Words of the Word of God, Jesus of Nazareth.]

((Again, I'm sorry for multi-posting, but I didn't see any other option. The letters kind of go together as a set))

[DoomRater]

I can't even USE that site. The Flash on the front page kills my CPU.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

JPH. Just wanted you to know that I just now saw this thread. I don't know when, but I will sometime soon go and look through some of the material and leave my thoughts.

[Crow]

((Tim's response))

Hi Nathaniel,

Unfortunately, you appear to be a prideful young man playing with words, and sadly you are not able to see just how poorly your reasoning is...nor do you see that reason will not enable you to know the Father nor the Son.

One of the surest evidences of being pwned is when one accuses his opponent of being prideful....

[NathanielS]

Yes. That can be quite irritating. One other thing, he seems to have made a clone of his site for some reason: www.yahshuafamilies.org.

Why do you think he'd do this?

I just found a tidbit from his other website:

http://www.yahshuafamilies.org/hot_topics/y_OT_confusion.htm

EDIT:

Please note this quote:


Their Messiah was born of a virgin (what difference does that make to following Yahshua?) (The quote is this guy implying/claiming that the doctrine of virgin birth is not important)

[Rayado]

:highfive: Nathaniel! You caught him dead to rights on his Luke mistake. And don't let his insults get to you--people try that with us all the freaking time and it never seems to work. :teeth: In fact it nearly always backfires horribly, as it obviously did for him. It was his feeble (and uncouth) way of admitting defeat about the trustworthiness of the New Testament.

Welcome to Theologyweb! Make yourself at home. :smile:

Now can anyone kindly inform him that he has an army of prideful young men shredding his website here? :grin:

Further edit: Good Lord have mercy, he can't quote scripture to save his life. His pages on Paul and Hermeneutics would be hysterically funny if he wasn't deadly serious about it.

[NathanielS]

Thanks for the welcome. If you want, you can e-mail him at tims@jesusfamilies.org or you can call him at (845) 227-2397 (his phone number is on the site and he invited to me to call him when I was truly ready to follow Jesus).

EDIT: Perhaps he should allow a message board and public responses to his claims.

"The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him." (Proverbs 18:17, NIV).

"Any story sounds true until someone sets the record straight." (Proverbs 18:17, NLT)

"He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." (Proverbs 18:17, RSV)

"The first one to plead his cause seems right,
Until his neighbor comes and examines him." (Proverbs 18:17, NKJV)

Please refrain from posting others phone numbers here on TWEB. Thanks.

[Rayado]

:lol: He oughta come here--we've been short on whiny self-righteous twits since our last one self-combusted.

[NathanielS]

E-mail him if you want. It's interesting how Paul (whom Spiess judges as being false) was willing to spend days defending his theology and belief in Christ in front of hostile crowds. If it was good enough for a 'false disciple' (or whatever words Mr. Spiess uses to describe Paul), then shouldn't it be good enough for a 'true disciple'?

EDIT: In regards to Paul, I love how Mr. Spiess declares: "No, I simply state that he [Paul] was not sent by Jesus." Even if this claim about Paul was untrue, how can Mr. Spiess know it?

[OldManZangetsu]

http://www.jesusfamilies.org/hot_topics/JesusWords1.htm[/url]]Second, you must read Jesus' Words in the Gospels as a child - meaning to believe what Jesus says without trying to explain it away, or twist His words fit your life choices. For example, if I tell a 4 year old child that a helicopter is going to bring a 10 ton Hershey's kiss candy on their lawn in one hour, she will wait with baited breath for it to happen! In the same way, as we read Jesus' words, we need to accept what He says with child-like faith. Jesus accepts nothing else as true faith, for He says, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 18:3)

Wow... what a really bad comparison... not that people can't get saved that way, but subjectivism isn't the place to stay for long. Otherwise, what's so different about that from Islam, Mormonism, or even a near death experience (inside the realm of atheism, to turn them for the better)?


You might ask, 'how do I follow Him'? By obeying His commands, speaking as He spoke, and doing what He did. Unfortunately, this is where MANY people are mislead, because they start looking to men to tell them what Jesus says.

:twitch: I... uh.. d... wha... is he really that dumb? He continues:


People who meet Jesus, even sincere ones, are easily led into following men who say they are following Jesus, instead of truly following JUST JESUS. They are immediately lead astray as they follow pastor or reverend or evangelist or priest or whatever clergymen they choose to put themselves under. They might even follow one of the authors of the books in the Bible (like Paul), instead of following JUST JESUS, who says, "I am the good shepherd…and there will be one flock and ONE shepherd." (John 10:7-16)

So... I'm confused... but isn't that how things worked for the most part in the first century anyway? People (gentiles especially) followed what other men were telling them about Jesus. Eyewitnesses or not, they were following what other men told them about Jesus, not "JUST JESUS." :lolo:

He goes on a lot about 'churchianity' but I don't think he ever (anywhere on his site) gives a clear definition of what it entails. So for all I know he could be saying that anyone in a church (building) is not a Christian... period. What a kook. I guess he fails to realize that his website does the very thing he's decrying.


I’m not sure which doctrine of Peter’s you are referring to, but I assume that Paul’s writings were correct. Can you prove that Peter was aware of all of Paul’s doctrine? Can you prove that Peter was able to understand all of Paul’s doctrine currently contained in the new testament we have?

So basically... a guy who was once an extremely dangerous enemy of Christianity is going to start preaching it to the gentile world and the disciples aren't going to keep him in check. Though... maybe the part about Paul being murderous was what Timmy had in mind when he said certain parts he couldn't trust?


First of all, I don’t claim that my writings (or my reasoning) are perfect.

:whistle:

Edit: is it just me or is he burning a really big straw man every time he describes these churchianity type people? Is the average Bible-believing Christian really that dumb?
See here (http://www.jesusfamilies.org/hot_topics/theway.htm)for example.

[NathanielS]

We have a place for you to fulfill God’s will for your life with other true brothers and sisters, and it all starts with faithful obedience to the teachings and commands of the Son of God listed above.

Is it just me or does this sound like he is trying to recruit people? Notice the 'We have a place...' phrase. Isn't that exactly what many churches say?


Edit: is it just me or is he burning a really big straw man every time he describes these churchianity type people? Is the average Bible-believing Christian really that dumb?
See here for example.

Isn't it also interesting how he does exactly what he judges others for doing: basing their ideas on anything other than the WORDS OF JESUS IN THE GOSPELS. Much of that hypothetical conversation/conference/meeting he writes of has Jesus talking to other people, yet how much of of Jesus' words are those from the Gospels?

According to my MS Word word count, there are a total of 3,709 words on that web page. Now, assuming every word in RED is a proper quote of Jesus (including that single word and the statement at the top), Jesus' actually spoken words from the Gospel are 85 words. I am counting only the words in red since, throughout his site, those are the GOSPEL SPOKEN WORDS OF JESUS...anything else is a paraphrase/commentary/something else.

Doing the division (on a calculator) reveals that only approximately 2.29% of the words in that message are direct quotes of Jesus from the Gospels. Now, he could argue that not every word spoken is spoken by Jesus, but even still, if the ONLY thing we are supposed to follow is the SPOKEN WORDS OF JESUS AS RECORDED IN THE FOUR GOSPELS, why is he adding to Jesus' words and appears to be speculating on His motives and ideas?

[OldManZangetsu]

Is it just me or does this sound like he is trying to recruit people? Notice the 'We have a place...' phrase. Isn't that exactly what many churches say?



Isn't it also interesting how he does exactly what he judges others for doing: basing their ideas on anything other than the WORDS OF JESUS IN THE GOSPELS. Much of that hypothetical conversation/conference/meeting he writes of has Jesus talking to other people, yet how much of of Jesus' words are those from the Gospels?

According to my MS Word word count, there are a total of 3,709 words on that web page. Now, assuming every word in RED is a proper quote of Jesus (including that single word and the statement at the top), Jesus' actually spoken words from the Gospel are 85 words. I am counting only the words in red since, throughout his site, those are the GOSPEL SPOKEN WORDS OF JESUS...anything else is a paraphrase/commentary/something else.

Doing the division (on a calculator) reveals that only approximately 2.29% of the words in that message are direct quotes of Jesus from the Gospels. Now, he could argue that not every word spoken is spoken by Jesus, but even still, if the ONLY thing we are supposed to follow is the SPOKEN WORDS OF JESUS AS RECORDED IN THE FOUR GOSPELS, why is he adding to Jesus' words and appears to be speculating on His motives and ideas?

Lol... I wonder how he addresses the issue of sin in the believer, since Jesus never mentions it (Romans). "Be perfect as thy Father in heaven is perfect."

[OldManZangetsu]

http://www.jesusfamilies.org/hot_topics/godslove.htm

Some of the stuff he says is on target. But I thought these gems *cough* were kinda funny.


As is usually the case, the definitions are somewhat inadequate, and the full and clearest meaning of the word will be found in how it is used IN CONTEXT of the Words utterances.

Let us do that now using the Eternal Standard of the Word Jesus of Nazareth (NOT the bible!):

...


Here, the Word of God is correcting the unfulfilled, imperfect, and incomplete teachings of Moses.

He references Matthew 5:43-46, but oddly enough my Bible only links the first part "love your neighbor" to the OT and not the latter. So... where did Moses say to hate your enemy? There is also a clear "you have heard it was said" rather than "it was written." And also, this is a funny comment considering most of what Moses said was given to him to say directly by God.


There is nothing more grossly perverted than the practice of placing our dads and moms in nursing homes. Truly, this is not only dis-honoring our parents, but actually hatred for our parents and one of the most obvious form of selfishness and love for our lives in the world. If our dads or moms have believed the lies of the world and actually encourage you to "have your own life" and thus place them in the hands of health-care prostitutes, then you have failed to be the light that Jesus wants you to be to them. First, insist on caring for them. Second, seek the Real Jesus yourself. Third, repent quickly and be the light and salt Jesus calls you to be and reach out to your parents with compassionate zeal so that they may see the Real Jesus and his Kingdom and Family.

So there is really no such thing as a good nursing home? And is it really that bad of a thing to place your parents in the care of another? What if you don't have the time or resources? I think he hints at the fact that parents get put there and never get visits, but just because a parent is in a nursing home doesn't mean you can't visit them and that no one will. Is this guy serious?

Ack, too much for now, I feel like I'm getting dumber.

[NathanielS]

Some incongruities I just noticed. In one of his e-mails to me, he claims the following:

1)


Which of the thousands of current christian sects are you referring to with the phrase “modern church”?

However, in his testimony, Mr. Spiess declares the following:


I have visited and been a part of just about all major types of christian religious organizations. Catholic, protestant (of all stripes, liberal and conservative), evangelical, pentecostal, charismatic, fundamentalist, baptist, messianic, anabaptist, independant bible, etc. I can testify to the reader that they are all essentially the same. They are religious social groups where people follow their leader's rules and traditions in order to try and be right with a God they are unwilling to get to know themselves. Their lives (behavior, words and purposes for living) are essentially no different than the people around them who they describe as "heathen" or "lost". The only primary difference is their affiliation with their particular religious group. This has been my experience and this is my testimony.

2)

In my first letter, I questioned his ideas on education and he responds (in brackets):


-A) What about the numerous Christians who say they feel a calling
to an educated profession (whether secular, like being a doctor, a
chemist, an engineer, a lawyer, etc.; or religious)? Are you
saying they are liars or merely misguided? I will admit that I am
a college student and many of the people that I fellowship with
are college students? Now, only God knows a person's heart, but
these people appear to truly seek God's will and to obey him. Are
you claiming to know God's will for every human being?

[Do you see me making such a claim somewhere on my web site? If you would show me where I make such a claim, I will definitely remove it promply!...]

On his education-olatry page (http://jesusfamilies.org/Articles/Education-olotry.htm), he declares:


Does Jesus teach that his Family will have leaders who are educated and trained, academically or otherwise? Does Jesus teach that his Family will have leaders that are "intelligent" as judged by some standard? If so, should men, using religious institutions fashioned after the world's academic institutions, be the judges? Does Jesus even mention intellectual gifting as part of qualifications for following him? Does Jesus say that one must "earn a degree" in order to be a part of his Family...his flock? The answers to these questions brings up some other important related issues, such as should Jesus' disciples send their children to colleges and universities?

The answers to these questions is a resounding and clear NO, as this article will Scripturally and logically demonstrate.

AND


Do you think that you are smart or intelligent? Do you believe this of yourself because you have attained some piece of paper that men call a Bachelor's degree or Master's degree or Doctorate? Do people in general consider you highly intelligent because you have let them know of your academic achievements? Do you consider yourself intelligent because you have attained some position that is usually only occupied by people with "advanced degrees"? If so, then you are very unlikely to enter the kingdom of heaven.

3)

His view on the 12 disciples:


Jesus chose 12 men to teach them the Way. The Greek word translated to the English term ?Apostle? simply means ?sent ones?, and of course the special meaning is found in that they were personally send by Jesus during his first visit. Jesus does not contradict himself. He plainly teaches that those who follow him are to be the lowest servant of all. Jesus send all his true followers to go and tell other?s his good news. Current disciples have authority over demons

In several places it is said that the disciples were sent to preach by Jesus Himself and we can assume He wanted to them preach a correct doctrine.

Preaching can be defined as:


1. to proclaim or make known by sermon (the gospel, good tidings, etc.).
2. to deliver (a sermon).
3. to advocate or inculcate (religious or moral truth, right conduct, etc.) in speech or writing.
–verb (used without object)
4. to deliver a sermon.
5. to give earnest advice, as on religious or moral subjects or the like.
6. to do this in an obtrusive or tedious way. (Dictionary.com)

This includes writing, yet Mr. Spiess rejects the written sermons of Peter and John. Am I the only one who sees a slight contradiction here?

4)

On caring for parents, Mr. Spiess (quoted from OldManZangetsu), states:


There is nothing more grossly perverted than the practice of placing our dads and moms in nursing homes. Truly, this is not only dis-honoring our parents, but actually hatred for our parents and one of the most obvious form of selfishness and love for our lives in the world. If our dads or moms have believed the lies of the world and actually encourage you to "have your own life" and thus place them in the hands of health-care prostitutes, then you have failed to be the light that Jesus wants you to be to them. First, insist on caring for them. Second, seek the Real Jesus yourself. Third, repent quickly and be the light and salt Jesus calls you to be and reach out to your parents with compassionate zeal so that they may see the Real Jesus and his Kingdom and Family.

Yet, in another message (http://jesusfamilies.org/hot_topics/forsakeall.htm), he declares:


In this passage in Luke, the context is set very clearly in verses 26 and 27. What Jesus is seeking to do is to tell people plainly that they cannot both follow him as well as listen to other voices which might tell them not to follow Jesus. Verse 26 is very clearly a command for those people who hear Jesus' Words, to count the cost of following him, namely the forsaking of all the most important natural relationships. If someone wants to follow Jesus, they have to be willing to leave - forsake - the people in their life who they have previously loved the most...parents, spouses, children and siblings. When should someone do this? If these people are not willing to follow Jesus as Jesus defines that (not christian religion, tradition or the bible), then they must be forsaken.

Another contradiction. He says care for your parents (even if they have taught you wrong and are, thus, not true disciples of Jesus), yet he then declares that we must be willing to forsake parents if they are not willing to follow the 'True Jesus'. When we have forsaken them (which he never clearly defines ), who is supposed to care for them?

Forsake:


1. to quit or leave entirely; abandon; desert: [I]She has forsaken her country for an island in the South Pacific.
2. to give up or renounce (a habit, way of life, etc.). (Dictionary.com)

These are entirely contradictory. How can you personally care for, yet leave entirely/abandon, someone?

[OldManZangetsu]

Please someone bring him here... some humbling is in order

[NathanielS]

I think Proverbs 18:17 says it best:


The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him (RSV)

Jesus Himself also declared (on confronting doctrinal issues):


"And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?" (Mark 12:24, KJV)

"Jesus replied, 'Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?'" (Mark 12:24, NIV)

"Jesus replied, 'Your problem is that you don't know the Scriptures, and you don't know the power of God.'" (Mark 12:24, NIV)


"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." (Matthew 7:15, NKJV)

"Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep, but are really wolves that will tear you apart." (Matthew 7:15, NLT)

EDIT: Please note that the 'you' in "tear you apart" seems to be a personal subject, not a reference to doctrine or ideas. As the e-mails and much of Mr. Spiess's own articles show, he is not pleased with merely proving others wrong, he must resort to insults and trying to tear them down on a personal level instead of disproving their doctrines. If someone has the truth, then they should be able to use that truth to disprove any claims against it.

Also, I throw this quote back at Mr. Spiess:

"If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains." (John 9:41)

I have never claimed to have the truth or to completely understand the Bible. In fact, I sincerely ask anyone who has read my letters to Mr. Spiess or my statements on this forum to tell me if I have claimed to know the truth or have been "prideful" or "hippocritical".

[jpholding]

First of all, I don’t claim that my writings (or my reasoning) are perfect. I tell all people to listen to Jesus of Nazareth only, and I am not him nor do I perfectly represent him. My web site is a work in progress as I am continually seeking to know the Father and his Son better, and the washing by his Words from all the christian religion I was indoctrinated into over the years is a process.

Translation: You pwned him and he's making excuses.

As you can see, the TWeb family is not impressed. :teeth:

The yashua site clone is likely some sort of appeal to "Hebrew Roots" sensibilities. Or else he is one of those, and the "jesusfamilies" site is to draw in people NOT into Hebrew roots.

It seems you're already adept at finding his mistakes. :smile: Later today I may run down the edjamakation article some more, and the Trinity one looks like one of my specialties too.

When we've got a good archive here, say about 100 messages, you ought to email him the link to this thread. :hehe:

[NathanielS]

Personally, I think we should contact him ASAP. After all, let him have a chance to respond to a reasonable amount of claims lest he throw Proverbs 18:17 in our faces.

Mr. Spiess's statement in his letter to me:



First of all, I don’t claim that my writings (or my reasoning) are perfect. I tell all people to listen to Jesus of Nazareth only, and I am not him nor do I perfectly represent him. My web site is a work in progress as I am continually seeking to know the Father and his Son better, and the washing by his Words from all the christian religion I was indoctrinated into over the years is a process.

Mr. Spiess in a 'letter to the pastor' (http://jesusfamilies.org/hot_topics/PastorWonder.htm)


[Do you ever wonder]...about how your pride might cause you – if anyone else in your organization reads this and wants to speak to you about it – to condemn or “blow off” the author of this warning by saying he is bitter, un-loving, jealous, or a myriad of other lies and thus avoid taking a serious look at the truth in this little letter. Was Jesus bitter, un-loving or jealous in Matt. 23?

He equates his words to Jesus', yet Mr. Spiess says that he doesn't claim that his writings/reasoning perfect.

------------------------------

Another contradiction in Mr. Spiess's articles:

From the questions to the pastor:

[Do you ever wonder]



…what Jesus means when He says, “In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple”?

…can giving up everything we have possibly be construed to mean gaining wealth, popularity, and power, which is what you are gaining through your organization?

…about Jesus' commands to “Sell your possessions and give to the poor.”, and how you never teach that literally as a child would receive it upon reading His words?

Mr. Spiess in 'What Does It Mean to Forsake All?':


This author has communicated with quite a few people who are seeking to follow Jesus, even as this author is, who say that this passage has money and material possessions as its primary meaning attached with "forsake all". This is unfortunate. Not because Jesus doesn't teach his followers to live non-materialistically oriented lives, for he does teach that, as we will see a bit further on in the article. It is unfortunate because Jesus doesn't teach that his followers must forsake "all material possessions" in order to follow him. It is unfortunate because it is wrong, and thus will mislead people in an important issue regarding following Jesus. It is unfortunate because those who believe that Jesus says we must forsake all material possessions in order to follow him will almost always end up judging others wrongly.

AND


From these teachings of Jesus, it is quite plain that those who follow him must renounce the seeking and gaining of money and material possessions as an important pursuit in life.

AND


If one wants to say that Jesus' words to the rich man in Matthew 19 are universal teachings that apply to all disciples, one could argue that part of pertaining to spiritual perfection would involve the forsaking of all material wealth. This author does not think that his Words to the rich man were universal commands, for they were specifically given to a man who "owned much property" (Matt. 19:22). It seems to this author that Jesus was addressing the one thing the man would not forsake in order to follow Jesus...that is a life focused on building and keeping his material possessions, which possessions were great.

Now, in 'Should the Followers of Jesus Accumulate Wealth?' (http://jesusfamilies.org/Articles/Wealth.htm)


"And when Jesus saw that he became sorrowful, he said, 'How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of heaven. For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:24-25)

In this country, during these last days, this is perhaps one of the most despised teachings of Jesus - perhaps it has always been this way. Lost people hate it and can't understand it because they walk in darkness. Tragically, many calling themselves believers of one label or another, also despise this teaching, and spend a good deal of effort explaining away the clear meaning. This is especially true in the United States where money is so clearly worshipped by the lost masses as well as by most christians.

Perhaps the most popular explain-it-away excuse found in evangelical-pentecostal circles is, "Oh, don't you know that the eye of the needle was a real gate in the wall of Jerusalem that camels had to get down on their knees to squeeze through? Yes, it was difficult for the camels to squeeze through, BUT they could get through, ya know." And there you have it - the plain words of Jesus explained away by some cultural fairy tale. SHOW THIS AUTHOR THE ANCIENT CULTURAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS FAIRY TALE. THE FACT IS THERE IS NONE. It's just that easy, you know! Just make up a cultural fairy tale, and walaa, the Jesus is explained away. And the deceived people say, 'Jesus didn't really mean what He said! Aren't you glad, because now we can want to be rich! We can call our covetousness 'godly stewardship' or something! Maybe the popular christian financial advisors could create and sell a whole seminar series called, "How to Make Your Covetousness and Longing for the Things of This World Look Like Biblical Stewardship". Or perhaps they could call it, "How to Nullify the Teachings of Jesus by Mis-Using the Old Testament". How utterly tragic and sad, as people trade the temporary for the eternal.

Luke, who wrote the gospel that bears his name, was a physician. It is a reasonable conclusion that he was familiar with needles for he very likely used them to suture wounds. The word he uses for needle is the Greek word rhaphis, which means, "to sew". Some manuscripts of Luke use the Greek word, belone which means "a dart" denoting a sharp point, and hence, a needle. There is absolutely no exegetical or morphological reason to claim these words in that context mean anything other than a needle. Luke knew it was difficult to get a thread through a needle, let alone a camel, and he faithfully recorded Jesus' Words as He spoke them - as did Matthew and Mark. Maybe we just don't like the force of the truth in Jesus' Words?

One of the most pathetic things I view in these last days is people yelling and screaming the name "Jesus" at their "worship" services, and then right after running down to the local lottery sales counter and purchasing what is actually their real hope and savior - mammon. These deceived folks say, "oh, if only I'd win the lottery, then I'd really be able to do some ministry". Let me ask the reader a simple question. If Jesus says it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, then WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO BE RICH? Trust me, you have enough trouble with your flesh to purposely try to make it hard to enter the kingdom of heaven. Why not just love people today - right now? Why not live a sacrificial life for Jesus today - right now? Why not repent and give your heart to the real Jesus who is revealed in the gospels through his own Words?

So, was Jesus talking to the one guy or to everyone?

From the same article:


Turn from selfishness and give all you've got to the Lord's work, and you will receive eternal rewards.

IS HE SAYING GIVE UP ALL OR NOT?

[jpholding]

Personally, I think we should contact him ASAP. After all, let him have a chance to respond to a reasonable amount of claims lest he throw Proverbs 18:17 in our faces.

:lol: At his level, one response is too much to handle. But if you like go ahead.

Also, can you post the answers I gave you by email to those two verses at the top of the education article? I don't keep copies of sent mail.

I'll be back later.

[NathanielS]

I would rather not be the one doing the contacting.

Here is the part of your e-mail responding to Education-olatry:


Mark 10:15 -- he obviously wants to use it to indicate that ignorance (as a child) is an ideal. Wrong. In the ancient world the great virtue of children was supposed to be that they were HUMBLE. Notice the context of the teaching, informed by what appears in Matthew 18 and Mark 9:

1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3 and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Jesus used the children as examples of humility, not of ignorance, against the disciples bickering over who was *greatest.* Not who was smartest.

Second, also at the top, Acts 4:13. He's trying to use Peter and John as examples of how Jesus favored uneducated men. But that's a red herring because 90-95% of the people in the ancient world were illiterate. Jesus could hardly have NOT picked a majority of people who were not educated. But beyond that, he picked Matthew, who would have been one of the most literate and educated people of his day. His Gospel shows he had rabbinic training (he knows how to handle Scripture).

[OldManZangetsu]

Per request I've sent an e-mail to Tim, I'll keep y'all posted.

[NathanielS]

Thank you. What did your e-mail say?

[NathanielS]

IS THIS HIPPOCRACY?

"But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32).

According to this passage, Jesus Himself is saying that the only acceptable reason to divorce is sexual immorality.

In his article on divorce (http://jesusfamilies.org/Articles/Familyolotry.htm), Mr. Spiess also lists another reason for divorce:

"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple...So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26, 33).

It should be interesting to note that Jesus, when directly addressing the Pharisees on divorce, lists ONE REASON AND ONLY ONE REASON: sexual immorality. It was Paul (whom Mr. Spiess urges others not to trust) that would discuss the importance of not being unequally yoked with non-Believers:

"Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God." (2 Corinthians 6:16)

Now, if you read Tim's (http://jesusfamilies.org/preflections/tims_testimony.htm) and his second wife Patty's (http://jesusfamilies.org/preflections/pattys_testimony.htm) testimonies, they both admit to having divorce (or being divorce from) their original spouses. In neither case did the divorces have to do with sexual immorality, and according to Jesus's PLAIN WORDS ON THE SUBJECT TO THE PHARISEES, the ONLY LEGITIMATE REASON FOR A DIVORCE IS ADULTERY. It would seem that if the reason is anything other than adultery, the divorce is not legitimate and, thus, Mr. Spiess and his second wife are guilty of adultery.

Now, in his article, Mr. Spiess tries to argue that a marriage after an illegitimate divorce is only one act of adultery, but isn't that attempting to nullify the plain words of Jesus? In trying to show his point, he points to the sins listed in "1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:1-5" to back up Jesus's claim that divorce is not always sinful, but why are Paul's words (which are fallible and not to be trusted according to Spiess) being used to back up the words of Jesus, which Mr. Spiess claims is all we need? Why is it that on some areas, Paul can be trusted, yet in others, he can't?

Now, here is what else Paul has to say about divorce and the non-Believer:

But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?" (1 Corinthians 7:16)

Now, here Paul obviously states that if the non-Believer leaves their Believing partner, then the Believer is "not under bondage"; however, Jesus Himself in His PLAIN WORDS never makes this distinction.

Now, obviously, God forgives sin and we are all, myself included, sinners and I struggle with lust of the heart, but I would like to point out something:

"And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother's eye." (Matthew 6:41-42)

"If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains." (John 9:41)

[OldManZangetsu]

Thank you. What did your e-mail say?

Howdy,

You've been invited here (linked to this thread) to discuss your website. We have found that your beliefs are contrary to what is true and, in some places, quite contradictory and wish to show you so. Though the thread has started off discussing random things, the first thing we wish to examine is your item on education (linked to his webpage article). Note in advance that our tone is less than friendly, but this is because we believe you are teaching falsehoods, and are reacting much the same way Christ did to falsehoods. We hope to see you at TWeb.

God bless

[OldManZangetsu]

A few things I'd like to comment on at the moment in regards to his education essay is that, despite his contention that people go into it for the glory, the idea is to become educated to, as Jesus instructs Peter, "feed and protect His sheep." I really like to help people when they come to me with doubts or "I don't get this". If ever I was to become a pastor that would be why, to help God's people. Not to be esteemed, contrary to Tim's pompous claim. And I'd go to college so that I'd learn more, but not only that, have the time to learn more. That's all you do in college (unless you have a part time job as well) is learn, so presumably you'd get to know the topic of study quite well.

Also, what Tim seems to fail to realize is that Jesus most likely received rabbinical training (or other wise He is God, so it is assumed He'd know a thing or two about the subject) and that the Son of Man Himself taught His disciples for three years. That's a hefty bit of education. So is Christ's church to consist of only the educated, not necessarily, there are other forms of ministry like encouragement, duh! The whole "one body, many parts" deal? Now of course I can see a possible point of his being that these other types of ministries should not be overlooked, but that's hardly a cause to say never get educated.

But then again, how are the average believers supposed to protect themselves from falsehoods other than to educate themselves? Now, this isn't a requirement to be saved, but it certainly helps out in living this life! So in short, the ability to "process and receive" information is quite important, otherwise we end up with Benny Hinn and the people who actually believe him.

Edit: Forgot to mention that "What you believe dictates, largely, how you will act." While there are certain things that aren't important to salvation, not knowing the truth to those matters can seriously mess you up in your walk. Speaking of which, Tim makes mention of sanctification in his essay... this is not an idea we gather from Jesus but from Paul... that is the idea of the three stages of salvation (justification - saved from penalty, sanctification - saved from power of sin, glorification - saved from presence of sin). So what is Tim's deal with Paul? Yea or neigh Tim? I suppose you haven't fully rid yourself of that nasty churchianity just yet?

[OldManZangetsu]

IS THIS HIPPOCRACY?

I think that's a bit generous.

[jpholding]

OK, time to have a closer look at this "education" item. I hope he sees this and loses all his turkey feathers. :hehe:

Let's see....lots of blah blah blah about education as worship of self. Of course it can get that way, but so can running your own website, right, Timmy? :wink:






Whether that which calls itself the evangelical, pentecostal, baptist or fundamentalist (EPBF) church wants to admit it or not, the truth is that they worship an insidious false god.

Hear that? You're ALL gonna burn in hell, ya heathens. :brood: All of us but Timmy.

Blah blah blah preaching blah blah blah sermonizing blah blah blah....let's get to where he actually makes an argument for a change:



"At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. "Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight." (Matt. 11:25-26)

This is a real hoot, because we just had our resident postmodernist spin-in-your-chair spirituality guru Dr Puppy use this very same passage in exactly the same way, except he focussed on 11:27! :lolo:

So, similar answer here: 11:27 is said in distinction to the passing on of traditions (as was done by the Pharisees) whereas Jesus is claiming rather to have direct revelation from the Father. This is NOT condemning all education for all times for all people! Furthermore, what lies here is the historic Jewish contrast between those who think they are wise and those who possess God's wisdom. Maybe Tim Turkey can explain why Proverbs tells us to "get wisdom" so often. Hint: Jesus uses "wise" and "intelligent" in a SARCASTIC way here!


Salvation is a personal "knowing" of the Lord as Jesus says in John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Messiah Jesus whom You have sent." Thus, Jesus says that the Father "hides" salvation and the Kingdom of God from those people who believe themselves to be "wise" and "intelligent". Does that shock you!?

Nope! Seen this kind of stupidity just a week ago! :rofl: And the same verses and arguments, too! Again: This has NOTHING to do with any sort of relational knowing (which would be an anachronism anyway in this context, given the nature of “personal relationships” as a modern phenomenon) or with entering into a patronal relationship with the Father (which never required a client to even meet a patron in person, for that matter!) in order to be saved.



The Lord is purposely hiding the most important things from those folks who believe themselves to be intelligent or wise from the world's perspective.

Wrong. He's hiding it from SPECIFIC individuals who are regarded as wise and intelligent at a specific TIME. It's irresposible nonsense to universalize this passage -- especially since it was written by Matthew, a highly educated and intelligent disciple of Jesus!

Did Mark 10:15 already, though note what Tim Turkey says about it:


Do you think that you are smart or intelligent? Do you believe this of yourself because you have attained some piece of paper that men call a Bachelor's degree or Master's degree or Doctorate? Do people in general consider you highly intelligent because you have let them know of your academic achievements? Do you consider yourself intelligent because you have attained some position that is usually only occupied by people with "advanced degrees"? If so, then you are very unlikely to enter the kingdom of heaven. Oh reader, please receive that. Why? Because Jesus plainly says that His Father has "hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to babes".

:lolo:

Blah blah blah repeats the same things 20 different ways blah blah blah....sounds like Timmy has some problems with self-esteem (eg, pride). Next argument...


The Lord is not looking for educated servants, he is looking for humble, meek, true-hearted servants who despise that which God despises - as His Word says, "For what is highly esteemed among men (degrees, awards, and academic achievements and intellectual credentials), is an abomination in the sight of God." (Luke 16:15) Yes dear friend, the letters you place in front of, or after your name are a stench in the sight of God - Rev., Dr., President, Director, M.Div., Th.D., M.S., M.A., B.S., Ed.D., Ph.D., D.Min., M.D., J.D., etc. ad nausea. Repent, and bear fruits worthy of repentance

Uhhh....right. Once again, a bit of proverbial riposte is universalized and thereby ripped out of context. Let's follow the logic:

1) The Bible is the best-selling book of all time.
2) The Bible is therefore "highly esteemed among men".
3) Therefore, the Bible is an abomination in the sight of God! :lmbo:

Contextually, the only thing this curse really applies to is hoarded wealth -- the parable of Lazarus and the rich man after this, and the condemning of the Pharisees as "lovers of money" before this, defines the context. There is NO HINT here of education as a subject. Oh, and Timmy: Don't try to weasel out of it by saying that many people despise the Bible. That's true, but many people despise educated people also.

It does make a good point that it is often a pride issue to flaunt your degrees, but it's also possible to note them quietly in order to establish yourself as a credible witness!




This author had attended a well established seminary for a short time, and can testify that the world's methods and even content was in fact the rule and not the exception. My first required course was nothing less than an indoctrination into the traditions of men - and this in spite of Mark 7:1-13. There was essentially no difference between the secular university's the author had previously attended (undergraduate and graduate levels), and the seminary he attended.

Yeah, and his experience was universal! :lolo:


Rather, the content focused on building intellectual knowledge and the memorizing of facts about traditions, history, biblical grammar, language, and of course a very heavy dose of biblical cultures

:twitch: Oh yeah, and that is SO unnecessary to understanding what the Bible says, right, Timmy? Jesus used the KJV and that's good enough for him!



Can you imagine Jesus asking the Jewish leaders, or the roman leaders, to approve the method's and content of His teachings?!

He didn't have to ask for approval of the methods -- he used the same ones they did, such as midrash. The content was different in terms of teachings about himself and some of the duties of men towards God and fellow man, but there's also a passel of teachings in Jesus' words that are part of the common stock of first century Judaism.

Blah blah blah more rap about "childlike faith" per Mark 10:15 et al. blah blah blah more of the same said 30 different ways....Luke 16:15 and Mark 10:15 used wrong AGAIN blah blah blah repent heathen blah blah blah...does this guy ever say anything just ONCE?


If you tell a little child that a man is coming by in a few minutes to give them 100 pounds of chocolate kisses, then they will eagerly be awaiting the chocolate. If you tell a little child that they are going on a space ship to Mars tomorrow, they will believe it. Do you get the point?

God wants gullible people who believe lies? Actually, most kids are a lot sharper than even this, sorry to inform you of that, Timmy. Tell them 100 lbs of chocolate is on the way and most will think it over and say, "Nuh UHHHHHH!"

Repent heathen sermonizing blah blah blah....Luke 11:52 next, someone else want to take over? I'm gonna barf. :bomb:

[Rayado]

I knew I was in for a really rough ride on his Biblical Interpretation page when he started at the very top with the "You must have child-like faith" verse quoted completely out of context.

It's people like this that give skeptics like Bertrand Russell a valid point. :brood:

[sc_q_jayce]

:words: and no substance.

[NathanielS]

It is interesting how he universalizes his experiences. He had bad experiences in church, so ALL churches must be 'corrupt'. He had a bad experience at a seminary, so ALL education (especially theological) must be 'corrupt'. Since only he understands the truth, he is free to insert words in Jesus's and other people's mouths. Only Mr. Spiess knows which parts of the Bible are truly accurate.

Does anyone agree with my assessment?

[Rayado]

:yes:

[jpholding]

It is interesting how he universalizes his experiences. He had bad experiences in church, so ALL churches must be 'corrupt'. He had a bad experience at a seminary, so ALL education (especially theological) must be 'corrupt'. Since only he understands the truth, he is free to insert words in Jesus's and other people's mouths. Only Mr. Spiess knows which parts of the Bible are truly accurate.

Does anyone agree with my assessment?

:thumb:

I saw the same thing happen with someone similar minded who wrote an item called "The Great Dream".

[DesertBerean]

*Sigh*. Let him first get so sick he needs a doctor, then let's see if he feels the same about education. I just don't get this line of reasoning.

[DesertBerean]

I knew I was in for a really rough ride on his Biblical Interpretation page when he started at the very top with the "You must have child-like faith" verse quoted completely out of context. I've read his article about the church. I was surprised to see that he used the Matthew instructions on erring brothers. That to me requires a community that can hold each other accountable, but apparently he thinks just calling together all True Christians is sufficient. How does one explain to him that's not as easy as he seems to think it is?

[OldManZangetsu]

Taking a break from studying to add a few comments.

One thing I would have to say over all is that I am really disgusted with the way Tim portrays the average Christian, for example here (http://www.jesusfamilies.org/Conversations/Conversations1.htm), over and over on his site. Honestly, I can't think of anyone, even those touchy-feely sentimental type Christians, that make the arguments he has them make. Especially that bit about Nicea from the link I just mentioned.

Tim, take a stroll through www.tektonics.org or www.christian-thinktank.com and get a feel for what I am talking about. Your examples are juvenile, and lots of scripture you take out of context.


Sally
But we all need fellowship, and the bible does say that we should not forsake gathering together.

JD
Yes, Sally, the bible does say that, but Jesus does not, and Jesus is not the bible. Jesus' words on gathering together is that whenever two or three meet in his name, he is there in their midst.

He shoots himself in the foot here. Look a little back at verses 15-17 of the Matthew passage he is referring to. Jesus underlines the importance of fellowship and "keepin' things real" as it were. Both on the man-to-man level and the church-wide level.


Sally
Well, yes but all of the bible is God's Word, isn't it?

JD
Jesus is the Word of God, Sally, not the bible. In fact, Jesus warns us against that error in John 5:39-40. The book you are holding in your hands and call the bible is not defined by Jesus, the Son of God. It was defined by men, and in fact there are several different basic bibles - like the protestant and the roman catholic - so which one is correct?

Point taken about Jesus being the word of God, however what escapes his attention is that in the verse he quotes, Jesus is not criticizing the Pharisee’s use of scripture, He’s criticizing how they use scripture. Note how Jesus mentions “these are the scriptures that testify about me.” He obviously thinks they have importance. And if I may nit pick, why is your Bible the correct one, Tim? Beggin’ your pardon here but you mention elsewhere on your site that we should follow “JUST JESUS” and not what men say about him. Yet you seem to trust the gospels, despite these being men telling us about Jesus. I’m especially curious about your trust in Luke, who was not an eyewitness. I’m finding it hard to take you seriously because of all these inconsistencies we’ve been bringing up.

Sally
(Sally asks to be excused for a second to talk with her friends. She walks a few feet away and says to them, 'this guy is really messed up with what he believes. Let's just try to give him the gospel.' They agree and all turn back to JD.) Well, would you listen to our gospel?

If anything I’d say this is a nice bit of rhetoric to pull support to your side. They call you messed up, while your entire dialogue shows (rather, tries to show) that your position is superior, and then they hastily try to end the conversation either because they don’t care about you or because their view is simple and they are afraid to be shown so. They call it “our” gospel, and there is supposed to be a clear emphasis that it is not theirs, but Christ’s. This is, however, still juvenile; I don’t know of any Christian who would actually say tripe like this.


JD
Oh, but I don't follow the bible, or believe the bible, or trust in the bible. Jesus didn't either, nor does he tell his followers to. I follow, believe in and trust the person Jesus, who reveals himself in the first four books of the new testament.

Has Tim really missed the fact that God appointed specific people to learn under Christ in order to carry on His teachings? And that they were given power through the Holy Spirit to validate their message with certain signs? It makes sense to me to generally trust what these guys have to say since they had approval from God Himself. Though I find this a hard statement to make since I don’t know what parts of Acts Tim denies. Anything that screws up his doctrine, I’m sure, so I can rest assured the parts I just mentioned are out.


JD
So, where does the bible define itself as God's Word? Where does Jesus prophesy that Paul, for instance, would improve upon what Jesus revealed of his Father, and write it down and that his words would be the Word of God?

Where does Tim get the idea that Paul’s purpose was to improve (as opposed to teach)? The gospels are not comprehensive, as is alluded to in John. Perhaps Jesus talked somewhere along the lines about the things Paul mentions in Romans, and Paul was merely repeating it?


JD
So, where does the bible define itself as God's Word? Where does Jesus prophesy that Paul, for instance, would improve upon what Jesus revealed of his Father, and write it down and that his words would be the Word of God?

Sally
2 Tim. 3:16 says that all Scripture is inspired of God, so all the bible is God's Word.

JD
You mean that Paul wrote that, for "the bible" did not write itself. Where does Paul define what the "Scripture" is? Every instance I see Paul talk about the scripture, he is referring to the old covenant with Israel.

Sally
Well, Peter says in 2 Pet. 3:16 that Paul's words are scripture.

JD
Well, if that is your proof, then who validates Peter's words as scripture or the Word of God? What if Peter is wrong about that?

This is odd because elsewhere Tim has claimed that he respects Peter because he was an eyewitness. Tim displays a clear bias here for anything that does not agree with his preconceived ideas, even if it comes from someone he considers an authority. And yes, Tim, you consider these guys an authority, otherwise you wouldn’t be reading the gospels at all, they are men’s account of the life and teachings of Christ, not Christ’s direct writing. Your rhetorical questions at the end leave you so full of openings that it makes me sad.

And of course, what is Sally’s proof?


Sally
The church at the counsel of nicea.

That’s right, the writings that make up the Bible today were never considered in depth until that point in history. Nicea did it. Them yokels in the first century was too dumb check out what was being taught and passed around in the Christian world to decide what was scripture and what was not. How could we miss that? And so as a result, even their posterity was confused about what to trust. It has not been until Tim Almighty has come along that we know where the real source of light is.

Skipping a bunch of stuff…


Sally
Well, other than the building thing, everything else we do is biblical.

JD
It might be biblical, but so is killing an entire people group, including women and children.

:twitch: Is this guy serious? Timmay… where in the NT does God order us to do these things you dimwit? Those OT killings were justified and had specific reasons for which they were to be fulfilled. Spilling this over to the NT and saying that believing in the Bible will have us believe that God wants us to kill the infidels is… well… stupid just doesn’t seem to me to be a strong enough word.


JD
You just now did another thing that contradicts Jesus' teachings. Jesus plainly teaches that those who follow him have one master, teacher, leader, shepherd, pastor, and it is him. And that those who follow him are not to take positions or titles of spiritual authority over other disciples since Jesus is the ONLY authority over his sheep.

Ugh… yes but clearly those who know what they are talking about will be in a position of leadership over those who don’t know so that those who don’t know will learn. Tim doesn’t believe in some of Acts, otherwise I’d point out that the disciples of Christ were clearly in positions of leadership that people came to for guidance. But Tim doesn’t believe in some of Acts, so I’m not pointing that out.


JD
By these words you prove that you and the people you associate with don't yet understand Jesus, his gospel or his Father's love. How sad. The world as usual...business as usual.

Sally
What do you mean?

JD
Read Jesus' Words in Luke 12:33-34 and Matt. 25:32-46 with ears to hear.

Sally
I've read the new testament dozens of times.

JD
Yes Sally, you have, but you have not yet begun to seriously listen to Jesus as you continue to cling to the traditions of men which nullify the Word of God's teachings.

But honestly, Tim has yet to really prove his position to be true. Of course, his conversation partner is about the dumbest person I’ve ever read about, so I suppose Tim was hoping to bank off of that and convince his readership of its truth?

On to the next section


JD
We don’t go anywhere in particular Sunday morning, we just read Jesus words from time to time.

CG
Oh, you have a house church?

JD
Well, since we are the church and we meet in our house, I guess you could call it that. But really we are trying to be what Jesus says we ought to be, His Family

Say Tim… whenever whoever ‘we’ consists of gets together at your house… is there anyone who teaches, or generally acts as a leader for this reading of Jesus’ teachings? If so, I demand that you disband this condemned practice. And… how hypocritical is this? If no one acts as a teacher but everyone reads to themselves, what’s the point of coming together in the first place? And you mention that y’all are trying to be a family… well… what do families do (or should do)? They fellowship.


CG
Wow, you sound pretty weird. Are you saying that men who take the title “pastor” are wrong for doing so?

JD
No, I am saying that Jesus says that in Matt. 23:8-12. Why don’t you agree with Jesus?

CG, seriously, you’re being to generous with “weird”. Tim, basically what your JD is saying is that, “Yes that is what I am saying.” The emphasis on that is was Jesus who said it originally was unnecessary. :lolo:

Also, look back at the beginning of the passage you cite. Jesus says the “teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you.” Jesus says to do what they say, but not “what they do.” For the Pharisees were hypocrites and did not practice what they preached. Also notice Jesus’ words in verse 12, “For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” This passage is not against teachers, but against those who claim the title falsely. Read on in verses 13-15.


CG
Man, you sound like you are involved with a cult or something…

CG, seriously, too generous, too generous.

Next section will be short because I’m having a hard time sitting still through all this. Maybe its because I believe a false gospel and this true gospel is tearing away at my soul? … nah.


CG
Well, I admit that I am not spending much time with my family, or reading the bible, because I am so busy with the business.

DJ
So, perhaps there is something more than what you have been taught, or experience, in the religious buildings?

CG
What do you mean?

DJ
Well, maybe following Jesus does not require our going to religious buildings that are called “churches”. Maybe it is about our giving our lives to Him and living as He commands?

Ok… hold the phone. Look at the parts that I bolded. Where on earth does he get the idea that family meant church? I know of no one, not even black Christians I know, that specifically refer to their congregation as family in a conversation like this. They will say, “go to church”. Ugh… what’s worse is the other guy goes along with it.


DJ
Well, why not do what Jesus says, which is to forsake all and follow Him? We invite you to do so with us. We know that God’s blessing will be upon us as we obey the plain words of His Son.

So what’s wrong with dropping off our parents to be taken care of by “health-care prostitutes” again, Tim? My statement of stupid being too generous is itself too generous. And, if CG were to forsake all… why should he then come together with y’all? :lolo:


CG
Well, that sounds really radical. I am providing for my family well right now, so what are you proposing, that I leave my family?

DJ
No, we are proposing that you all come and follow Jesus with us – you and your natural family.

CG
My wife would never go for that. Plus how would my children be educated? And what about health insurance? I mean, how would we eat each day?

Right so… forsake all… except your family… note how much this contradicts with what Tim says in the opening of this conversation. Of course… this whole conversation is confused because of this equal comparison between family and church.

That’s it, I can’t take anymore. The tides of stupidity are beginning to wear away at my foundation so I’d better stop for now before I get lost at sea.

[OldManZangetsu]

Got an e-mail from Tim.


Hi Patrick,

You've been invited to receive the Words and Way of the real Jesus of
Nazareth. He have found that many of your beliefs are contrary to the
Truth, and in some places, quite contrary, and the Word of God would
like to show you so. The Master will be meek and gentle in revealing
your faults and error if you are willing to receive his counsel. If
not, he will leave you alone to spend you time arguing theology.

I hope to see you in the Father's kingdom some day!

Tim
www.JesusFamilies.org

Funny thing is... I never mentioned what my beliefs were. I'm sending him one more e-mail, after that its his loss, he'll go down in infamy... not that that would have changed if he had come here, but you know what I mean. By the way, JP, what is the traffic for this guy's site like (and where do you go to check)?

[OldManZangetsu]

Never mind, his website stats are here... I think it speaks for itself.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.jesusfamilies.org

[NathanielS]

You've been invited to receive the Words and Way of the real Jesus of
Nazareth.

There goes that universalism again. Only Tim knows the 'real' Jesus of Nazareth. Even if Tim is completely right (contradictions and all), he should be willing to defend his beliefs in an adversarial environment (Jesus did, Paul did, Peter did, Stephen did, etc.).

Proverbs 18:17 is real poignant at this moment.


He have found that many of your beliefs are contrary to the
Truth, and in some places, quite contrary, and the Word of God would
like to show you so.

Wow. He is now making declarations about what Jesus thinks and believes. Furthermore, OZM is right: how can Tim know what OZM's theology/beliefs are since OZM never told him. Interesting how Tim judges anyone else who claims to speak for Jesus (the NT writers, the clergy, etc.), yet he is guilty of this on numerous occasions.


The Master will be meek and gentle in revealing
your faults and error if you are willing to receive his counsel. If
not, he will leave you alone to spend you time arguing theology.

Does that sound like the Jesus who declares:

"What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?" (Luke 15:4)

"Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?" (Luke 15:8)

Jesus says he was looking to save the lost and he reached out to those who were in error (whether in action or doctrine).

EDIT: Another interesting about his 'conversations with churchgoers' that there are differences between the versions on either site:

http://jesusfamilies.org/Conversations/Conversations1.htm VS. http://yahshuafamilies.org/conversations/y_Conversations1.htm

A couple oddities, besides the poor responses of the various CGs, are:

1) It is always one-on-one. In reality, why wouldn't the two others (in example one) support their comrade?

2) In example 1, how does the DJ know Sally's name? At no point does Sally tell the DJ her name.

3) Note the change between Jesus and Yahshua in the two versions on the two sites. Isn't one of the standards of transcript recording that you NEVER change words?

4) How does the DJ know what happened after the conversation with Sally and her cohorts? If Sally took her "shepherd" seriously, she would not have communicated with the DJ again.

5) Why are the DJ's never named?

6) Unless the DJs had either a perfect memory, a hidden tape recorder or were fervently taking notes, how are they able to remember these long conversations?

[Rayado]

His anti-Trinity page would be hysterically funny if it wasn't serious. Punkish and Nick will die laughing if they try to refute it.

[NathanielS]

His anti-Trinity page would be hysterically funny if it wasn't serious. Punkish and Nick will die laughing if they try to refute it.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," (Matthew 28:19, NKJV)

"I and [my] Father are one." (John 10:30)

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." (John 14:26)

And when He had said this, He breathed on [them], and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:22)

For there are three that bear witness *in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

"And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven." (Luke 12:10).

NOTE: No where in Scripture, as far as I know (and I admit I do not have a perfect or full understandingof everything, least of all Scripture), is blaspheme against something not God. Although you could argue that Revelation 13:6 mentions blaspheming God's name, His tabernacle and those who dwell in Heaven, it all falls under the idea of a man wanting to blaspheme God and only God.

[OldManZangetsu]

Second e-mail


Howdy,

I find this a bit odd considering the conversations you set up on your website are in an argumentative fashion. Jesus was not afraid to denounce the Pharisees (with the Pharisees in His presence, I might add) and thereby defend the truth against the innocent sheep of Israel. As it stands, a large readership is viewing your site being ridiculed and torn apart (and are convinced by theses tearings), and, as far as we can tell, your website gets close to no attention otherwise.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.jesusfamilies.org

I will cite a few examples of why we find your material wanting. As I said before, you contradict yourself a lot. You emphasize that we should forsake all and follow Christ, and that Jesus does not tell us to fellowship, but then you decry people putting their parents in nursing homes, insist that they be around for you to be a light to them, and then insist that people come together under Jesus as a family. What do families do? They fellowship. You belittle church congregations but then you say that you have your own in your house. The only difference (at least that we can gather from your writing) is that y'all don't have a formal "leader", though I seriously doubt there is no one who generally gives direction to your coming together. Also, your coming together to be as a family is no different than a church congregation's. Perhaps you are thinking of mega-churches, but I come from a relatively small church where everyone knows who you are, and we act towards each other as a family would.

You also mangle scripture by taking it out of context. For education you state, "Did the men who Jesus used to preach His gospel - men who were, "uneducated and untrained men" - seek to change those characteristics, or teach others to become educated and trained? (Acts 4:13)" What you fail to realize is that Jesus' disciples were taught by Jesus for three years. That's a hefty bit of education considering who was doing the teaching. And yes, the people Jesus chose did tell others to become educated, that is, spiritually educated. Take Hebrews 5 for example. Educated to know what is true and not true in their relation to God so that their walk will remain pure.

You also say to follow "JUST JESUS" and not what men say about Jesus. But the Gospels, whether written by eyewitnesses or not, are men telling us about Jesus. And also on that note, you have said elsewhere that you don't trust Paul because he was not an eyewitness... so why do you trust Luke? As you pointed out to one of our readers Luke was not a disciple of Christ. Why the inconsistency here?

Also, some of Acts you trust and other parts you don’t. I am supposing anything that places Paul in a position of authority you do not believe. You also asked the question of the same reader who pointed out to you that Peter pointed to Paul’s teachings as scripture, to which you replied, “How do you know Peter was correct?” How do you know he wasn’t? Acts describes Paul as one of Christianity’s most dangerous enemies in the early days. Do you seriously think that if this man started to go around preaching the gospel of Christ that the disciples wouldn’t check him to see if he was teaching the truth? After all Jesus exhorted Peter, and likewise the others, to “feed [His] sheep, protect [His] sheep, etc.” But then again, since that passage about Paul being dangerous seems to lend credibility to him, you don’t believe it now, do you? From the way we have seen you try to justify your beliefs, it is apparent to us that you jump every which way you please in order to “avoid” criticism, but you only jump into it deeper.

You can turn this back at us and say the tripe you have said to me just now, but your inconsistencies are very obvious, and they steal away all your credibility as a disciple of Christ (this (http://cubelodyte.com/2005/12/page/2/)bit, at the very bottom, about you is very intriguing, what are your comments to this extent?). How then are you going to defend yourself? How can anyone honestly believe what you put forth? And why should we believe your version of Christ, that is, the version that says not to trust the accounts of men but yet trusts the accounts of men? Are you going to be a coward and hide away behind your computer screen and continue to imply we're all fools, or are you going to man up and confront your problems? Being humble includes being honest. I hope you will consider changing your mind.

God bless

I'm also still very curious as to how he deals with the issue of sin in the believer since it is Paul that puts forth (at least that we have to be read) the definitive statement.

Edit: dangit... I wrote, "defend the truth against the innocent sheep of Israel". I'm sure he'll know what I mean... right? :tongue:

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Someone get this guy here on his Trinity article. I need to never again eat and drink while reading such stuff. I thought I'd choke.

[OldManZangetsu]

Someone get this guy here on his Trinity article. I need to never again eat and drink while reading such stuff. I thought I'd choke.

Aw man... I should have read that article before sending that last e-mail to him.

[jpholding]

Got an e-mail from Tim.



It smells like a "form letter".

I'll probably be able to check some more of his stuff Monday. Nathaniel, on the Trinity, check my item at http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html It's stuff Tim Turkey will never touch.

[OldManZangetsu]

I know this time should have been spent doing school work… but I have just made some startling discoveries, check them out. The most startling ones are towards the end. I also just saw the movie The Number 23 and liked it, so I thought I’d make reference to it here to add a little comedic relief between all the idiocy. Of course… only those who have seen the movie will get it. Timmay’s words (from http://jesusfamilies.org/wwbelieve/bibleinterpretation.htm) are in bold blue, mine in regular type.

How to Know God

“The Walter Sparrow School of Biblical Interpretation”, or, “Lessons from the movie The Number 23 on how to read your bible.”

”Truly I say to you, whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no way enter into it.” (Luke 18:17)

It has been noted elsewhere on his site that he misinterprets this saying. Though, for someone who picks and chooses what passages require depth study, this is understandable… though not by any stretch excusable.

Timmay is trying to imply that we have the intelligence of a child. Elsewhere he gives the example of a child expecting a 10 ton Hershey candy being dropped into their front lawn, or in other words, he thinks we should be children who anticipate lies. What this passage deals with, however, is not intelligence, but the character qualities of a person whom heaven belongs to. Let’s look at another passage that will give clarity to this. Matthew 18:1-4. Note how the disciples are asking who will be the greatest, and to this Jesus replies that whoever “humbles himself like this child” is the greatest.

Timmay rightfully notes how some (Timmay implies it is any churchgoer, but he is wrong) place the importance of a person on their intelligence, so whoever is not intelligent is not worth much. But this passage hardly speaks out against intelligence, just how you treat it.

Summary:

“It’s about a number”, or, “It’s about being paranoid about a number”

This article deals with the most important issue for the follower of Jesus which is how to personally know Jesus’ Father.

Wait a minute, Timmay, I thought we were supposed to follow “JUST JESUS”?

The vast majority of our belief problems stem from not understanding, nor receiving Jesus’ Words.

*cough* Case in point.

Briefly, all problems of understanding stem from one of two problems. The first problem is unbelief – that desire not to let Jesus’ plain and clear words speak to us because we don’t want to believe and thus change ourselves nor our ways.
The second problem – which is a manifestation and enablement of the first – is believing others instead of Jesus.

What, like… Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

The first problem is a root problem that needs no elaboration. Unbelief is unbelief, and it means that one refuses to believe. But if we can expose some of the second problem, perhaps some will have less justification for their unbelief?

Not if you’re the one doing the elaboration, I assure you, Timmay.

The second problem’s foundation is relying PRIMARILY upon men to teach us about God.

What, like… Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

Stated another way, this error is entered into by a person relying primarily upon men and their alleged religious knowledge to know about God.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

This is in contrast to a personal seeking of God and yielding to His Spirit and resultant knowing of God and trusting in Him as a child by receiving the Son’s Words – and the evidence of that receiving is a life of obedience to Jesus’ teachings.

Wow… Timmay actually says something intelligent. Too bad it doesn’t really count because of his interpretation of “trust like a child’s”.

Learning from other men should be only a secondary – and certainly a non-authoritative – means of understanding the teachings of Jesus in order to know God.

Now, for some of us this will sound familiar. At least with in protestant churches I know there is a common theme of “READ YOUR BIBLE!”, and it almost sounds as if this is what Timmay is telling us to do, that is, “Study for yourself and don’t always rely on what others tell you.” But… this isn’t the case. Timmay has gone off the deep end, as we shall soon see.

Finally, a related error hindering people from knowing God and His will is trying to approach God primarily through the mind instead of primarily through the heart by faith.

What? I find this extremely odd, especially since he generally only trusts the Gospels. What did Jesus say about this matter? “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ (Mark 12:30)

Timmay, God gave us a brain, the least we could do for Him to show our appreciation is actually use it, don’t you think? Wait I forgot, you don't, do you?

It is the way of the intellect, head-knowledge, and education about God, instead of the Way of faith as a child.

Of course, Timmay has already been shown wrong here.

This error is tightly related to the problem of listening to men and their theology instead of listening to Jesus’ simple Truth.

Of course, you have to engage your brain to know what Jesus’ simple truth is, don’t you Timmay? Is the brain important, or not?

How are these error’s manifest? The first and most important manifestation is a life of disregard for Jesus’ commands and teachings. There might be much talk about Jesus, but very little obedience to his teachings.

Another rare nugget of truth. Though, considering the quantity of trash, this nugget is more like a crumb.

Another favorite deceitful tactic among Christian churchmen to express their unbelief against God is to explain away Jesus’ teachings using cultural nullification arguments. It is nothing less than religious relativism, the sister of secular relativism. This is manifest when the clergymen starts in with, ‘well, you see you need to understand the cultural background of that passage, to see why it does not apply to us today…’

Really? That’s odd, I do just the opposite. Perhaps Timmay would enjoy JP Holding (”www.tektonics.org”) and Glenn Miller (”www.christian-thinktank.com”) more than he realizes?

Another variation of this tactic is, ‘well, those words of Jesus don’t apply to us, only to those he spoke to at the time’.

Sounds like you just repeated yourself, Timmay.

It helps if you have lots of educational credentials in order to proffer this technique and pass this stuff off on the people [see my article, Education-olotry: Are Seminaries Biblical?]. And sadly, it can only deceive due to the people trusting the clergyman and his credentials instead of the Words of the Shepherd.

Really now? That’s odd, my pastor has a master’s degree and a seminary degree. Yet there are a handful of things I disagree with him over, and should he say something I don’t know anything about, I hold it in suspect until I study further into the matter. Timmay, you really seem to think that the average Christian is stupid, don’t you? I also find your title to your other article a bit funny, since elsewhere you say not to trust the Bible, but “JUST JESUS”. Why are you so darned inconsistent, boy?

Another error which distorts understanding God’s Words to His people, is to not understand how the old testament relates to Jesus teachings. The old testament must be understood through Messiah’s Words. The old testament contains the story of God working through a people who did not have the privilege of knowing the Light’s teachings – of knowing Messiah – Who came, and Who’s Words and Way are recorded in the gospels. A NEW covenant has been established, and the believer in the ekklesia age is bound only by their love of Messiah Jesus and his example, teachings and commands, and thus, the old covenant has no authority over the disciple of Messiah.

That last bit is true. However, Timmay makes a jump from Old Testament to Old Covenant, and thus confuses the issue. There’s quite a bit of the Old Testament that is still applicable to today.

Introduction

“Agatha at the Bookstore”, or, “A ‘gem’ in a sea of books.”

Jesus says, “But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you.” (John 14:26)
“And Jesus called a little child to Him and set him in their midst, and said, Truly I say to you, Unless you are converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matthew 18:2-3)
“But do not be called Rabii; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Messiah” (Matthew 23:8-10)
Perhaps the greatest error of people responding to God at some level is for them to rely primarily upon other people to teach them about God, and of course this is due to unbelief against God. The Messiah leaves no such room for this error. The entire religious system of men – from Christanity to Islam to Buddhism to Judaism to New Age – is built upon human “experts, anointed ones, scholars, enlightened ones, highly educated clergymen, PhD’s and popes, ThD’s and reverends, pastors and priests”, etc. etc. Christianity is especially guilty of this spiritual-death-bringing error, as it has more “highly educated clergymen” than any other world religion.

“Other people”, Timmay, like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? His usage of John is really odd, considering this was Jesus speaking to His disciples. This was not a promise given to us, but to His disciples. They shared a unique relationship with the Spirit at that time. He also misuses the Matthew passage. Note at the beginning of the passage how Jesus says that the teachers are in “the seat of Moses” so we should listen to what they say. He’s not downgrading the role of teacher, he’s making an out cry against hypocritical teachers. These guys “practice not what they preach”. Jesus elsewhere uses the word “father” in the ordinary sense (Matthew 21:31; Luke 15:12-18), so this is passage is not about having absolutely not teachers or fathers. Rather, it is about paying direct homage to God, and to not give someone respect just because they claim the title of teacher (hinting at the fact that the religious leaders are wrongfully claiming the title).

But what if God’s Son Jesus is right? What if all a person needs to know God and to experience His love and salvation is Jesus’ Words,

And of course, by this, Timmay means Jesus’ words filtered through Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Right, Timmay?

God’s Holy Spirit, and a humble heart in order to know, trust and obey God? If this is true, what would that mean for organized religious, which is based on the clergymen and their alleged expertise in being the possessors of the scripture and the ones with important religious knowledge and insight into the scripture?

Perhaps Matthew 28:16-20 has escaped Timmay’s attention. We are called to make disciples out of men, i.e. become teachers and spiritual guides to them. Of course, Timmay doesn’t trust much more except the Gospels, otherwise I’d point to the examples of group worship and teaching in the epistles.

This next part is a knee-slapper.

It would mean that the religious systems would go away, and many religious people would be out of good paying jobs or a comfortable life-style!

HA! That’s a good one! My pastor’s money comes not from his ministry, but from the prison system. He works in the agricultural department for the Huntsville State Prison System. None of our contemporary worship team accepts money for being on stage Sunday morning leading the congregation in worship, with the except of the worship team leader, who we might as well say takes no money. But seriously… what on earth is wrong with accepting money for being in that position?

Jesus didn’t accept money (that we have a record of, but we see Judas was in charge of some money sack), but he did accept hospitality and food! We have oodles of examples from this in the Gospels. Money may be a wordly thing, but you need it in order to survive, duh Timmay.

It would also mean that God’s children could be the Family that He intends – all truly brothers and sisters (Matt. 23:8) and all dependent upon God and His Son and not upon sinful man and his religious substitutes.

Blah blah blah.

The root of unbelief

“4.795831523… “, or, “Walter starts to believe the book”

As stated above, the main problem facing men is that we are sinful creatures. That is, our metaphysical make-up is hopelessly corrupt. Jesus teaches this plainly in such passages as Matt. 7:11, 19:17; John 15:5.
Since our metaphysical nature is corrupt – that is it’s normal disposition is against God and His ways – our “normal” way of thinking is anti-God or unbelief against Him. We need some way to overcome this problem, for we cannot overcome it by ourselves. The way that God has made for us to overcome this problem is for Him to draw us to Himself by His Spirit, and for us to respond by repenting of our unbelief so He can place His Spirit in us so that we can start to know Him and His ways. Without His Spirit, we can never truly know Him, nor can we understand His ways.

Good for you, Timmay, another half a point.

We can know ABOUT Him, but not Know Him in a real, personal way.

Uh oh, is Timmay starting to go off on a “God is my buddy” tangent? Hoo-boy, I wish that was what he did. Instead we have this:

The Messiah put it this way…
“Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said to Him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, you must be born again’.” (John 3:3-7)
The main problem in view in this article, is that men try to know and understand God PRIMARILY by their intellect/mind and then rely upon each other to try to know God. They do not humble themselves and allow God to birth them with His Spirit, and so they cannot know God nor His ways. Even after a man is born again, he retains his mind/intellect, and the war begins as to who is going to rule the man’s heart/life/spirit – God’s Spirit or man’s soul/mind. Unfortunately, Christianity is run by men who either don’t have God’s Spirit, or who do not allow His Spirit to rule their lives. Thus they are relying PRIMARILY upon their mind/intellect to know God, and thus they can only know about God or have a shallow, immature relationship with Him.

Wow… I am just dumbfounded. John 3:10, “’You are Israel’s teacher,’ said Jesus, ‘and do you not understand these things?’” Jesus makes the implication that Nicodemus should understand this through his mind. Then his third sentence is of particular lunacy, taking into consideration my pointing out Mark 12:30 above. The problem is not a war between the heart and the mind, the problem is (usually) pride. Suddenly Timmay takes a turn in his feelings towards the intellect with his capitalizing of “primarily”. Is he now trying to say that there is some merit to our brain? That we do need it for something after all? What a wishy-washy nut.

A direct and obvious proof of this fact is all the religious institutions of “education” that men have created. If God is known by the Spirit and only reveals Himself to those who are humble as children – which the Messiah teachers (Matt. 11:25) – then obviously these institutions granting Bible degrees and other such approvals of men are men’s way of error. This error is more fully exposed in the article, Are Seminaries Biblical:Education-olotry?.

Now he’s changing the title of his other essay? Once again he misuses Matthew. According to Timmay, we should all be stupid enough to believe someone when they lie to us.

[OldManZangetsu]

Traditions of Spiritual Death

“The Legacy of the Number 23”, or, “Walter uses inconsistent methods to find 23 in everything”

The unbelief problem referenced above is compounded as men seek other men to teach them about God. Instead of seeking the Lord God by His Spirit through Jesus’ Words, men start accumulating bible and religious (“religious” being defined as doctrine about God or religious organizations, which contradict Jesus’ teachings in the gospels or have no reasonable basis in Jesus’ teachings) knowledge in their minds and then set themselves up as teachers of God and His ways. Yet Jesus says plainly…
“But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Messiah.” (Matthew 23:8-10)
These are some of the most ignored, explained away and nullified-by-traditions Words of Jesus. This is so because these truths destroy the religious rulling class and the associated religious systems of men e.g. the Christian religious system. Jesus plainly states that he, the Messiah, will work through the Father’s Spriti in teaching men, and that he is to be considered the only Teacher of God the Father and His ways. Messiah himself says that there is “one Shepherd” (the clergymen translate the same exact Greek word “pastors” in Eph. 4:11 that is translated “shepherd” in John 10… one might want to seek the reason as to why), not two or more (John 10:16).

Now he’s repeating himself. Timmay… you already quoted Matthew 23:8-10 above… there was no need to do it again, we get the idea. Now about his question to the Greek word for shepherd and pastor. Poimēn has more than one definition, you can find it in any concordance, (here (”http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=4166”) for example), so I won’t post them here. What decides which definition to use? Context. In John, Jesus is talking about sheep, so it makes sense to translate the word as shepherd. In Ephesians, Paul is not talking about sheep, but lists the word along side other forms of leadership, so it makes sense to translate the word as pastor. Come on, Timmay, it’s not that hard.

In opposition to God, Satan has set up christian religion’s clergy* whose purpose is to nullify the Son of God’s words and thus to help prevent people from knowing God and following His Son. The clergy’s role is to serve as a substitute for Jesus – this is the doing of the ruler of this world (John 16:11). In the same way the Father placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the mdist of the garden, to test Adam’s faithfulness and loyalty, so God allows the ruler of this world to set up christian religious organizations and their clergy in just about every city, town or village on the planet. Then each person who says they want to know God, will have a ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ in relative close vicinity to test their faith. Will they follow Jesus or will they follow their religious leaders? Sadly, the vast majority follow their religious leaders instead of Jesus (Matt. 7:13-14).

Will they follow Jesus or will they follow what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John said about Jesus? Sadly, the vast majority follow these four guys instead of Jesus (the Gospels). Check out why he put a “*” next to clergy.

*(“clergy” is defined as religious men who do not know God or have dim heart-knowledge of Him, but are interested in making people outwardly moral, running religious organizations they think make people moral, and making a ‘career’ in having people submit to them and their organization’s purposes, politics and programs)

REALLY!!?? Timmay, thank you SO MUCH for clarifying that for me, because even after reading everything you wrote above I had no idea that’s what you meant by “clergy”. You’re such a thoughtful and considerate man, Timmay, I love you.

This next part is so stupid I’m going to skip it. I’ll just note that there are few people I know of who are serious Christians that say crap like this.

“Proper interpretation of the Bible” is a matter of the intellect/mind, but in contrast, knowing God is a matter of the heart/spirit. This does NOT Mean that we don’t use reason when approaching Jesus’s words in the gospels. WE must use reason to find truth versus error.

Timmay… you should take yourself up on that advice.

Rather, It means that unless we are yielded to His Spirit, and humble of heart as a child, we will not be able to receive His words no matter how well we think we understand them in our mind. If we are not yielded and humble, then our sinful nature will twist God’s words to avoid them and to justify our sin. Also, we will not be doing what God says, but rather we will be paying lip service and admiring His words while our lives are out of compliance with His ways.

The first step on the road to recovery is honesty, Timmay. Repeat after me, “I believe in the accounts of men.”

The first four example bullets above are responses from religious relativists. That is to say, that they do no actually believe that Jesus’ Words put forth absolute truths that have a relevant bearing in every generation.

Did you ever bother to talk to someone not a religious relativist? Oh right, if they aren’t that, then they agree with you, right? How silly of me.

Most people in christianity have a mixed belief in this regard. They say in their statements of faith documents that they believe “the bible” contains absolute truth, but what they are actually saying is that the bible contains absolute truth regarding those things which will not force them to change –

He doesn’t give any examples so I have no choice to burn a strawman. So a belief in the authority of God means that a person hasn’t humbled themselves, that is, admitting they are sinners before a just God? How stupid is that?

for the things that would force them to change, well that is all culturally relative. Usually over ninety percent of their absolute truths in their statements of faith have nothing to do with Jesus’ Words, nor a practical living out of following Jesus.

What he fails to realize is that equally important to “Jesus’ teachings” (as he implies it) are things “about God/Jesus” (as he implies it). Why? Because then we end up with all kinds of silly beliefs that cause us to not worship God as He has prescribed for us. Like, adoptionism? Jesus clearly state He and the Father are one, ergo, Jesus is God. Also frustrating is that he cites no examples. Perfect ploy for duping people not bright enough to check out the facts for themselves. And by that I mean not just looking at statements of faith, but considering their importance.

Rather, their absolute truths have to do with head-theology about God. But God never says he will receive us due to knowledge in our head – knowledge about Him – rather He says He will receive us if we receive the Words of his son and DO them.

True, God won’t receive us for that, but how are we supposed to know how to act unless we *gasp* have “head-knowledge”? Tard.

Examples of absolute truths that churchianity claim are things like the trinity doctrine, the doctrine of the inspiration of the scripture, Messiah’s alleged atoning work for our sins, that Messiah

Wait, WHAT?

Messiah’s alleged atoning work for our sins

:twitch: Wow… that takes the cake. Timmay is a Pelagianist. Contrast this to what his “disciple of Jesus” had to say from his conversations page.

Sally
OK, first, do you know that you are a sinner who is guilty before God.
JD
Well, yes I was once, but don't you remember my telling you how I met Jesus and what he has done for me?

Not only is he a Pelagianist… he’s not a consistent one. If it wasn’t perfectly clear before, it should be now: Tim Spiess is mentally unstable.

Please note that these beliefs have NOTHING to do with how we live out the faith we claim to have. Rather, they are things we are told that we must believe in our minds in order to be right with God.

You have it half right, Timmay. How the heck are we supposed to be right with God when we think, “No God, I’m not a sinner, Jesus didn’t do anything about that.” Wow…

but they are almost always of the religious ritual veriety and not specifically addressed by Jesus e.g. head-coverings, dress codes, hair-habits, how to perform what they call the Lord’s supper, etc.

You tard, Jesus actually did tell us to (and how) ‘perform’ the Lord’s supper. How could you possibly miss it? It was in three of the four gospels. Ugh!

[OldManZangetsu]

The Bible: The Old Covenant

“Walter’s Shocking Past”, or, “What difference does that make?”

The last problem we will take a brief look at is the confusion between the old and new covenants. Let’s start with an illustration. If I have a business contract with someone, and one day I am given a new contract for governing my business relationship, I am going to go by the new contract, not the old. In fact, you will throw out the old. This is a simple and non-comprehensive example, but it goes to the heart of the matter. The OLD covenant was explicitly made with the people of Israel before YHWH sent His Son Messiah Yashua/Jesus.

Sort of a good example. As JP notes here (”http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html”), we can still find universal morals in the old law that are binding today. Oops, I’m listening to a ‘leader’, my bad, forget that I mentioned JP.

His Son did come, and he said that he was making a NEW covenant with all who would trust in him as their Lord and Master. The Way, Truth and Life are found in the Son for those who trust in him and love him above all else. He is truly their covenant with the Father.

Say… you don’t think this all has any type of ‘legal’ application, do you? As in, we stand before God guilty? So… if we then become innocent, some kind of atoning takes place, right?

Skipping some stupidness we find this (which is also stupidness):

Perhaps the most glaring example in regard to the confusing the covenants is the practice of “tithing”. Tithing is not taught by Jesus nor repeated in the new covenant as a necessary practice of God’s people.

So in other words what Timmay just said is, “It’s not taught by Jesus nor repeated by Jesus.” This is of course looking at things the way Timmay does.

Instead, Jesus gives a new standard in Luke 21:2-4. In that passage, Jesus commends an older widow who places all the money she has into the offering box. This is in contrast to the wealthy people who place their tithe and double tithe into the box. They are rebuked because they are giving out of their abundance and NOT sacrificially, while the widow was giving all she had and trusting in God to provide for her. This is totally consistent with Jesus’ commands in Matt. 6, Luke 12:33 and Luke 14:33. The new standard of giving is our entire lives, not just some of the wealth God gives us.

Aside from that this makes no sense whatsoever (in light of the last sentence), this… I just… am lacking the words to describe it. No, there can’t be words for it. He makes a valid point with the Luke passage, but then he demolishes it with the next cites. He says “Matt. 6”. If he had said, Matthew 6:25-34 he might have been safe. But no, he included all of Matthew 6. Look at Matthew 6:2-4. For you to give to the needy implies what? That you are not needy. God clearly does not condemn having riches, but He does condemn what you do with them.

And then the Luke passages… so Timmay… why have you not sold your computer yet? Oh I know, the people of the world have to know about this wonderful gospel that you have discovered, right? So much for that, huh? (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.jesusfamilies.org”)

Now I ask the reader which is easier, to give a small percentage of our wealth, or our entire lives?

Now I ask Timmay, which is easier, to live consistently with your own convoluted teachings, or to hide behind a computer screen?

The answer lies in whether we are truly willing to follow Jesus or not.

I guess that counts Timmay out.

Now, since most people chose not to follow Jesus – and the clergymen

I should remind the readers that clergymen is defined as: religious men who do not know God or have dim heart-knowledge of Him, but are interested in making people outwardly moral, running religious organizations they think make people moral, and making a ‘career’ in having people submit to them and their organization’s purposes, politics and programs.

You know… just incase you forgot.

benefit from having the people follow them in their religious system – then running to “God’s Word” in Malachi to justify tithing works quite well. It makes no difference to the clergymen

Oh by the way, clergymen is defined as: … ha, just kidding.

nor their followers that neither Jesus nor his sent ones (‘apostles’) validate the tithing command in the NEW covenant. The clergymen have their vocational income, and the people are deceived into thinking that they are somehow serving God by giving their money to their religious system.

That’s right… because money is not required to keep anything running, especially your little gathering at you house, right Timmay? No mortgage payments for you, huh?

If someone asks why they need to keep the tithing command from Malachi or other places in the OLD covenant and not all the other outward/ceremonial type commands in the OLD covenant, then one will experience the deceitful words of the christian or messianic clergymen.

Ah, now a messianic clergymen is defined as: … :tongue:

Conclusions

“Dude, seriously… you made a mistake”, or, “It really is just a number after all”

At the start, Timmay once again quotes passages he quoted already, in the exact same form, too. I just noticed, though, that he throws in “Jesus says” along with the rest of his John quote. Shame, shame, Timmay, how sloppy.

We always will have choices before us if we chose to follow Jesus.

To be stupid, or not to be stupid? That is the question.

Blah blah blah, more stupid stuff.

The choice is yours as well as mine

I’m commenting here just to round out my reference to the movie The Number 23. The moral of the story is that Walter finally realizes that his mistake does not define his further actions.

One thing that I definitely learned from all this, though: When you notice that a person repeatedly… constantly changes how he refers to a person (i.e. Timmay to Jesus)… do yourself a favor and stop reading at that moment. That’s all from me.

Sorry about the triple posts, I maxed out the character limit.

[NathanielS]

An examination on "Do you love Jesus of Nazareth?" (http://jesusfamilies.org/Articles/LoveJesus.htm)


How Do You Know If You Love Someone?

Answer: By wanting to please them.

Question: How do you know how to please them?

Answer: By listening to them and finding out what they want.

Question: How do you prove your love for them?

Answer: By doing what they want.

This appears very faulty right here. For example, most parents love their children, yet to parents do what they're children want? If your child asks you to let him eat a lot of candy (we can assume the child wants to do this), do you let him? Although this has nothing to do with loving Jesus and what Jesus wants, it does point to poor use analogy (which, for someone who says listen to only the PLAIN WORD of Jesus, he uses quite a bit).


What about Jesus the Messiah?

Question 1: How do you know if you love Jesus?

Answer 1: By wanting to please Him.

Question 2: How do you know how to please Him?

Answer 2: By reading HIS Words in the gospels and listening to his Father's voice in prayer to find out what He wants.

Question 3: How do you prove your love for Jesus?

Answer 3: By doing what He says.

"...istening to his Father's voice in prayer to find out what He wants"

I thought we were only supposed to listen to Jesus. Is he actually acknowledging that Jesus and His Father are One (two-thirds of the Trinity right there) or is Mr. Spiess just contradicting himself again?

Do you love Jesus? Jesus says, "If you love Me, you will obey what I command" John 14:15

And what did Jesus say his command was: "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." (John 13:34)

Now, if this person (http://cubelodyte.com/2005/12/page/2/) is even partially correct, wouldn't that make Mr. Spiess a hippocrit? Now, since he says we should not follow the clergy because they are hippcritical, doesn't the same hold true for Mr. Spiess?

You communicate with the one's you love, right? Well, if you love Jesus, then you will communicate with him by reading HIS Words in the gospels (His communicating to you) and by talking with him through prayer (your communicating to him).

I thought we were supposed to 'forsake' and 'hate' our loved ones in Mr. Spiess's interpretation? Also, didn't he just say we're to listen to the Father's voice in prayer? Besides, if we ONLY need to hear the words of Jesus as recorded in the four gospels, why do we need to hear from anything/anyone else (the Father, etc.)?

Do you love Jesus? If you don't know his Words in the gospels, then you have no interest in pleasing him. And if you have no interest in pleasing him, they you cannot please his Father, God the Most High. If you have no interest in pleasing him, then you don't love him and you don't love God. Don't deceive yourself...

He seems to seperate Jesus and God, as though Jesus is not God (note how he sometimes does not capitalze the third-person pronoun in reference to Jesus, although he capitalizes words). Again, there is the strong implication it is Tim Spiess that decides how to love, and who loves,. Jesus.

As an example of true love and communication, if your husband or wife or children have to go overseas for business or some service, will you stop loving them? Of course not! Will you want to communicate with them? Absolutely yes! How will you do that? Probably through a letter, right? If your loved one writes to you, will you read the letter? Of course you will, right?

I thought we were supposed to forsake/hate all our earthly familial relationships. Certainly, if they are going overseas to do business (where does Jesus command this?), then shouldn't we forsake them immediately because they cannot possibly be following Jesus' words.

Well, Jesus, God's Son had some men write a love letter to you, called the gospels. If you miss him and love him and want to see him, then you'll read his letter to you right? Of course. Are you regularly reading his love letter to you - the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? As you read his Words, do you long to do what He says? If you are not reading his Words, or are explaining them away, then you don't love Him. Don't deceive yourself…

When does Jesus ever call His words a 'love letter' nor do the Gospels ever call themselves a 'love letter'.

God's Son had some men write a love letter to you...

How do we know that Gospels are truly that 'love letter'? Is it because the four writers claimed this? If that is all it takes to determine accuracy, then why does he reject Paul's 'letters' (which were truly letters BTW)? After all, Paul stresses that he is writing to others about Jesus and how we should respond to Him.

If you are not reading his Words, or are explaining them away, then you don't love Him.

What I find implicit in here is that if you are explaining away Tim Spiess's reading of Jesus's words, then you don't love Him. By the way, in reading Spiess's material, I have trouble with this issue: does he think Jesus is God or not? Sometimes he points to Jesus as being God, at other times he seperates Jesus and God the Father. Which one is it according to Spiess?

[OldManZangetsu]

Like I said: mentally unstable. I've always been told by people that seminary can mess you up. I'm beginning to believe them more and more.

[NathanielS]

Like I said: mentally unstable. I've always been told by people that seminary can mess you up. I'm beginning to believe them more and more.

Perhaps, in that case, you and Mr. Spiess agree.

[OldManZangetsu]

I wonder what Timmay has to say about the "If your [body part] causes you to sin, [get rid of it]" passage? Timmay, I seriously doubt that you are a perfect follower of Jesus. Are you blind yet? And why are you still able to type on the computer. Or if someone else is doing it for you, why are you still able to communicate with them? Hmmm? Sheesh, for that matter, why are you still alive? Why haven't you gotten rid of your brain yet, or your heart?

But wait... don't tell me you actually interpret that passage properly! I must say... I'm quite shocked.

[OldManZangetsu]

This guy never ceases to amaze me...

http://www.jesusfamilies.org/hot_topics/godslove.htm

After all these quotes from the Gospels we finally reach some meat, here is what Timmay has to offer on the role of teachers. First take not of the bold regular, then the bold red.


In times past, I would offer a relatively comprehensive discussion on the Greek involved with the word or words I was evaluating. I have seen that this is foolish as it does two bad things. First, it serves to make the Greek 'experts' my teachers instead of the One Teacher, Messiah and the Father's Spirit (Matt. 23:8; John 14:26). Second, it seeks to set me up as a teacher as I claim to have some unique or special (or at least some intellectual understanding) insight into the original language that the reader might not, and thus the reader would tend to rely on me to understand something Jesus said. And so I will only note the following regarding the word translated "love". The English word "love" is translated for two different Greek words, agape (agapao is the verb) and phileo. Agapao is stronger than phileo and mere emotion, and is more based in one's will and is manifest in doing what is right. Phileo is weaker than agapao, is primarily emotion-based, and is often manifest through physical and relational affection. The reader is free to consult a Greek lexicon or dictionary to verify this.

Isn't the reader already relying primarily on you to know what Jesus said? You're telling him all about it (love) in the article, stupid! You should be ashamed of yourself.


As is usually the case, the definitions are somewhat inadequate, and the full and clearest meaning of the word will be found in how it is used IN CONTEXT of the Words utterances.

Let us do that now using the Eternal Standard of the Word Jesus of Nazareth (NOT the bible!):

Timmay... when you do this... what does that make you? A TEACHER.. What? You don't call yourself that? My only response then would be, "That which is a nose called by any other name can still smell." :tongue:

No seriously, the purpose of my pastor's preaching is so that I will understand, but there is an underlying assumption that I will also go to the source and read it to both understand it and check him (my pastor) for errors. Because how will I know he is wrong or right unless I check for myself, right? That is what you are also assuming in your readership. If they are able to comprehend your message, aside from the Greek, why bother explaining it? You do the same thing. You dirty little rabbi! When you convert someone you make him twice the son of hell!

An interesting note: notice the closeness in time that this essay was written in regards to the outside testimony we have of Mr. Spiess.

http://www.jesusfamilies.org/HOtTopicsTOC.htm
http://cubelodyte.com/2005/12/page/2/

Very interesting.

Edit:Make the color distinction easier to see.

[NathanielS]

Although I am growing to see the numerous errors in Mr. Spiess's 'doctrine', I would ask that we refrain from outright hostility and verbal bashing of him as an individual. His fruits appear to lacking in, from my personal responses and others, love and goodness, but we cannot judge his heart. Perhaps he truly is trying to follow Jesus and he has gotten drastically confused along the way.

I admit that I have said (even on this site) and thought things that are highly negative and, perhaps, hateful of Mr. Spiess (especially in my thoughts) and I admit that is wrong. I think we must, in trying to promote a proper doctrine, be careful that we do not fall into hatred, unrighteous judgments (especially judging a person's heart and soul) and hippocracy.

It greatly angered me the problems his doctrine caused me (fear, stress, etc.), but I know I personally need to avoid letting exhortation turn into revenge and abuse. I hope everyone else agrees.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I don't think Seminary necessarily messes people up. I think it's people that are already messed up that have a problem.

[OldManZangetsu]

Although I am growing to see the numerous errors in Mr. Spiess's 'doctrine', I would ask that we refrain from outright hostility and verbal bashing of him as an individual. His fruits appear to lacking in, from my personal responses and others, love and goodness, but we cannot judge his heart. Perhaps he truly is trying to follow Jesus and he has gotten drastically confused along the way.

I admit that I have said (even on this site) and thought things that are highly negative and, perhaps, hateful of Mr. Spiess (especially in my thoughts) and I admit that is wrong. I think we must, in trying to promote a proper doctrine, be careful that we do not fall into hatred, unrighteous judgments (especially judging a person's heart and soul) and hippocracy.

It greatly angered me the problems his doctrine caused me (fear, stress, etc.), but I know I personally need to avoid letting exhortation turn into revenge and abuse. I hope everyone else agrees.

That is a good concern, however, no feeling was involved in my writing, except for a fervent passion to defend the truth. Just in case you were wondering. I don't know if you are familiar with this or not, but in case you are not, JP has written an article that addresses (in a way) the issue at hand here, and I'll post the link for brevity.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html

This isn't, of course, to be used as an excuse or a smoke screen to hide the concern that you brought up, which is up to the individual to decide. I did have a problem with this in the past, but I can say, rightly, that this time I had no hate for him as an individual nor a wish to see him fall in flames, just his teachings. I'll admit it's hard to see through it, but ad hominems are valid in an argument when they are substantiated. Perhaps now all that is left is for me to refine my usage of them to a more tactful manner?

Edit: Oh, and for my alluding to the passage about "twice the son of hell". Looking back at it it does appear to be hostility, but that was more... I'm lacking the word... but perhaps an illustration will do. Jesus, at one point, confronts the Sadducess. The Sadducees only believed in the Torah, that is, the first five books of the OT. So when Jesus answered back to them guess what he did? He quoted from their source of truth, the Torah. That's kind of what I was doing, and I even quoted from the very same passage that he cites against teachers.

[NathanielS]

I'm sorry if it looked like I was specifically commenting on any specific statement. I was just saying that, in general, it looked like (and I admit I am, at the least, partially responsible for this) the insults, sarcasm and general negativity was increasing. Again, it was probably my fault (since it was I who wanted to really 'take him on' and started, both her and on IM, making hostile comments and thinking hateful and negative thoughts), but I guess I just want to keep the tone (especially my own) in line, especially if we want him to respond.

After all, if it became a bait-and-smash fest, Spiess could argue that we are no longer interested in discussing with him, but instead we just want to bash him and enjoy ourselves at his expense.

[OldManZangetsu]

I'm sorry if it looked like I was specifically commenting on any specific statement. I was just saying that, in general, it looked like (and I admit I am, at the least, partially responsible for this) the insults, sarcasm and general negativity was increasing. Again, it was probably my fault (since it was I who wanted to really 'take him on' and started, both her and on IM, making hostile comments and thinking hateful and negative thoughts), but I guess I just want to keep the tone (especially my own) in line, especially if we want him to respond.

After all, if it became a bait-and-smash fest, Spiess could argue that we are no longer interested in discussing with him, but instead we just want to bash him and enjoy ourselves at his expense.

True. But they were increasing because our knowledge of just how inconsistent (especially in light of being unwilling to admit it) he is. I mean come on, these things are flaming obvious. Any honest, humble man would throw in the towel. Though, conclusively we'll see once he responds to my second e-mail.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

For any who are interested, I did write up my blog tonight on Tim Spiess and his view of the Trinity. http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2007/07/28/tim-spiess-anti-trinitarianism/

[Dee Dee Warren]

that guy is a genuine cult leader in the making

[OldManZangetsu]

For any who are interested, I did write up my blog tonight on Tim Spiess and his view of the Trinity. http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2007/07/28/tim-spiess-anti-trinitarianism/

:thumb:

[OldManZangetsu]

that guy is a genuine cult leader in the making

Too bad his website's not doing too well :shrug:

[DesertBerean]

that guy is a genuine cult leader in the making I have read the "What Do We Believe" article. I don't think he can be a cult leader because he won't be leading much of a group at all. When the believers are not required to all goose step to some rigid set of rules they don't stick together with the leader. He IS rigid (and mistaken) on the "Jesus's Words" principle but that's it. The inconsistency of his statements is enough to prevent cultic behavior I would think.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Actually I disagree - he does have some very rigid rules, and this may seem really subjective, but whenever you see "family" capitalized in that creepy was that he does so regularly, it smacks of compounds and brainwashing.

[DesertBerean]

For any who are interested, I did write up my blog tonight on Tim Spiess and his view of the Trinity. http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2007/07/28/tim-spiess-anti-trinitarianism/ Maybe it's my browser settings...your quotes from his site are outsized and the lines run together ... ?

[Crow]

We need a new beatitude for that guy.

Something like "Blessed are those who expound upon scripture but who are woefully and willfully ignorant of that of which they speak, for they shall be blissfully unaware of how idiotic they sound."

[DesertBerean]

Hrmmm....the more I read, the more I was reminded of some stuff I had seen years ago. Still researching but I've come across some similiarites to the "Jesus Christians" which owe a lot of their teachings to the "Family/Children of God" group.

[DesertBerean]

Too bad his website's not doing too well :shrug: Following an example I found in an article discussing if Christions should be rich, I typed "Rich Christians" in Google, and the first link coming up was this one (http://john14-6.org/Wealth.htm) that took me back to the jesusfamilies.org. Obviously since Google ranks results by how many times they were accessed, :shrug: who knows?

[NathanielS]

I think Jesus Christians has a link to his site. I tried backtracking www.jesusfamilies.org (looked up the address itself on google and metacrawler) and it shows that the JCians link to his site.

[OldManZangetsu]

:shrug: no more postulating from me :tongue:

Though, more on his Pelagianism

http://www.jesusfamilies.org/pamphlets/RealJesusStand.htm


Then the others stood up, one by one, saying
-------------------
....
....
“jesus was the son of God and he came to forgive us our sins”
...
...
...
“jesus was the lamb of God who came to pay for our sins by spilling his blood for us”
...
...
“jesus was God who came to be the sacrifice that God required in order to forgive us”
...
...
--------------
The Real Jesus sat patiently listening. As each person stood up and said who they thought he was and why they thought he came, the Real Jesus would eagerly await the right answer.
...
the right answer?
...
“you search the scriptures and cherish your bible, and yet their purpose is to point you to me so that you will come to me to have Life, and yet you refuse to come to me”


What a confused individual. Again, contrast that to his conversation with Sally :lolo:

[Cubelodyte]

Too bad his website's not doing too well :shrug:

..Though I must say this thread has significantly increased the daily hitcount for my site. :wink:

Good luck arguing with this fellow, guys. He's a real treat to deal with in a purely earthbound context; that was more than enough for me. It was difficult enough to convince him he was wrong or mistaken even when hard data was available to refute his claims.

I'm certainly no theologian, amateur or otherwise, and have little knowledge of Scripture, but I'd have to say that though he may well humble himself before God, he holds himself high above other men, even if it isn't consciously.

[DesertBerean]

..Though I must say this thread has significantly increased the daily hitcount for my site. :wink:

Good luck arguing with this fellow, guys. He's a real treat to deal with in a purely earthbound context; that was more than enough for me. It was difficult enough to convince him he was wrong or mistaken even when hard data was available to refute his claims.

I'm certainly no theologian, amateur or otherwise, and have little knowledge of Scripture, but I'd have to say that though he may well humble himself before God, he holds himself high above other men, even if it isn't consciously. Welcome to TWeb. :hi:

I was sorry to read how he was so troublesome with tech support. I'm not a techie, but I've had my share of trying to help people who think they know 'puters even though they've been asking for my help. :hehe:

Again, welcome!

[OldManZangetsu]

he may well humble himself before God

Definitely not if he thinks he paid the price for his sins all on his own.


he holds himself high above other men, even if it isn't consciously.

Although he's shown himself to be a nut, I still find this hard to grasp. I mean, considering how much he's bashed churches and their leadership for acting snidely, I just can't understand why he would do the same. But I dunno... it has been two years, maybe he finally caught on.

Welcome to TWeb :hi:

[jpholding]

Ugh....lots goin' on here, more than I thought. Nathaniel, anything you want me to chomp on next, specifically, that no one else has hit on?

[NathanielS]

Get Free From Churchianity

Keep seeking the Lord and you will see,
You cannot stay in churchianity
“Love one another, as I have loved you”,
This cannot happen in a pew

It’s everyday through thick and thin,
Only then will the world see we belong to Him

Come out of religion, and then you will see,
The web that ensnared you - I know it ensnared me
As I sought to know Jesus in a deeper way,
He showed me in religion I could not stay

Meetings on Sundays and Wednesday nights too,
Board meeting Thursday, God where are You?

In religion you learn how to be a good christian,
What traditions to follow, and who has the best doctrine
Predestination, atonement, and propitiation
Oh Lord Jesus, thank you for delivering me from that situation!

You who can hear, don’t tarry any longer
For the snare in which you are tangled, only gets stronger
Run to the one who will set you free,
Forsake all the foolishness of churchianity

Could someone please respond to the 'doctrine' supported by this poem: namely that Christians get away from churches. Also, what is someone's response to, as the poet says, "As I sought to know Jesus in a deeper way, He showed me in religion I could not stay"? They are claiming that Jesus revealed this to them. By doing that, it takes their claim outside the realm of provable/falsifiable. Do we chalk it up to the person is crazy or that demons are influencing them (the Bible warns of false prophets and even "false Jesus"es)? On the other hand, I don't want to be potentially blaspheming Jesus or the Holy Spirit by ascribing Their actions to the demonic.

You can see more of these claims of being led by Jesus in the two testimonies on the site:
http://jesusfamilies.org/preflections/tims_testimony.htm
http://jesusfamilies.org/preflections/pattys_testimony.htm

Lastly, I noticed, when looking through google for information about Mr. Spiess, I found the following about a home they are trying to sell: http://www.forsalebyowner.com/listing/4A1EF

Am I the only who sees something strange about this whole thing?

[DesertBerean]

Interesting. There is a big difference between "churchianity" (playing church) and "Christianity" (being like Christ). He's mixing it all up in there.

There is no more revelation in the strictest sense, but there continues to be illumination in each true believer's life. In other words there will be a better understanding of him. "He showed me in religion I could not stay" by itself could mean that in reading the Gospel one understands there is no salvation in religion, but that, I'm afraid, is not what this writer means.

Is he crazy? Nah. I think he's very angry.

[NathanielS]

How do you respond when someone makes that kind of claim though? After all, they can point to Bible verses to back them up.

Also, in terms of 'illumination' versus 'revelation', how does one deal with the issue of 'callings' then? For instance, someone believes the Lord is calling them into ministry, teaching or even a secular career.


I think he's very angry.

He seems to alternate between anger and joy/gladness, as though he has found the truth? Why do you think he's so angry (I know we cannot judge a person's heart)? I mean, at some points, it does seem like he saw hippocracy in the churches he was in. Of course, we have only heard his and his wife's (admittedly biased) account of things.

[NathanielS]

EDIT: How do I delete this post? I mean to edit the last one, not make a new one.

[DesertBerean]

How do you respond when someone makes that kind of claim though? After all, they can point to Bible verses to back them up. Well...invite them to TWeb....:wink: .... but I see your point. You can't force them to listen to why they might be wrong. You just hope and pray your words gets through.


Also, in terms of 'illumination' versus 'revelation', how does one deal with the issue of 'callings' then? For instance, someone believes the Lord is calling them into ministry, teaching or even a secular career.
Can you explain? I'm not sure exactly what "callings" you mean.

[DesertBerean]

If by "callings" you mean the belief that the Christian has a purpose within the body of Christ, then I happen agree with that concept. I believe that God has each of us here for a purpose. But I don't think that's the kind of calling that this website is asking for...its idea of "calling" is rejection of everything even your own family which is clearly unbiblical. Not to mention inconsistent because Tim himself is married.

[Rayado]

That is a hideous poem.

[DesertBerean]

:lol:

[NathanielS]

Both OZM and myself have, at different times, attempted to e-mail Mr. Spiess to question and challenge his interpretations of the truth. What about e-mailing Mrs. Spiess, who I believe is the one who wrote that poem along with a couple other interesting ones:

The B - I - B - L - E
It’s just a book you see,
For Jesus is the Word of God
His words are enough for me.

The B - I - B - L - E
It has God's truth indeed
I stand alone on the Living Word
His Words (in red) will set you free!


THE JOURNEY

The Journey began when I trusted in the Son
The quest to know and please Him had earnestly begun

How I wanted to please my Savior and my newfound King
Looking to the bible for answers I thought it would bring

Looking to the men Paul, Peter, James and John
When all I truly needed was the Words of the Son

The passion to know Him got dulled along the way
Because I foolishly believed what others would say

I tried to obey the others you see
“The fruit of the spirit” I was taught to believe
Confused and discouraged, for I was not able to live
“The spirit filled" life that I thought would please

The Father is full of mercy, and so patient with me
He was always trying to get me to see
That His words through Jesus were enough for me

So patiently he waited, so loving and so kind
Then through another disciple He opened eyes that were blind

“Jesus is my son! Listen to Him!"
He is all that you need, what peace he will bring

Trust in Him and obey, for He is the life the truth and the way
He is the Word sent from above
To show us the Way, which has always been love

The journey is not over, it has once again begun
Oh how free I am, for I have life in the Son!
His words are sufficient for they come from above
From His father and mine, Oh what glorious love!

No more striving to have all the right doctrine you see
For Jesus is the Word and He has set me free

No more looking to a book, simply paper and ink
For when I placed my trust in it, my hope would only sink

This road is much less traveled than the one I was on before,
But there is Hope at the end, and who could ask for more?

It is often I get lonely, and give in to my fear,
Then I hear His gentle words to my heart, “my daughter I am here”
“Keep walking my little child, for one day you will be
Home at last, forever, with Us eternally”

Might it be interesting to try and e-mail her? pattys@jesusfamilies.org

----------------------

Also, would someone mind explaining this article on Conditional/Unconditional Security: http://jesusfamilies.org/Articles/ForfeitSalvation.htm

It is interesting to note that the author (whether Tim or someone else) is quoting from throughout OT and NT (including Paul's epistles) and treating them as accurate/truthful. Whether Mr. Spiess wrote this article or not, since the article is on his site and he never questions it, we can assume he agrees with the article, even though it quotes from the epistles and from parts of the OT that Jesus Himself never quoted. Furthermore, the article quotes from other human authors.

[OldManZangetsu]

Lastly, I noticed, when looking through google for information about Mr. Spiess, I found the following about a home they are trying to sell: http://www.forsalebyowner.com/listing/4A1EF

It's a possibility that he might be downsizing :shrug:... or maybe even de-sizing :wink:

Also, it was an ad from Google, but I thought this was hilarious. Look under "Contact Information", there's an ad for "Free Rich Dad Seminars".


Might it be interesting to try and e-mail her? pattys@jesusfamilies.org

Might want to wait a while, I think; she'll have undoubtedly heard about you and I from her husband, so anyone else e-mailing her might automatically lock her brain up the second she reads stuff like, "I think this is wrong, blah blah blah". Though... that might always be the case, too, considering who she's married to.

[NathanielS]

I understand. I was just wondering. BTW- have you heard back from Mr. Spiess yet?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Wait. They're trying to sell a home? Why don't they follow the words of Jesus and "give freely to any who asks of you?"

Think I should email him and ask him for his house?

[OldManZangetsu]

I understand. I was just wondering. BTW- have you heard back from Mr. Spiess yet?

Within 5 seconds of me receiving it it will be posted here for all to see :wink:

[OldManZangetsu]

Wait. They're trying to sell a home? Why don't they follow the words of Jesus and "give freely to any who asks of you?"

Think I should email him and ask him for his house?

Actually... if you asked it in a very straightforward and serious manner, I'm really curious as to what he would say... not to crack jokes at all, just really curious.

[NathanielS]

Wait. They're trying to sell a home? Why don't they follow the words of Jesus and "give freely to any who asks of you?"

Think I should email him and ask him for his house?

In fairness, I think it might be okay to sell property, as long as we give all the money to those in need (Acts 4:34-37). But according to his own testimony (http://jesusfamilies.org/preflections/tims_testimony.htm), Tim "trying to sell [his and his wife's] house and move out of the New York metro area, for the Lord has placed on [their] hearts to leave. [They] have purchased a used motor home in which to live as [they] seek out where God would have [them] serve Him best."

WHERE DID JESUS SAY TO BUY A MOTOR HOME? After all, as Jesus said to the middle-class scribe who wanted to follow Him, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head" (Matthew 8:20). It should be noted that Mr. Spiess uses this verse to 'judge' those who have accumulated material wealth.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

In fairness, I think it might be okay to sell property, as long as we give all the money to those in need (Acts 4:34-37). But according to his own testimony (http://jesusfamilies.org/preflections/tims_testimony.htm), Tim "trying to sell [his and his wife's] house and move out of the New York metro area, for the Lord has placed on [their] hearts to leave. [They] have purchased a used motor home in which to live as [they] seek out where God would have [them] serve Him best."

WHERE DID JESUS SAY TO BUY A MOTOR HOME? After all, as Jesus said to the middle-class scribe who wanted to follow Him, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head" (Matthew 8:20). It should be noted that Mr. Spiess uses this verse to 'judge' those who have accumulated material wealth.

Actually, Acts 5 says you can keep all from what you sell. Once someone sold property, the money was theirs to do with as they wished and there was no wrong in it. What was the wrong done then? Bringing forward a part and saying that that was the full total.

[NathanielS]

Actually, Acts 5says you can keep all from what you sell. Once someone sold property, the money was theirs to do with as they wished and there was no wrong in it. What was the wrong done then? Bringing forward a part and saying that that was the full total.

Daggummit! What did we say about using them edumacated responses? I betcha Mr. Spiess sets the dividing line of accuracy right between Acts 4 and 5.

[jpholding]

http://www.jesuschristians.com

Seems Mr Spicy won't be here. So how about this site, all?

[OldManZangetsu]

http://www.jesuschristians.com

Seems Mr Spicy won't be here. So how about this site, all?

Just double checking, are you asking if we want to invite them here?

[jpholding]

Just double checking, are you asking if we want to invite them here?

Let's give them a few licks first. The "meat" section had some real howlers.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Bring them in. Stevie is getting rancid.

[NathanielS]

What are the problems with this site?

Please note, I had asked JPH to mention the JCs. Like Mr. Spiess's website, the JCs doctrine really bothered me.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Bring them in. Stevie is getting rancid.

Getting? :huh:

The (I don't get it) Curtmudgeon

[NathanielS]

One other thing, the JCs have a forum. Should we try and question/challenge them on their forum? They leave room for it under 'Controversies'? http://welikejesus.com/phpBB2/

[jpholding]

What are the problems with this site?.

The item I looked at

http://cust.idl.net.au/fold/teach/Strong%20Meat/Cut%20off%20your%20Hand!.html

Has a clear error in understanding faith as blind and irrational, versus what I report http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html

And they come very close to actually endorsing amputation. I'd guess they don't because the authorities would shut them down as a harmful cult.

Part of the problem with critiquing I see is that they seem very proficient at saying as little as possible in as many words as possible.

Any article off there you want mauled? :yummy:

[jpholding]

One other thing, the JCs have a forum. Should we try and question/challenge them on their forum? They leave room for it under 'Controversies'? http://welikejesus.com/phpBB2/

How fast do you want to be banned?

In the past its taken me all of a week. :hehe:

[NathanielS]

Here are a couple articles:

http://cust.idl.net.au/fold/teach/JesusMoney/The%20Forsake%20All%20Principle.html

http://cust.idl.net.au/fold/teach/JesusMoney/How%20to%20be%20Saved.html

http://cust.idl.net.au/fold/teach/Top40/The_Top_Forty.html

http://cust.idl.net.au/fold/teach/JesusMoney/The%20Tentmaking%20Myth.html

http://cust.idl.net.au/fold/teach/JesusMoney/God%20or%20Money.html

http://cust.idl.net.au/fold/teach/Churches/So%20who%20are%20they%20following.html

http://cust.idl.net.au/fold/teach/JesusMoney/Faith%20in%20Whom.html

http://cust.idl.net.au/fold/teach/JesusMoney/A%20Unique%20Teaching.html

((I'm sure I could find even more))


How fast do you want to be banned?

In the past its taken me all of a week.

You've tried it with this group before?

PM conversation with JC leader:

((MY PM))


To Whom It May Concern:

Myself and several others have, on the message boards called Theology Web (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/campus.php?), have questioned several of your group's key doctrines. I think it is a must that anytime a doctrinal debate occurs, the person who propounds that doctrine should have a chance to be involved, so that the discussion might be fair and all sides might gain from it, instead of it being a one-sided bashing.

Theology Web is a fairly popular (290 registered users online in the past 24 hours) and is made up of people from numerous different denominations. Jesus and His disciples were willing to defend and publicly discuss their faith, so I ask that you would be willing to do the same.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=99910&page=7

Thank you and I look forward to a spirited discussion (no pun intended) on TWeb.

((MR. MCKAY'S FIRST PM))


Thank you, nsper. I'll check it out.

((MR. MCKAY'S SECOND PM, FOLLOWING 16 MINUTES AFTER HIS FIRST PM))


I had a look and registered, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be anything there worth responding too. It's interesting that someone seems upset with Tim Spiess. He was in touch with us a few years ago. Not sure what he's up to at the moment.

My feeling just from what I have read so far on your site is that you guys confuse arguing religion with having faith. Unfortunately, such an approach rarely achieves much that is positive or loving. I hope I am wrong, and that there is someone there who is able to intelligently discuss issues. At any rate, they are free to come here and share.

[jpholding]

You've tried it with this group before?

Nah, I mean with other forums. :whistle:

I'll pick one or more of those next week to check out. I'm 10 minutes from closing business for the week, so to speak.

[OldManZangetsu]

How fast do you want to be banned?

In the past its taken me all of a week. :hehe:

You lasted a week! :twitch: They're smarter than I thought...

[OldManZangetsu]

((MR. MCKAY'S SECOND PM, FOLLOWING 16 MINUTES AFTER HIS FIRST PM))
My feeling just from what I have read so far on your site is that you guys confuse arguing religion with having faith. Unfortunately, such an approach rarely achieves much that is positive or loving.

Well at least we finally have someone willing to converse on some level!

What he misses is that we aren't confusing arguing religion with having faith. We're arguing religion to defend faith. Rather, the true faith. Faith must be placed in something, and that faith is only as valid as the object in which it is placed. So it is important that we understand, through theology, just what God we are worshipping. Or does he honestly believe that it doesn't matter what a person believes, just as long as they profess with their mouth a faith in Christ? Like, for example, I believe Jesus was a flamer (gay), but that's ok because I follow His teachings?

Jesus revealed to us certain things about Himself and about the Father. So it would logically follow that if we truly have faith in Him, we would believe these things. Ergo, certain truths are necessary to believe in order to have a real, living faith. Otherwise, as is with the trinity and the atonement, we have blasphemy and God does not in any form or fashion recognize us as righteous.

Spiess denies both the trinity and the atonement (though I will admit it is somewhat hard to tell whether or not he outright denies the atonement, but this is all the more likely since he does outright deny the trinity). Thus, he makes out Christ to be nothing more than another man, and given other scripture, Christ in this sense would not be the Christ at all, just some blaspheming Jewish heretic.

It is important to uphold the truth, even if we have to get "ugly" about it. If McKay doesn't feel it necessary to defend the truth, well, that speaks a lot about his character.

edit: though, I am not making that last statement as an accusation, just an "if/then", if being the key word.

[Dave McKay]

Hi, just letting you know that I'm reading what you are writing. I haven't taken the time to visit any other threads (since this is the one that Nathaniel specifically invited me to), and I haven't gone back through previous posts, because it sounded like the Jesus Christians just popped up in the conversation on the previous page.

As for getting banned on our forum; it's actually pretty hard to do. The main way people get banned is just when they "vandalise", meaning they start posting the same stuff all over the place. We even have a "flaming" section, where it's pretty much no holds barred.

But I think the kind of people who do most of the posting on our forum are not impressed with people who just come around to get their kicks out of insulting people. Our emphasis is on sincerity. How about it? Any of that here?

[NathanielS]

Thank you for your willingness to be involved in this discussion, or at least being willing to listen and read what others say on the subject.

[OldManZangetsu]

:hi: Welcome to TWeb! And yes, thanks for being willing to come and converse.


But I think the kind of people who do most of the posting on our forum are not impressed with people who just come around to get their kicks out of insulting people. Our emphasis is on sincerity. How about it? Any of that here?

Well, you'll have to distinguish between clever rhetoric and genuine trash talk, which can sometimes be hard to do, I admit. Generally we take the approach of "innocent until proven guilty". If we see a person is clearly being a dolt and they won't change their tune, we treat them accordingly. Typically what happens with simple people is we say "a spade is a spade" and that person objects that the spade is insulted by this categorization. :teeth:

[NathanielS]

Well, you'll have to distinguish between clever rhetoric and genuine trash talk, which can sometimes be hard to do, I admit. Generally we take the approach of "innocent until proven guilty". If we see a person is clearly being a dolt and they won't change their tune, we treat them accordingly. Typically what happens with simple people is we say "a spade is a spade" and that person objects that the spade is insulted by this categorization.

I agree with OZM, although I'd further add that we do need to be careful in how rhetorical we get. As I mentioned earlier, we certainly Jesus always willing to call people out when they are incorrect (whether in innocense or willfully), but, personally, I think we should avoid insults against people (after all, only God knows a person's heart) and stick to commenting on their statements.

I will confess however that I have fallen into anger (maybe even borderline hate) in arguments or after reading people's opinions and thinking negative/hateful thoughts and I have to often remind myself of this fact.

[OldManZangetsu]

http://cust.idl.net.au/fold/teach/JesusMoney/The%20Forsake%20All%20Principle.html

Nothing I can see entirely wrong offhand. But I would add that in most, I dare say all, circumstances we just don't know what God's specific will (though one could argue, does He even have a specific will, that is, what He wants you to do in every second of your life?) is and that He expects us to fill in the gaps ourselves. There is a great book that discusses that called The Silence of Adam. Also, it doesn't necessarily entail that we "give it up to God" meaning that we let Him do it. God told the Israelites, "I have given them into your hands," but they still had to go into the land and take it! Whoever wrote this article kind of hits on this, but for more clarity it should be noted that in this instance we just don't let worry consume our lives. This person is wrong, however, in assuming that "there is something we need to let go of" is always the case. Sometimes we just worry (though if you wanted to be cute, you could say, yeah! You need to let go of your worry!). Just move forward into the darkness that is the future knowing that even if you fall in a hole God will take you out, even if it is not in this life but at the resurrection.


Each time we let go and fall back on God's love, despite the circumstances that surround us, peace results.

I would argue that peace results. When I say let worry consume our lives, what I mean is that we lay down and take it, and not take any action. Of course, it's hard to not worry. I dare the writer of this article to convince himself of that when he's facing bankruptcy, forclosure, and starvation of his whole community! Of course you'll worry. But do something about it! Don't let this worry dictate what happens in your life, you are in control of it (well, God is, to be exact). So if your community of Jesus Christians have to part ways, assume that God has another plan for them. That, I believe, is the real message behind such passages as Matthew 6:25-34.


Most church people know that, for all their talk about victorious Christian living, no one is really living it; yet everyone secretly conspires not to confess this depressing truth.

Really? Most church people? Though I am inclined to agree, there really isn't any way of knowing.

And actually... now that I think about it. There is a difference between the forsake all passage and the don't worry passage. Forsake all entails that when push comes to shove, our loyalty is to God (i.e. Jewish families putting pressure on their relatives to deconvert from Christianity) whereas passages like Matthew 6:24-34 deal more in our basic needs (like food) and knowing that they will be provided for. So in that regard, I think this article fails. But that's just a minor quibble, really.

However, it was much more coherent than what Spiess had to say on the topic.

[OldManZangetsu]

http://cust.idl.net.au/fold/teach/JesusMoney/How%20to%20be%20Saved.html

Now, to be fair, I haven't delved too deeply into their material yet, but really:


We insist that faith in Jesus be proven by obedience to these commands

So far I see nothing of a heretical statement to blow a whistle about (also their comment regarding the resurrection and such at the bottom). Though I would argue as to whether or not Jesus wants us, today, to sell all we own. Forsake, here, I would take to mean more along the lines of not pursuing these things further for our own enjoyment or gain, but using these things in service to the Lord, at least for the most part, I mean, we have to eat and all.


But he, along with the churches, would pay dearly for a gospel to substitute the one preached by Jesus.

Now come on... as I mentioned before my pastor has a secular job outside his ministry. A lot of our money goes towards missionaries. Please don't use such a broad brush! Surely not every church is as rotten as the author thinks.

[OldManZangetsu]

JP, would you care to comment on the whole "communist" type thing, where everyone sells all their belongings (such as in Acts). I think you wrote an article on this, and how it isn't proper to carry this practice into today's world. I feel that is necessary here to address a few things.

[NathanielS]

Well, the major problem with this universal communal lifestyle is that it is not ever commanded by Jesus' original disciples (who were sent to preach the Kingdom and, especially Peter, was told to feed the flocks).

Acts 5:3-4 (NIV):

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

((Passages underlined for effect))

EDIT: Unlike Mr. Spiess, Mr. McKay has no problem, it appears, with quoting the human voices in Scripture as being authoritative; therefore, there should be no conflict with the passage.

[OldManZangetsu]

http://cust.idl.net.au/fold/teach/Top40/The_Top_Forty.html



1.Obey my commandments - Jn 14:15, 21, 23; II Jn 6

Well, not to sound rude at all, but: duh. This really wasn't necessary in my opinion.


2. Love God and others - Jn 15:12, Mt 22:37-40

Good. But what does agape mean? I haven't found an article yet on their site that expounds this. It seems rather silly to have this list here and not explain what these verses mean.


3. Go and preach to all the world - Mk 16:15, Mt 28:19

Sure. Though I hope this is an exaggeration his part, because he's most likely failing at this, largely. To be more precise, we're expected to "make disciples as we go".


4. Don't delay, do it now - Jn 4:35, 9:4, 12:35

No. Before I get into how these verses have been decontextualized, first I have to ask the question, what about someone who is a new believer? There is a time and place for witnessing, and it is not every second of the day, nor every season of a person's life in Christ. The first cite is specific to the event it talks about. The people in that crowd were ripe for the harvest, this is not necessarily always the case with anyone we meet today, nor is there ever a sure fire way to tell unless they are really curious about the Christ (Christianity, etc.). I really don't see how they pull this out of 9:4, especially. Jesus is talking about Himself, this isn't a universal statement. 12:35 is again specific to that time.

I believe it would be better to change this to "If you have a clear witnessing opportunity, don't pass it up." That doesn't need any scriptural backing, it should be common sense to the serious believer.


5. Take nothing for your journey - Lk 9:3, 10:4

About that. 9:3 is, again, specific, it is never made into a universal statement. See Luke 22:36-37. Same with 10;4.


6. Don't work for food - Jn 6:27, Mt 6:24-33, Lk 12:29

I'm not quite sure how to take this one. A person gets a food somehow. Tilling the ground is working, hunting could loosely be considering working for your food, etc. Unless God gives us food like He did to those in Exodus, we're working in some form to get food. So about 6:27, this doesn't mean a person should not work for food, the emphasis is that the people should pay attention to the miracles Christ is performing and believe in Him. Matthew is not talking about not working, he's saying don't worry, how could the author of this list miss that? The idea of not worrying was explicit in this passage. Same with the Luke passage.


7. Work for me & my kingdom - Mt 11:28-30, Lk 12:31

Good, but again, explanation? The Matthew passage is misused http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tribbel.html


8. Sell all that you own - Lk 11:41, 12:33, 18:22

Again, I'd like for JP to comment specifically on issues such as this.


9. Don't store things that you're not using - Mt 6:19

To be more precise, don't be a money or valuables hoarder.


10. Don't charge for what you do - Mt 10:8

This was the mission of the twelve. There is nothing in the passage cited that indicates this was to be made into a universal norm. I am tired of the false universalizations made by the author of this list. The Gospels are historical narratives, not docrtinal statements, we need to take great care not to make faulty doctrines from these narratives.


14. Give to anyone who asks - Lk 6:30, Mk 6:37

The Luke verse refer to being robbed. http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nekkid.html
The Mark verse doesn't say give to those who ask (in fact, where is the request for food here?), but rather it shows the disciples' doubt in Jesus.


19. Don't be called Father, Mister, etc. - Mt 23:9-10

See my comments to Spiess. Jesus uses the term father elsewhere in a regular sense.


21. Take up your cross and follow me - Mk 8:34

22. Live in me, and live in my love - Jn 15:4, 9

Once again, this would entail. . . ?


23. Eat whatever people give you - Lk 10:7

No! Once again, false universalization. This was a specific instruction to specific people! Would Jesus really eat something Hitler gave to Him?


25. Move to another city if persecuted - Mt 10:23

Common sense, I suppose, but again, specific instruction to specific people. This involved the "this generation" idea. I didn't comment on 24 because it is affirmed in the epistles.


Be agreeable with your adversaries - Lk 12:58, Mt 5:25

That's funny, considering Jesus' comments just a few verses prior in Luke.


30. Cut off your hand if it offends you - Mk 9:43

Understandable mistake, but still not forgivable. This is a hyperbole, it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Why was the bit about the eye not included?


32. Let the dead bury the dead - Mt 8:22

Meaning?


35. You must be born again- Jn 3:3, Lk 18:17, Mk 10:15

Meaning?


36. Don't make promises for any reason - Mt 5:34-37

It could be that the intended meaning is "just any reason", so I won't make a comment on this.

All-in-all... what's the point of this list if there is no elaboration? Any person that understands the purpose of a narrative and how to read it in context can see from many of the cites the author makes that the idea is eisegesised. So what about those passages that the meaning can't be derived from simply by reading it? And I am being a little smart here because some of these things can be damaging to both a person and their walk.

[OldManZangetsu]

Well, the major problem with this universal communal lifestyle is that it is not ever commanded by Jesus' original disciples (who were sent to preach the Kingdom and, especially Peter, was told to feed the flocks).

Acts 5:3-4 (NIV):

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

((Passages underlined for effect))

EDIT: Unlike Mr. Spiess, Mr. McKay has no problem, it appears, with quoting the human voices in Scripture as being authoritative; therefore, there should be no conflict with the passage.

I did miss that :teeth:

[jpholding]

JP, would you care to comment on the whole "communist" type thing, where everyone sells all their belongings (such as in Acts). I think you wrote an article on this, and how it isn't proper to carry this practice into today's world. I feel that is necessary here to address a few things.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/commie.html -- funny, I just reviewed it yesterday. :hehe:

[ApologiaPhoenix]

http://www.tektonics.org/af/commie.html -- funny, I just reviewed it yesterday. :hehe:

JPH. I'd also add that this was in Jerusalem and the people there knew what was coming. (As all good Preterists know.) They wouldn't have had much attachment to their property there.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hi, just letting you know that I'm reading what you are writing. I haven't taken the time to visit any other threads (since this is the one that Nathaniel specifically invited me to), and I haven't gone back through previous posts, because it sounded like the Jesus Christians just popped up in the conversation on the previous page.

As for getting banned on our forum; it's actually pretty hard to do. The main way people get banned is just when they "vandalise", meaning they start posting the same stuff all over the place. We even have a "flaming" section, where it's pretty much no holds barred.

But I think the kind of people who do most of the posting on our forum are not impressed with people who just come around to get their kicks out of insulting people. Our emphasis is on sincerity. How about it? Any of that here?

Oh yes. We're quite sincere about what we believe. Perchance with the communism thing under discussion, the first point we should discuss is Jesus and money.

[NathanielS]

This goes back to Mr. Spiess, the atonement of Jesus' death and resurrection (we still never quite figured out whether Spiess believes it or not) and Pelagianims. I read an interesting article that addresses the atonement and why it makes sense and the problems with the idea of mere "moral-influence" of Jesus' life and death. Of course, it is written by an educated human being, so I guess we can't believe it, right?

The Atonement (http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/fundamentals/42.html)
By Professor Franklin Johnson, D. D., LL. D., Author of "Old-Testament Quotations In The New Testament," Etc., Chicago, Ill.

Also, awhile back, I read an article on why Paul can be trusted:

Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of Paul (http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/fundamentals/36.html)
By Lord Lyttelton. Analyzed And Condensed By J. L. Campbell, D. D., Cambridge, Mass.

((Please note that both these commentaries were found on www.blueletterbible.org. Other textual, as well as audio/vidoe, commentaries can be found there. Check out the textual sermons of Charles Spurgeon.))

[DesertBerean]

Hi, just letting you know that I'm reading what you are writing. I haven't taken the time to visit any other threads (since this is the one that Nathaniel specifically invited me to), and I haven't gone back through previous posts, because it sounded like the Jesus Christians just popped up in the conversation on the previous page.

That would be me. I was trying to remember where I'd read the kind of doctrines Spiess was using, and I came across the Jesus Christians in my research.

[NathanielS]

I'm sorry, but this was just too much. I was using that Alexa web traffic website and their WaybackMachine to see how www.jesusfamilies.org looked in the past. Well, I clicked on the link to see what the page looked like in August 24, 2004 (http://web.archive.org/web/20040824085149/http://www.jesusfamilies.org/).

Anyway, I noticed a link to group called www.voiceofjesus.org. I clicked the link and my mouth gaped open. I'm sure if someone follows the link, they'll know why. I don't want to bias anyone here.

Here is an article in response to VOJ's 'front page claims':

Is the Virgin Birth to be Understood Literally? (http://blueletterbible.org/faq/nbi/1328.html)

[Dave McKay]

Thanks, guys, for the welcome. I expect that there will still be some problems in our various approaches. I get the idea that there is a lot of gnat-straining that goes on here that isn't really necessary. Take the "Top Forty" for example. That list came one night from a little discussion group where someone said, "Hey, how many of the commands of Jesus can people think of", and someone started writing them down as people suggested them. But it seems like they have been put under the microscope here and Old Man whatsie has taken issue with just about every one. THAT gives me the impression, Old Man, that you are just aching to start an argument, and that you'll start it over anything.

About the "call a spade a spade" thing, the problem I see arising is just the kind of know-it-all attitude about what is the precise theological position on everything that GOD is going to use when we get to the pearly gates. Like is he even going to ASK what our take is on the Trinity? Yet it sounds like you guys think that if a person doesn't have it exactly right theologically, boom! Out they go... straight to hell for eternity! I hope I'm wrong, and please forgive me if I'm being too reacitonary myself.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

About the "call a spade a spade" thing, the problem I see arising is just the kind of know-it-all attitude about what is the precise theological position on everything that GOD is going to use when we get to the pearly gates. Like is he even going to ASK what our take is on the Trinity? Yet it sounds like you guys think that if a person doesn't have it exactly right theologically, boom! Out they go... straight to hell for eternity! I hope I'm wrong, and please forgive me if I'm being too reacitonary myself.

I don't think it's necessary to get the Trinity 100% correct but it is good to exegete the text properly...and usually I find those who disagree with this doctrine are failing on this.

What is your take on the Trinity, Dave?

[NathanielS]

"Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!["]
(Matthew 23:24, NKJV)

One has to be careful that in straining the camel, we do not allow the gnats to all get through. After all, on major issues, Christians, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses might agree, but does that mean they are all correct?


Catch us the foxes,
The little foxes that spoil the vines,
For our vines have tender grapes.
(Song of Solomon 2:15, NKJV)

Also, it is very important to have proper knowledge of what we believe and why believe it.


My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.
Because you have rejected knowledge,
I also will reject you from being priest for Me;
Because you have forgotten the law of your God,
I also will forget your children.
(Hosea 4:6, NKJV)


But sanctify *the Lord God in your hearts, and always [be] ready to [give] a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;
(1 Peter 3:15, NKJV)

[fanaticool]

Hi,
My name is Casey. I am a friend of Dave and a JC also. Thanks for starting up some debate on the teachings of Jesus and inviting us to share on this forum. I know there will always be a mixture of weeds and wheat on any forum but I hope it will be a productive discussion even if we agreed to disagree in the end.


Oh yes. We're quite sincere about what we believe. Perchance with the communism thing under discussion, the first point we should discuss is Jesus and money.

Thanks phoenix fawkes. Sounds like a good place to start. Along the lines of money/wealth I would like to comment briefly on something which (I think) is a mistake many people make when reading some of the teachings of Jesus.


Though I would argue as to whether or not Jesus wants us, today, to sell all we own. Forsake, here, I would take to mean more along the lines of not pursuing these things further for our own enjoyment or gain, but using these things in service to the Lord, at least for the most part, I mean, we have to eat and all.

You are not alone in that argument, oldman. In fact, there is a vast army of Christians out there arguing against that teaching, and just about all of them do it on the same grounds, i.e. you take it to mean something a bit different to what it is actually saying. The salt is still there, but you've taken the sting out of it. You'll have to read what it's fit for after that, for yourself, as I don't like to use dirty language on forums:pray: :ahem: (see Luke 14:33 - 35).

[NathanielS]

You are not alone in that argument, oldman. In fact, there is a vast army of Christians out there arguing against that teaching, and just about all of them do it on the same grounds, i.e. you take it to mean something a bit different to what it is actually saying. The salt is still there, but you've taken the sting out of it. You'll have to read what it's fit for after that, for yourself, as I don't like to use dirty language on forums

Any passage must be taken in context, otherwise contradictions and confusion run rampant. Instead of trying to argue against that passage and, thus, just lead to word mincing and animosity, I will merely point out a couple of verses that force one to consider the context of His words.


Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”
(Acts 5:3-4, NIV)




As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus.
(Matthew 25:57, NIV)


Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body.
(Mark 15:43, NIV)

Furthermore, if 'forsake everything' is an present imperative command, why do you own computers? After all, Jesus never owned a computer and he certainly never told his disciples to own one.

EDIT: I'd be most thankful for someone with more experience in apologetics and maturity in their faith to actually handle the argumentative response.

[Frogwarrior]

Hi Casey!

As always when reading posts like this, the first question that pops into my mind is... If we are supposed to forsake ALL we own, how are you able to use a computer and post? :wink:
That's kind of the point OMZ is alluding to, I think... Jesus wasn't exactly saying to go out and be a hobo...

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hi Casey!

As always when reading posts like this, the first question that pops into my mind is... If we are supposed to forsake ALL we own, how are you able to use a computer and post? :wink:
That's kind of the point OMZ is alluding to, I think... Jesus wasn't exactly saying to go out and be a hobo...

My thoughts exactly. Let's remember also that Jesus's followers didn't run around naked either. (We don't really want to talk about sharing clothes now do we guys?)

[NathanielS]

I would also add that communal living does not in any way imply a forsaking of everything.

According to dictionary.com, "communal" is defined as:


1. used or shared in common by everyone in a group: a communal jug of wine
2. of, by, or belonging to the people of a community; shared or participated in by the public: communal land; Building the playground was a communal project

They may have forsaken individual ownership of property/wealth/etc., but they have not forsaken the use of said assets. Using the two examples of dictionary.com, individuals will drink from (or use) a communal cup of wine and individuals, especially children and their parents, will still use a communal playground.

Thus, assuming Jesus Christians practice what they preach (and I have no reason to question their activities or sincerity on that front), everyone who is living communally has not forsaken everything, only, potentially, the ownership of everything.

Even assuming they give the vast majority of their assets to the poor or another group, they have still not forsaken everything. One might say they keep only what they need to survive (food, clothing, basic shelter, etc.), but Jesus never said, "So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has except that which he needs to survive cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:33, NKJV, added words in italics). NOTE: Even if basic necessities were exempt, a computer is not a basic necessity. In fact, people survived for many thousands of years without such modern conveniences as electricity, telephones (need something to hook up to the internet, don't we?), computers and other things.

No, what did Jesus say?


"So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple."

I ask Mr. McKay to address why he has not forsaken everything that he (either individually or communally) owns. Now, you can accuse me of using straw-man tactics or being radical, but isn't radicalism what the Jesus Christians aspire to?

[OldManZangetsu]

Hi Casey!

As always when reading posts like this, the first question that pops into my mind is... If we are supposed to forsake ALL we own, how are you able to use a computer and post? :wink:
That's kind of the point OMZ is alluding to, I think... Jesus wasn't exactly saying to go out and be a hobo...

Yes, but I would add that the Biblical documents are written in human language. The spiritual aspect (especially as it concerns historical narratives like the Gospels) should not be over emphasized to the point where when something is a hyperbole (a normal human form of communication, like "i'm gonna kill you!" between young siblings when the real meaning behind what is said is "I'm gonna beat you up!") we read it literally. Otherwise, as I commented to Spiess, we wouldn't be alive if we took the "cut your arm off" verses seriously (and literally).

So the passage says, forsake all. Is that what it means? The literal meaning doesn't make sense as we read the Gospels. Jesus kept in touch with His family all His life. He and His disciples kept a money bag (that actually plays more into the "don't work for stuff" idea). Etc. It's obviously, unless we want to argue that Jesus was just an idiot, a hyperbole, not meant to be taken literally.

[OldManZangetsu]

You are not alone in that argument, oldman. In fact, there is a vast army of Christians out there arguing against that teaching, and just about all of them do it on the same grounds, i.e. you take it to mean something a bit different to what it is actually saying.

First, are you familiar with the phrase "it's raining cats and dogs"?
Second, are we, in this 21st century AD, the only people in history to ever use a hyperbole?
If not, how are we to determine whether or not something in the Bible is a hyperbole?


The salt is still there, but you've taken the sting out of it. You'll have to read what it's fit for after that, for yourself, as I don't like to use dirty language on forums:pray: :ahem: (see Luke 14:33 - 35).

Please tell me you're using a public computer. Please tell me you live in a cave and wear animal skins. Please also tell me you live by yourself and not with any family members. Please.

Look at the whole of that Luke passage. Jesus says that if someone doesn't hate their own family members he is not worthy to be His disciple. Yet elsewhere we read that someone who hates their brother is liable of judgment? Hyperbole. Exaggeration. Not literal. Implicit idea: when push comes to shove, loyalty to God, forget those others. But in the regular case, follow your set course in life. That is, unless you have a messed up life and then get saved. Then you typically have to get rid of most of it :teeth:

And for your information, on several occasions I have thrown, in the garbage can outside my parents' house, video games, music CD's, and the like that I felt were holding me back. For a time I also got rid of the internet in my dorm/apartment because pornography was holding me back (by the way, everyone pass this along: Covenant Eyes, awesome program). Haven't had to break any friendships yet (I typically have good intuition when making friends in this case), but someday it might happen.

That is what I feel is being implied here. You don't have to, but if you aren't willing to ditch it all (if it hurts your loyalty to God first and foremost), you aren't worthy of being a disciple.

I also have this question: should I forsake the college I am at and leave all the atheists I have opportunities to witness to to go off on their own? Should I forsake the career I am training for (teaching) so that I will not have the future opportunity to witness to kids (it's much easier to convert kids, trust me) or even other teachers? Shall I forget what is written "be in the world" (but not of it)?

And I agree with the dirty language bit. :thumb: There's a difference in tact and vulgarity :wink:

[OldManZangetsu]

Thanks, guys, for the welcome. I expect that there will still be some problems in our various approaches. I get the idea that there is a lot of gnat-straining that goes on here that isn't really necessary. Take the "Top Forty" for example. That list came one night from a little discussion group where someone said, "Hey, how many of the commands of Jesus can people think of", and someone started writing them down as people suggested them. But it seems like they have been put under the microscope here and Old Man whatsie has taken issue with just about every one. THAT gives me the impression, Old Man, that you are just aching to start an argument, and that you'll start it over anything.

Proper reading skills are important to have, especially since the Bible is, today, our guidebook to matters of our faith and, more importantly (serially speaking), salvation. Many verses were taken out of context (and thus the meaning changed) in that list. Hold that thought until I comment on the second paragraph.


About the "call a spade a spade" thing, the problem I see arising is just the kind of know-it-all attitude about what is the precise theological position on everything that GOD is going to use when we get to the pearly gates. Like is he even going to ASK what our take is on the Trinity? Yet it sounds like you guys think that if a person doesn't have it exactly right theologically, boom! Out they go... straight to hell for eternity! I hope I'm wrong, and please forgive me if I'm being too reacitonary myself.

Well, the idea is, if you are a Christian, you'll do thus-and-such. Likewise, if you are a Christian you'll believe thus-and-such that Christ and the Father have revealed about themselves and how we are to relate to them.

Not every bit of doctrine is essential to agree with in order to be saved, no doubt. But a proper interpretation of things is still important! I can only assume that the same interpretive skills that churned out the top fourty are used in interpreting passages that are key to the more important doctrines addressed in scripture. That's serious. At that point we end up with heresy (not pointing to anything I've seen on your site), that is, a system of beliefs that is labeled as Christian but is not.

[OldManZangetsu]

:brood: for some reason I am not allowed to edit posts

But I wanted to add this for more clarity to my post to Dave. And I know you think I have an itchy trigger finger (which is true, but for good causes, not just to be a punk and stir up trouble, as I explained above), but this the following is not sarcasm.

I'm sure you would agree that a belief that one is a sinner is essential to salvation, correct? If not, we're basically giving God the finger, no matter how much we humble ourselves. Likewise, if we agree we are sinners, but yet think we can earn our way to heaven, we're doing the same.

[NathanielS]

But I wanted to add this for more clarity to my post to Dave. And I know you think I have an itchy trigger finger (which is true, but for good causes, not just to be a punk and stir up trouble, as I explained above), but this the following is not sarcasm.

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with a willingness to challenge doctrines and interpretations that appear questionable. After all, Jesus was never reticent about judging and correcting poor doctrines and interpretations, especially as it related to the Pharisees.

[OldManZangetsu]

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with a willingness to challenge doctrines and interpretations that appear questionable. After all, Jesus was never reticent about judging and correcting poor doctrines and interpretations, especially as it related to the Pharisees.

Good point... another thing I missed :teeth:

Jesus also used some pretty insulting languages in those instances as well, "Have you not read?"

[NathanielS]

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
(1 John 4:1, NKJV)

Notice how the Apostle John says to test the spirits to determine if they are of God or not. This implies that one may end up testing even a 'true and Godly' spirit.

Strong's Concordance of the word testing (Greek word: δοκιμάζω) as the following:


1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), as metals
2) to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy

Just as if you find real gold, you will test that gold until you know that it is real gold; in the same way, if you find a true and Godly spirit, are you not going to test it until you are sure it is true and Godly?

[OldManZangetsu]

Casey, as I was driving back to college from my parents house I realized I forgot to say this, but

:hi: Welcome to TWeb :teeth:, and I admire you coming here, being a friend of Dave's and all. It helps to have someone walk into the lion's den with you :wink:

And also, for both Dave and Casey: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html

You'll find it elsewhere in this thread, but since y'all have so far limited your responses to this end section I thought I'd repost it. Read through the whole thing to get a feel for where we are coming from with the whole satire thing.

Two things I wanted to point out especially are "public forum" and "challenge of honor". The whole riposte thing is still present today, it's just that we have a tendency to put more emphasis on "feelings of hate being expressed" or "my feelings have been hurt!" rather than "defending the truth" or "my public image has been tarnished!" Hope that helps in understanding things here.

[fanaticool]

Hi all,
Thanks for the welcome. Lot's to respond to so I hope people don't mind if my post is a bit long.


They may have forsaken individual ownership of property/wealth/etc., but they have not forsaken the use of said assets.

It seems that Nathaniel has answered the question of how we can forsake all and still use things. Thanks for that, Nathaniel.


It's obviously, unless we want to argue that Jesus was just an idiot, a hyperbole, not meant to be taken literally.



Luk 18:28 Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee



Mat 4:22 And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.



Luk 5:27 And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me. And he left all, rose up, and followed him.



Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.


I don't know why it even needs to come to a decision about who is guilty of being an idiot with these examples, Jesus or his followers, for having taken the teaching literally. It would seem more appropriate to come at it from the angel of trying to understand why they would do such a thing. I also don't think it is a good idea to assume the worst about this teaching (i.e. should we live in a cave with no clothes eathing raw meat, or whatever) as that's not what God told us to do, although we should be willing to go to that length if he does tell us to do it. What he did say is to seek first his kingdom and the things we need will be provided for us. Don't shoot yourself down before you even get into the air. Oldman, I think it's great that you have experimented with forsaking things. Keep up the good work.

I think there is some room to consider that the forsake all teaching is addressing an attitude, but the kind of attitude it seems to most appropriately address is the attitude which says I don't need to really do it because it's only an attitude issue. In other words, we only know that Abraham had faith because of his actions in response to God's commands, and not because of some good attitude that he carried around in his heart.


when push comes to shove, loyalty to God, forget those others. But in the regular case, follow your set course in life.

I think the teachings of Jesus are the push coming to the shove. The whole point of being born again is that we leave behind the "regular case" to learn a whole new set of values. We leave behind the "set course in life" for a radically new road to follow the lamb whithersoever he goeth, even if he does tell us to forsake all we have as part of learning those new values.



I also have this question: should I forsake the college I am at and leave all the atheists I have opportunities to witness to to go off on their own? Should I forsake the career I am training for (teaching) so that I will not have the future opportunity to witness to kids (it's much easier to convert kids, trust me) or even other teachers? Shall I forget what is written "be in the world" (but not of it)?

There is no shortage or atheists or children in the world. You can witness to them any time any where. So what is the real issue here?


As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus.

(Matthew 25:57, NIV)

Hmmm...let's see what else the Bible records about this guy.



Jhn 19:38 ¶ And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus

So, this guy is your example of good context for why Jesus didn't really mean forsake all?

I'm not quite sure how the Ananias story fits in with your argument. He was punished for holding some money/possesions back from God. Seems like a good warning for us to do the opposite, assuming that you have made a decision to give your life to God, as Ananias appeard to have done.

[Frogwarrior]

I'm not quite sure how the Ananias story fits in with your argument. He was punished for holding some money/possesions back from God. Seems like a good warning for us to do the opposite, assuming that you have made a decision to give your life to God, as Ananias appeard to have done.Actually, Ananias was punished for lying to God. Let's look at that passage again:
For some context, immideately prior (end of Acts 4) Joseph aka Barnabas sold his property and brought all the money and laid it at the feet of the disciples.
Ananias sells his property, keeps some of the money to himself, and brings the rest and lays it at the feet of the disciples. In essence, he's trying to LOOK at "committed" as Barnabas, and still have some money to boot. Seems win-win, except:

3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?
Take note of the bolded portion, it'll come up again shortly...

4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."
Peter even says that the property was his, and the money after he sold it was at his disposal - he could have kept it if he wanted!
The problem was not that he kept some of the money, but that he lied to God, coming in and saying that he too was generous enough to give everything to the disciples. It wasn't that he didn't give enough.

[OldManZangetsu]

Hi all,
Thanks for the welcome. Lot's to respond to so I hope people don't mind if my post is a bit long.

Not long enough :tongue:

Just kidding. We don't care about the quantity, just as long as there is quality :smile:


I don't know why it even needs to come to a decision about who is guilty of being an idiot with these examples, Jesus or his followers, for having taken the teaching literally.

As I pointed out, Jesus kept in touch with His earthly family His entire time here. He even took on the trade of His earthly father. Unless you're willing to say God the Son wasn't really God up until that point, but converted to faith in God and then abandoned all, He didn't take it literally.

And it wasn't a decision of someone being an idiot. I was being rhetorical in saying that there is a conflict if we read it the way you are reading it.


It would seem more appropriate to come at it from the angel of trying to understand why they would do such a thing. I also don't think it is a good idea to assume the worst about this teaching (i.e. should we live in a cave with no clothes eathing raw meat, or whatever) as that's not what God told us to do,

Forsake all? Consistency? I'm assuming you believe in what is posted on the JC website since you are a JC. That said, the website talks about not working for food, and even lists Matthew 6:25-24 along with the forsake all passage. Grocery stores don't give people food for free, that I am aware of.

Also, the raw meat deal is putting words in my mouth, you can build a fire and cook the meat. And I didn't say no clothes, I just said no store bought clothing.


although we should be willing to go to that length if he does tell us to do it.

Sounds like what I said. Though I have to ask, just how will we know He's telling us this? Isn't this a decision we have to make ourselves? I'm not of the school of thought that says God speaks to us, directly, with audible (or mental) words. I believe there are obvious signs, but still, the job of deciphering whether or not we should pursue a certain thing is up to us.


What he did say is to seek first his kingdom and the things we need will be provided for us.

Agreed, which doesn't necessarily entail we give everything up.


Don't shoot yourself down before you even get into the air. Oldman, I think it's great that you have experimented with forsaking things. Keep up the good work.

Lol, that was not experimenting, that was me acting out my faith. If it was experimenting, that would mean I believe in works based salvation. At least, that's how I am understanding the "experimenting" idea.


I think there is some room to consider that the forsake all teaching is addressing an attitude, but the kind of attitude it seems to most appropriately address is the attitude which says I don't need to really do it because it's only an attitude issue.

By the way, you still haven't addressed the issue I brought up with the Luke passage and what Jesus says elsewhere in the Gospels, which is the whole reason I take the forsake all passage to be a hyperbole.


In other words, we only know that Abraham had faith because of his actions in response to God's commands, and not because of some good attitude that he carried around in his heart.

And likewise you know of my faith in God because I gave up things that were damaging my loyalty to Him.


I think the teachings of Jesus are the push coming to the shove. The whole point of being born again is that we leave behind the "regular case" to learn a whole new set of values.

And I did just that. I could go into great detail about all the things I believed explicitly with my words and implicitly with my actions and how coming to faith in Christ and studying the Bible have changed that, but I would max out the character limit to my post.

Leave behind the regular case and do what? Not be in the world? We're told to be in the world, just "not of it" which entails more ideological beliefs (of course, actions are a part of that, but I believe there is nothing wrong with working for food and the like).


We leave behind the "set course in life" for a radically new road to follow the lamb whithersoever he goeth, even if he does tell us to forsake all we have as part of learning those new values.

Yes, and as I alluded to in my last response to you, "unless your life is really messed up, then you pretty much have to abandon most of it." I'd comment further on this drawing from my own conversion as an example, but that would require us to come to an agreement that Jesus doesn't forbid us to work for food, nor that we literally have to forsake everything right then and there.


There is no shortage or atheists or children in the world. You can witness to them any time any where. So what is the real issue here?

Witnessing is best done by building relationships, at least that is what I have experienced so far, today. People have a tendency to head the words of someone they look up to/trust/know as opposed to some random evangelist coming in to preach. Especially nowadays with crackpots like Benny Hinn and some of the others on TBN, and all the scandals we hear about in the Evangelical churches.


Hmmm...let's see what else the Bible records about this guy.

So, this guy is your example of good context for why Jesus didn't really mean forsake all?

I'm not quite sure how the Ananias story fits in with your argument. He was punished for holding some money/possesions back from God. Seems like a good warning for us to do the opposite, assuming that you have made a decision to give your life to God, as Ananias appeard to have done.

No, you're putting words in my mouth again.

I'll say it just once more, my example of why it's a hyperbole is because Jesus tells us we need to hate our family, yet elsewhere he tells us not to hate our brothers. Please address this.

As for the Ananias deal, I did not do a good job of explaining that, however, others have picked up my slack. What they say is what I say.

==================================================

At this point, I'd like for others to deal more in depth with the "don't work" idea, and specifically the page from the JC website that deals with the tentmaking myth. I say this because this thread is moving at a reasonable pace, and I would comment on it except I will be busy today and tomorrow (the biggest thing keeping me busy being that I got back to school, reached into my pocket and found my sister's car keys! :argh:).

Edit: wait a minute... I didn't address the Ananias issue to begin with :doh:

[NathanielS]

It seems that Nathaniel has answered the question of how we can forsake all and still use things. Thanks for that, Nathaniel.

So, are you saying that as long as you do not own what you are using, it has been forsaken? So, if I build mansions and buy multiple yachts and give them away to someone else with a tacit agreement that they OWN it but that I can still USE it, then I have forsaken the mansions and yachts, but can still enjoy them. Thank you for that!


So, this guy is your example of good context for why Jesus didn't really mean forsake all?

In many ways, Joseph is the PERFECT example. After all, by your interpretation of Jesus' words, Joseph has not:

1) Forsaken his wealth

2) Forsaken his socio-political position in society (one person I know claimed that the council mentioned is the Sanhedrin, which was the highest governing body in Judaism at that time)

3) Forsaken his fear of other people and how they feel about him.

By the definition of the Jesus Christians, Joseph of Arimathea CANNOT be a disciple/follower of Jesus because he has NOT forsaken everything (according to JCian interpretation). Yet, the Apostle John states that Joseph is (present-tense) a disciple at that time. Matthew states that Jospeh was (past-tense) a disciple of Jesus.

Also, I never said Jesus didn't mean what He meant to say, I have implied that He didn't mean what you think He said.

[Rayado]

How nice to see that they'd have no problem with Benny Hinn's extravagant wealth, since he personally owns very little of it and most of it--the houses, the cars, the jets, etc.--are in fact owned by his ministry. Even most of his clothes are donated to him by people in his ministry.

[NathanielS]

Hey,

Can anyone comment on this article by the JCians? Like Mr. Spiess, they seem to try and divide between religion (even Biblically-based Christianity) and the 'Kingdom of God' and using many generalities.

http://cust.idl.net.au/fold/teach/Top40/The%20Kingdom%20of%20Heaven%20or%20Religion.html

One thing I have noticed about both Spiess and the JCians is that they seem to minimize the importance of the 'sacraments' of Baptism and Communion (I don't mean sacraments in the Roman Catholic tradition, but I can't think of a better word for them).

The JCians seem so obsessed with straining out every gnat of forsaking everything that they seem to ignore and judge two of Jesus's commands.

1) Baptism:


Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. And John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?" But Jesus answered and said to him, "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he allowed Him. When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He[fn3] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.
(Matthew 3:16, NKJV)

Now, the JCians love to say that baptism is only in the Spirit, not water, yet Jesus, God the Son, was baptized in water and that was a precursor to God's Holy Spirit descending upon Him. If we are to follow and be like Jesus, water baptism seems the only possibility and the early Church Fathers (from the Apostles on forward) agreed.


And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
(Acts 19:3-6, NKJV)

Note the progression:

1) Baptized into the Name of Jesus (and the Father and Holy Spirit if the earlier commands of Jesus are to be accepted), instead of John's baptism, although no mention of change in how baptism occurred.
2) Laying on of hands
3) Holy Spirit arrives on-scene

If baptism were of Spirit only, why this division?

2) Communion


And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."
(Luke 22:19-20, NKJV)

Notice how it says do it in REMEMBRANCE of Jesus. Since Jesus was currently with them, this sort of implies that 'communion' will occur in the future.


And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed[fn2] and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
(Matthew 26:28, NKJV)


For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.
(1 Corinthians 11:23-26, NKJV)

Paul thought it was important and definitely implied that it was to occur often.

From the words of Jesus, 'communion'/Lord's Supper is meant to signify the New Covenant, much as circumcision signified the Abrahamic Covenant.

Also, do the JCians wash each other's feet as Jesus Himself seemed to ordain? I will admit I have never had my feet washed nor washed another Christian's feet, but I am willing at the proper time.

[jpholding]

I

Anyway, I noticed a link to group called www.voiceofjesus.org. I clicked the link and my mouth gaped open. I'm sure if someone follows the link, they'll know why. I don't want to bias anyone here.[/URL]

Too late....I wrote on Mr Jones ages ago. :teeth:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/crackedvoice.html

[OldManZangetsu]

:huh: I guess I was wrong. I thought there'd have been more interaction :shrug:

Just poking my head in, though, I'll be back later this week, I'm cleaning my apartment getting it ready for school (it's hard to study with a mess, ya know?).

[OldManZangetsu]

How nice to see that they'd have no problem with Benny Hinn's extravagant wealth, since he personally owns very little of it and most of it--the houses, the cars, the jets, etc.--are in fact owned by his ministry. Even most of his clothes are donated to him by people in his ministry.

Really? Perhaps that's why he hasn't given up the crazy talk yet.

[jpholding]

Some comments on their article, "So, Who ARE They Following?" These are quick answers: I have detailed answers on the site.



Jesus says: Love your enemies. (Matthew 5:44)

The church says: Bomb them before they bomb us.

Usual confusion of personal relationships (what Mt. 5:44 is about) and relationships between nations.



Jesus says: Don't pray in public like hypocrites do in church. (Matthew 6:5-6)

The churches say: If you won't 'lead in prayer' you must be ashamed of your faith.

Never had any church say that to me, but it doesn't matter, Mt. 6:5-6 is addressed to persons who sought public honor by praying aloud and openly in the street, not to leading a prayer in a Christian venue.



Jesus says: Go into all the world preaching the good news. (Mark 16:15)

The churches say: Settle down and get a job, so you can pay someone else to do it.

Mark 16:15 isn't original anyway. And I have yet to see a church say the latter.



Jesus says: Don't work for food that perishes. (John 6:27)

The churches say: John 6:27 is an isolated passage and doesn't apply to everyone.

What churches are these people talking to? First Steel-Belted Holiness? I've never heard this either.



Jesus says: Take no thought for food or clothes. (Matthew 6:25)

The churches say: It's irresponsible not to make plans for your future.

Decontextualized. In the first century there was no way to preserve food or clothes, so taking thought for them was indeed irresponsible. The conditions to which Jesus spoke do not apply in the "First World."




Jesus says: Sell what you have and give to the poor. (Luke 18:22)

The churches say: Jesus only said it to the rich young ruler. It's not for everyone.

And in that they're right. I can't believe this one is even an issue.



Jesus says: You sell what you have and give it to the poor too! (Luke 12:33, 11:41)

The churches say: I'll have to talk to my pastor about those verses. I didn't know that they existed.

I knew they existed, and I didn't check with my pastor. I checked with scholars who know the contextual setting. 11:41 was an instruction to the Pharisees and the way they lived. What are these people gonna do next, follow the verse that says, "And he went and hanged himself" as an instruction to commit suicide?

In light of 12:13-21, 12:33 is clearly an instruction regarding excess beyond what you need to live and work and serve. If it were not then it is hard to explain how Luke even had papyrus and ink to write with.


Jesus says: If you don't forsake all you own, you can't be a Christian. (Luke 14:33)

The churches say: NO COMMENT (Best to ignore it and hope it goes away.)

The scholars who know the context say: View it in terms of ancient patronage. Your "property" belonged to your patron; you used it at his discretion. The ultimate message is that you are to make free with what you have been entrusted. The churches are indeed often wrong on this, but these guys don't show that they're any better.



Jesus says: You can't work for God and money at the same time. (Luke 16:13)

The churches say: You can, as long as you don't say prayers to money.

See above. Priority is the point.


Jesus says: Seek God's kingdom first, and he'll feed you. (Matthew 6:31-33)

The churches say: God's happy with the leftovers (evenings and weekends).

To the extent that this does reflect some churches, it is true, but I hope these people don't think they have exclusive dibs on service.



Jesus says: I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. (John 14:6)

The churches say: You must balance what Jesus said with what other Bible writers said.

:huh: Never heard that one from any church, sorry.


Jesus says: Heaven belongs to the poor. (Luke 6:20)

The churches say: He didn't mean poor; he meant humble.

Actually, in the ancient world, the words were practical synonyms because the poor had low honor ratings and were constantly oppressed by the wealthy and powerful. It certainly doesn't mean the modern "poor" who own 2 TV sets and a car and can vote in elections.



Jesus says: Woe to the rich, for they'll be punished! (Luke 6:24-25)

The churches say: Nonsense! Wealth is a sign of God's blessing..

See above for proper contextualization.



Jesus says: Do not save up wealth. (Matthew 6:20)

The churches say: Young people must learn to save.

Repeat of above.


Jesus says: It is better to cut your hand off than to sin. (Mark 9:43)

The churches say: Only a fanatic would take this seriously.

That's true. Cutting off of limbs and such was a common trope for excessive action. It does mean do something serious and drastic, but not literal amputation.



Jesus says: I drink, and people call me an alcoholic. (Matthew 11:19)

The churches say: Jesus never touched alcohol, and it's a sin to do so.

On this one they're right, though it should be noted that alcohol was so weak in that day that alcoholism was a serious problem for only a tiny number of people. They never imagined cheap, plentiful, 200 proof booze.



Jesus says: Only those who obey me will enter heaven. (Matthew 7:21-24)

The churches say: Just say Jesus is your "Saviour" and you don't need to obey him.

Prettu much on target. There would have been no dichotomy seen between having Jesus as Savior AND Lord.



Jesus says: God's children do not owe the government anything. (Matthew 17:24-26)

The churches say: We owe it to the system to work 40 hours a week supporting it.

But Jesus said to pay the tax anyway, didn't he now?


Jesus says: Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am there. (Matthew 18:20)

The churches say: If you don't belong to a major, reputable denomination you're in spiritual danger.

Never heard that, sorry, except maybe in a sense from Catholic quarters.


Jesus says: You religious leaders are damn hypocrites! (Matthew 23:13-24)

The churches say: Harsh talk like that is unbecoming of Christians. It is from the devil!

This one's spot on at least. Wonder if they can take it as well as they dish it out though.


Jesus says: Church leaders have left out the most important piece. (Matthew 21:42)

The churches say: The most important piece is the name of Jesus, the blood of Jesus, the divinity of Jesus... anything, but not his teachings.

:huh: Sorry, never heard that one.

Overall: A handful of bright spots; a lot of apparently local accusations that don't hold water beyond their own experience; a whole bunch of sad scholarship.

[Rayado]

:popcorn:

[Dave McKay]

Sorry about being so slow to get back. It's an awful lot to read, and I simply don't have the time to respond to it all. I kind of suspect that if I don't respond that could be the best bet, because given a bit of time, maybe you guys will put some of your energy into questioning your OWN arguments (well at least one another's argument, since you seem to delight in picking holes, whether real or imaginary).

That would certainly seem to be the case with the argument that the "Top Forty" commands of Jesus (simple little excerpts from the gospels) were "taken out of context". What theology class is it that teaches you how to use that argument, because over the years I have heard religious people all over the world use it even when they didn't have a clue what the context was. (Note: I'm not saying that it isn't possible to take something out of context, but I am saying that the argument is used repeatedly as a knee-jerk defence to anything that challenges your traditional way of viewing things... the "regular case".)

Then there was the argument that, because we point out that Jesus told the rich young ruler, the Pharisees, his disciples, and then the multitudes to give up everything they owned, it is on a par with saying that people should hang themselves because the Bible said that Judas hung himself. C'mon, guys (and gals)! Certainly even amongst yourselves there must be someone smart enough to see the huge leap that argument took!

I mean, what if you used the same kind of reasoning about John 3:16 (i.e. that it is taken out of context and teaching it to people just because it appears in the Bible is like teaching people to commit suicide because the Bible says that Judas hung himself)?

I don't know how many people just READ what is being said here, without actually posting, but there doesn't seem to be anyone posting who is able to think out side the box, and I don't mean the box of Christian truth, but the box of First World Western churchy tradition. We point out that Jesus said not to pray out loud, i.e. to be heard by others, and someone says, "No, he only said not to do it in the street." I must have the wrong translation, because mine says that hypocrites do it in the "synagogues" too. (There never were buildings called "churches" in the Bible, in case you guys didn't know that either.)

Then we start talking about what Jesus said about the poor, and some genius tells us that the poor today own two TVs and a car. I don't want to shock you guys too much, but the poor today are suffering from malnutrition and dying at an alarming rate as a result of it. For Christ's sake, get out of your gold-lined boxes and start thinking about the real world!

Someone says that if Jesus really meant what he said about forsaking all, he would have been a hobo. Yeah, so your point is....? Seriously, I wonder whether you guys have any idea at all about how Jesus and his disciples lived. He said, "Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." Oh yeah, but that was in another culture and another age. God's will for the world today is that we do the Benny Hinn thing, is that it?

There could be a little room for some serious communication between us with regard to how one lives out Luke 14:33 and related passages in today's world, if anyone really wants to do that; but it seems that there is a pretty strong push to just set it aside in favour of getting jobs and working 40 hours a week for as much money as you can get... you know, the way Jesus and his disciples did!

Someone says that Jesus took up the occupation of his earthly Father... as taught in the gospel according to... whom? My Bible says he had a bit of an argument with his earthly parents when he was as young as twelve years old, about what his "father's business" was. I accept that he still submitted to their authority while he was a minor, but it didn't stop him from knowing that he was destined for something better than the rat race (First Century style).

Someone wanted a response about the hyperbole stuff. It's not all that hard to recognise hyperbole when one sees it. Eat my flesh, drink my blood. Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. You must be born again. Obviously hyperbole.

But when Casey pointed out the repeated practical references to the various disciples of Jesus forsaking their old jobs, leaving their families and homes, etc. it starts to look like people here are trying too hard to make hyperbole out of stuff that is just plain common sense. Otherwise, we may have to start thinking that Jesus himself was a hyperbole. Or that his ressurection was hyperbole... after all, it doesn't jive with our usuall experience, does it? See, just because you've never quit your job and stepped out in faith with no visible means of support doesn't mean that it is necessarily WRONG. In fact, it seems to be the NORM for Jesus and his followers in the Bible.

Then there is that trite old argument that Jesus wants us to be "in the world". Now, apart from those Christians who have died and been buried (Hmm, I guess even with them, their REMAINS are "in the world"!) we're all pretty much in the world, no matter how fanatical our beliefs may be. So the prayer wasn't for more people to be "in the world"; the prayer was for more people to be "not of the world". What a shame that people stumble right over the REAL emphasis of the passage (dare I say context?) in their effort to take a phrase totaly out of context (i.e. "in the world") to say the exact opposite of what the passage is really urging us to do. Jesus wants people who will stop being dominated by the values of the world in which we live, and Jesus said that those values are epitomised in our relationship to money.

He didn't say, "You cannot serve God and Satan," although that is obviously a truism. But he got more specific and identified the antagonist as "mammon" (i.e. money and all that it can buy). He said, "All the nations of the world worry about what they are going to eat and what they are going to wear; DON'T BE LIKE THEM." What a shame that we don't have more people who can look for the truth in this without being so reactionary and straining at so many gnats.

Okay, enough from me for now. Enjoy yourselves!

[OldManZangetsu]

Sorry about being so slow to get back. It's an awful lot to read, and I simply don't have the time to respond to it all. I kind of suspect that if I don't respond that could be the best bet, because given a bit of time, maybe you guys will put some of your energy into questioning your OWN arguments (well at least one another's argument, since you seem to delight in picking holes, whether real or imaginary).

Apology accepted, however, it seems it was too much to read and respond to, as I'll show. I would suggest taking more time to let everything sink in.


That would certainly seem to be the case with the argument that the "Top Forty" commands of Jesus (simple little excerpts from the gospels) were "taken out of context". What theology class is it that teaches you how to use that argument, because over the years I have heard religious people all over the world use it even when they didn't have a clue what the context was. (Note: I'm not saying that it isn't possible to take something out of context, but I am saying that the argument is used repeatedly as a knee-jerk defence to anything that challenges your traditional way of viewing things... the "regular case".)

This is the quickest way to lose respect. If you really want to prove something, answer specifics; in this case, actually give a detailed response to the issues I brought up. Yes, they were taken out of context, and for the most part I showed you how. Please address those issues directly. Also, use the quote system to be more clear about who and what you are responding to.


Then there was the argument that, because we point out that Jesus told the rich young ruler, the Pharisees, his disciples, and then the multitudes to give up everything they owned, it is on a par with saying that people should hang themselves because the Bible said that Judas hung himself. C'mon, guys (and gals)! Certainly even amongst yourselves there must be someone smart enough to see the huge leap that argument took!

Funny thing is, they kept the money :wink:

No it wasn’t a leap, it was sarcasm towards the leap that would logically follow should we endorse how whoever wrote the article JP responded to read that passage. Let’s take a look at what you’re responding to:



Jesus says: You sell what you have and give it to the poor too! (Luke 12:33, 11:41)

The churches say: I'll have to talk to my pastor about those verses. I didn't know that they existed.

I knew they existed, and I didn't check with my pastor. I checked with scholars who know the contextual setting. 11:41 was an instruction to the Pharisees and the way they lived. What are these people gonna do next, follow the verse that says, "And he went and hanged himself" as an instruction to commit suicide?

In light of 12:13-21, 12:33 is clearly an instruction regarding excess beyond what you need to live and work and serve. If it were not then it is hard to explain how Luke even had papyrus and ink to write with.

It’s just as JP said, 11:41 is an instruction to Pharisees and the way they lived. I’ll add for clarity that no where in 11:41 does it say to sell all you have and give it to the poor. Jesus is responding to a Pharisee’s bewilderment at Jesus not “ceremonially cleaning” Himself before a meal (tradition of the elders?) and how the Pharisee is filled with robbery and wickedness. If anything, the only way this is related to giving to the poor would be that this Pharisee (by stealing) has an excess to what he needs (that relates to JP’s point about 12:33). JP makes the comment about Judas because the way whoever wrote the article reads that passage necessitates a similar reading of the passage about Judas hanging himself. 11:41 has nothing to bear in the matter of giving to the poor, likewise the passage about Judas has nothing to bear on committing suicide for doing wrong. Yet 11:41 is read as such, so it would logically follow to read the Judas passage the same way. JP has made a rhetorical poke at whoever’s reading skills.


I mean, what if you used the same kind of reasoning about John 3:16 (i.e. that it is taken out of context and teaching it to people just because it appears in the Bible is like teaching people to commit suicide because the Bible says that Judas hung himself)?

Not sure what your point is with John 3:16 and how you are making a connection to the passage about Judas. Yes I understand your point about the slippery slope, but am just a little confused how you are using John 3:16 for that. It says God gave up His only begotten son… and? Also that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life… and? I think you are using John 3:16 because you are confused about why JP used Luke 11:41 in reference to Judas. See my comments above.


I don't know how many people just READ what is being said here, without actually posting, but there doesn't seem to be anyone posting who is able to think out side the box, and I don't mean the box of Christian truth, but the box of First World Western churchy tradition. We point out that Jesus said not to pray out loud, i.e. to be heard by others, and someone says, "No, he only said not to do it in the street." I must have the wrong translation, because mine says that hypocrites do it in the "synagogues" too. (There never were buildings called "churches" in the Bible, in case you guys didn't know that either.)

:doh:

You just made a fool of yourself. What JP was responding to was this:

Jesus says: Don't pray in public like hypocrites do in church. (Matthew 6:5-6)
The churches say: If you won't 'lead in prayer' you must be ashamed of your faith.

What JP was saying is not "don't pray in streets", rather, he was commenting on the fact that whoever wrote the above (from the article JP was critiquing) missed the point. Whoever is leading a public prayer in church is not being a hypocrite. They're leading people in a sincere prayer to God. As opposed to the Pharisees who were praying out loud by themselves in the street or in the synagogues so that people could see them and think "oh wow, how spiritual of him." In other words, the Pharisees aren’t sincere in their prayers. The people in church, however, are. They aren’t doing it for attention, they’re doing it to be “joined as two or more in the name of Christ.”


Then we start talking about what Jesus said about the poor, and some genius tells us that the poor today own two TVs and a car. I don't want to shock you guys too much, but the poor today are suffering from malnutrition and dying at an alarming rate as a result of it. For Christ's sake, get out of your gold-lined boxes and start thinking about the real world!

:doh:

Talk about foot in mouth! You're the genius because you missed the point! JP was making a sarcastic jab at American society with the two TVs and a car comment. He even put poor in quotation marks to give you a clue. I don’t think you’ll find anyone in this section of TWeb who will sympathize with the idiots who have such luxuries and then complain about not having enough video games, or… whatever.


Someone says that if Jesus really meant what he said about forsaking all, he would have been a hobo. Yeah, so your point is....? Seriously, I wonder whether you guys have any idea at all about how Jesus and his disciples lived. He said, "Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." Oh yeah, but that was in another culture and another age. God's will for the world today is that we do the Benny Hinn thing, is that it?

Where did we say God's will was to do as Benny Hinn does? We were being facetious with our usage of Hinn. He's a disgrace. And Jesus wasn't exactly a hobo, he had patronal support. Did you miss the bit about the money bag? Either that or He and the disciples worked.


There could be a little room for some serious communication between us with regard to how one lives out Luke 14:33 and related passages in today's world, if anyone really wants to do that; but it seems that there is a pretty strong push to just set it aside in favour of getting jobs and working 40 hours a week for as much money as you can get... you know, the way Jesus and his disciples did!

I comment on the bit about working below. As for the part that I put in bold above, I would agree the many people forsake their Christian duties and simply work all day then slouch in front of the TV at night, which is not good. But there is nothing wrong with working and witnessing. Jesus says to give to Cesar what is Cesar's after all. Kinda hard to give to Cesar when you have no income.

Also, Matthew 6:2 reads "So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full." To be able to give to the poor entails what? That you aren't. Here we see that Jesus does not decry wealth, just what we do with it. Don’t live with unnecessary excess.


Someone says that Jesus took up the occupation of his earthly Father... as taught in the gospel according to... whom? My Bible says he had a bit of an argument with his earthly parents when he was as young as twelve years old, about what his "father's business" was. I accept that he still submitted to their authority while he was a minor, but it didn't stop him from knowing that he was destined for something better than the rat race (First Century style).

Mark 6:3. Your cite in Luke is hardly an "argument". And your quotationing of father misses the point entirely. I don't doubt what Jesus' heavenly Father's business was, but what I was saying was that He took on the earthly trade of carpentry, the job of His earthly father Joseph, therefore Jesus saw no problem in working an earthly job. And please don't make the asinine comment that I am pointing this out so I can "enjoy my wealth". I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that Jesus has no problem with people having jobs.

Matthew 6:25-34 is hardly an admonition to have no money. What this passage would mean for people who have money is, 1) if you have low income as it relates to the cost of living, don’t fret about it, you’ll make it, even if you have to downsize; 2) if you have high income as it relates to the cost of living, but are afraid to not have excess, don’t fret, because your needs will be provided for.


Someone wanted a response about the hyperbole stuff. It's not all that hard to recognise hyperbole when one sees it. Eat my flesh, drink my blood. Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. You must be born again. Obviously hyperbole.
But when Casey pointed out the repeated practical references to the various disciples of Jesus forsaking their old jobs, leaving their families and homes, etc. it starts to look like people here are trying too hard to make hyperbole out of stuff that is just plain common sense. Otherwise, we may have to start thinking that Jesus himself was a hyperbole. Or that his ressurection was hyperbole... after all, it doesn't jive with our usuall experience, does it? See, just because you've never quit your job and stepped out in faith with no visible means of support doesn't mean that it is necessarily WRONG. In fact, it seems to be the NORM for Jesus and his followers in the Bible.

:doh:

No, that doesn't answer my question at all. Let's look at this passage again. Keep the part in bold in mind until the end of this section.


Now large crowds were going along with him; and he turned and said to them, "If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.' Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still far away, eh sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So then, none of you can be my disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. Therefore, salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned? It is useless either for the soil or for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

"So then" links everything in the above context with that verse. Notice verse 26, Jesus is telling us to hate our family and even our own life. Yet elsewhere He says this,


"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'you fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."

Contradiction? No, hyperbole, so giving up all we own also has another meaning. This is not something I can comment on in great deal, I believe JP knows more about this. But it would make sense for people to give up all they own because of the impending danger coming in 70 AD. If they were so worried about their possessions to not take the warning and get out of town, well… fill in the blank. Couple this with the fact that the people in Acts kept the money from what they sold. As for the disciples giving up their jobs, that makes sense because of the amount of time and effort they had to put forth in order to get the Church started and keep it going.

Now about the part that I put in bold above. I never said giving up all you own is wrong. I was implying that it is wrong to tell everyone they must do it, per the reasons that have been cited by myself and others.


Then there is that trite old argument that Jesus wants us to be "in the world". Now, apart from those Christians who have died and been buried (Hmm, I guess even with them, their REMAINS are "in the world"!)

Cute. Can I pinch your cheeks? :teeth:


we're all pretty much in the world, no matter how fanatical our beliefs may be. So the prayer wasn't for more people to be "in the world"; the prayer was for more people to be "not of the world".

"Be of it" places a special implication on "be in it". It means that you're amongst those who are "of it". And yes, this is so. Note elsewhere in the Gospels Jesus comments about how "the world" hates Him. That's why I was sarcastic to your comment above. Now before you confuse what I am saying, I’m not condemning you for being out of the world (in the sense that I am implying), I’m just saying you shouldn’t tell everyone to do the same.


What a shame that people stumble right over the REAL emphasis of the passage (dare I say context?) in their effort to take a phrase totaly out of context (i.e. "in the world") to say the exact opposite of what the passage is really urging us to do. Jesus wants people who will stop being dominated by the values of the world in which we live, and Jesus said that those values are epitomised in our relationship to money.

I didn't miss that, nor do I disagree. What you missed is the implication that "of it" places on "in it" and how it applies to my argument. “Be in it”, like, be in a secular job that pays money with which you buy food. Is that the path for everyone? No, but neither is not being in a secular job that pays money.


He didn't say, "You cannot serve God and Satan," although that is obviously a truism. But he got more specific and identified the antagonist as "mammon" (i.e. money and all that it can buy). He said, "All the nations of the world worry about what they are going to eat and what they are going to wear; DON'T BE LIKE THEM." What a shame that we don't have more people who can look for the truth in this without being so reactionary and straining at so many gnats.

Hey, you know what? Considering the cost of living, my future job pays jack. Guess what? I'm not worried about how I will eat or where I will sleep. I know it'll happen, even if it has to be in the slums (which I don't care). Mammon was a god of money, no doubt, but more specifically he was a god of greed (profit). Simply having money doesn’t entail greediness.


Okay, enough from me for now. Enjoy yourselves!

Enough sermonizing; please start answering specifics if you want to maintain any level of dignity. The quote system works wonders. And if you don’t have the time to read and respond carefully, read it in chunks at a time to be sure you have understood everything correctly, we won’t crucify you for taking too long to respond. Though I am not currently busy because school hasn’t started, I understand how that goes.

[jpholding]

Sorry about being so slow to get back. It's an awful lot to read, and I simply don't have the time to respond to it all.

That rant was so discombobulated that I'm not even sure it was a response to anything I said. It looked like someone took a response to what I said and battered it against a wall.

Well, I'll tend to it as I can when I return later, though I think OMZ said just about all I would have.

[fanaticool]

Hello again,

Well, lots to comment on again.

I think the most significant thing was the complete lack of response to the verses that I posted where people are recorded as having taken Jesus literaly. I gave four examples, without any interpretation at all on my part, of people recorded as having literally forsaken all, to give some context to this verse from Luke 14:33. Here is the only response I got to that:


As I pointed out, Jesus kept in touch with His earthly family His entire time here. He even took on the trade of His earthly father. Unless you're willing to say God the Son wasn't really God up until that point, but converted to faith in God and then abandoned all, He didn't take it literally.

Huh, just more stuff about how there is absolutely no reason to consider a literal interpretation. There is a saying that goes like this: ''if it's a problem, then there is a problem.'' It's a bit like '' me thinks thou dost protest too much''. There has been A LOT of talk about NOT taking this teaching seriously, but when someone produces evidence to show that there IS a precedence for taking this teaching seriusly, it is completely ignored in favour of nasty comments about how we are no better than the likes of Benny Hinn. Seriously, there is a problem here.


And it wasn't a decision of someone being an idiot. I was being rhetorical in saying that there is a conflict if we read it the way you are reading it.

Yes I agree there will be a conflict if you interpret the teaching the way the apostels did, and actually do what Jesus is commanding. The conflict is what is causing you to not even consider a literal interpretation, because if you did, you might actually have to let go of all the stuff you are clinging to. But, of course, that is the whole point of the lesson. How can you say you will lay your life down if you can't even forsake your possesions.


That said, the website talks about not working for food, and even lists Matthew 6:25-24along with the forsake all passage. Grocery stores don't give people food for free, that I am aware of.

Actually, it is Jesus who talks about not working for food. We just copied him, but thanks for the compliment anyway. You also got the wrong verse, although it heavily relates. Try John 6:27



Also, the raw meat deal is putting words in my mouth, you can build a fire and cook the meat. And I didn't say no clothes, I just said no store bought clothing.

This one is hilarious, and actually illustrates the funny logic that happens when people start arguing about these teachings. Okay, fair enough, oldman didn't say anything about raw meat. But there were several other people who did talk about living in caves and not having any clothing. I guess it was unfair of me to go from what you guys said about living naked in a cave to suggesting raw meat. My bad!


y the way, you still haven't addressed the issue I brought up with the Luke passage and what Jesus says elsewhere in the Gospels, which is the whole reason I take the forsake all passage to be a hyperbole.

Actually, both Nathan and I did address the issue. I posted several supporting verses about forsaking all and Nathan posted something about how there is a difference between using things and owning things. Unfortunately, he turned that into something nasty about how we are just scaming people, much like Benny Hinn. In fact, here is what he said.


So, are you saying that as long as you do not own what you are using, it has been forsaken? So, if I build mansions and buy multiple yachts and give them away to someone else with a tacit agreement that they OWN it but that I can still USE it, then I have forsaken the mansions and yachts, but can still enjoy them. Thank you for that!

Well, Nathan, you have your loophole, but I don't think God will be very impressed with it. BTW, please don't credit ME what that little bit of slipsliding; you came up with that all on your own. All did was to agree with you that using things is different from owning them.


Joseph is the PERFECT example

Joseph, the guy who was a secret ''beleiver'' for fear of the Jews is the perfect example of how to obey Jesus' teachings? Umm...can anyone else see a problem here? BTW, Joseph was also accompanied by Nicodemus (the other guy who was a secret believer, apparently, but also whom Jesus said was not even able to see the kingdom of Heaven) when he went to get the body of Jesus. You can follow these guys if you want, but I think I'll stick with following the example of the apostles, who actually died for thier faith.

okay, time for my own Bible study to happen.

Casey

[NathanielS]

Huh, just more stuff about how there is absolutely no reason to consider a literal interpretation. There is a saying that goes like this: ''if it's a problem, then there is a problem.'' It's a bit like '' me thinks thou dost protest too much''. There has been A LOT of talk about NOT taking this teaching seriously, but when someone produces evidence to show that there IS a precedence for taking this teaching seriusly, it is completely ignored in favour of nasty comments about how we are no better than the likes of Benny Hinn. Seriously, there is a problem here.

One, the comment about Benny Hinn was meant to be sarcastic. Two, I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at here. Yes, there were some people who were called to give up their families and their jobs, but does that make it a universal command for all time? That is the question. The Bible talks of many people doing many things at the direct command of God, but is that command a universal command to everyone? I will allow someone more mature in their faith to answer that question.


Yes I agree there will be a conflict if you interpret the teaching the way the apostels did, and actually do what Jesus is commanding. The conflict is what is causing you to not even consider a literal interpretation, because if you did, you might actually have to let go of all the stuff you are clinging to. But, of course, that is the whole point of the lesson. How can you say you will lay your life down if you can't even forsake your possesions.

Again, is this a universal application of a universal command or a special application by a special group of people (the Apostles)?

Back to your main argument: you use the laying down of one's life as an example. Since the disciples were not all out killing themselves randomly, we can assume this was a command to be willing to lay down (or lose their) lives. Why is this not true for the forsake everything command?


This one is hilarious, and actually illustrates the funny logic that happens when people start arguing about these teachings. Okay, fair enough, oldman didn't say anything about raw meat. But there were several other people who did talk about living in caves and not having any clothing. I guess it was unfair of me to go from what you guys said about living naked in a cave to suggesting raw meat. My bad!

I did not bring up the that argument, but I think it was merely to show a radical interpretation of your claims, which your website even claims is promoting a radical view. The problem, in my personal opinion with radicalism, is that you can never go far enough and it invites craziness (in terms of actions) in the name of getting at the truth.


Actually, both Nathan and I did address the issue. I posted several supporting verses about forsaking all and Nathan posted something about how there is a difference between using things and owning things. Unfortunately, he turned that into something nasty about how we are just scaming people, much like Benny Hinn. In fact, here is what he said.

Well, Nathan, you have your loophole, but I don't think God will be very impressed with it. BTW, please don't credit ME what that little bit of slipsliding; you came up with that all on your own. All did was to agree with you that using things is different from owning them.

1) I never accused you of scamming anyone.

2) I did not make the Benny Hinn comparison.

3) I was merely pointing out the flaw in the logic of trying to define forsake everything as meaning merely to forsake ownership of everything and I used an extreme example to show the flaw in logic. Benny Hinn is just an extreme real-world example of the logical flaw (according to whoever mentioned him).


Joseph, the guy who was a secret ''beleiver'' for fear of the Jews is the perfect example of how to obey Jesus' teachings? Umm...can anyone else see a problem here? BTW, Joseph was also accompanied by Nicodemus (the other guy who was a secret believer, apparently, but also whom Jesus said was not even able to see the kingdom of Heaven) when he went to get the body of Jesus. You can follow these guys if you want, but I think I'll stick with following the example of the apostles, who actually died for thier faith.

1) He is a good example because he is NOT (according to your interpretation of Jesus' words) following Jesus, yet he is listed as a disciple. You banter around the "forsake everything or you cannot be His disciple" verse and interpret it in a certain way, yet the fact that Joseph of Arimathea is a disciple, despite not having forsaken everything (by YOUR GROUP's interpretations) shows a major contradiction. You have yet to address that contradiction except to insult Joseph.

2) Not all the apostles died for their faith (minor issue, I know, merely setting the record straight).

3) Is everyone called to apostleship? I'll let someone else answer that. Although one quick thing related to that: the Apostle Paul did work (I don't know if that is the tentmaking thing or what), yet you refuse to follow that example.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I just want a basic idea stated on the topic of God and Money from McKay.

[jpholding]

OMZ did in fact do an excellent job of responding, so I have little to say other than, Thank you OMZ for sparing me this idiocy. Just a few comments.



I must have the wrong translation, because mine says that hypocrites do it in the "synagogues" too. (There never were buildings called "churches" in the Bible, in case you guys didn't know that either.)

In case you didn't know, "synagogue" referred to the people in assembly, not a building. And the usual place of assembly was a public area....like in the street.


Seriously, I wonder whether you guys have any idea at all about how Jesus and his disciples lived. He said, "Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head."

That was the work of an itinerant teacher, not someone shedding themselves of all belongings. As also noted, he had patrons and supporters and a money bag.

And ditto -- Benny Hinn is an idiot. He's the extreme opposite ignorance of your own on this subject.


that; but it seems that there is a pretty strong push to just set it aside in favour of getting jobs and working 40 hours a week for as much money as you can get... you know, the way Jesus and his disciples did!

I wonder if you happened to notice that of the many people Jesus encountered with jobs -- including well-off people like Zaccheus, Nicodemus, Jairus, etc. -- we never see him telling them they need to quit their work and live like bums. Some he did call away, like Matthew, but those were very few. Why is that?


still submitted to their authority while he was a minor, but it didn't stop him from knowing that he was destined for something better than the rat race (First Century style).

No such thing then. Most people were agriculturalists.



But when Casey pointed out the repeated practical references to the various disciples of Jesus forsaking their old jobs, leaving their families and homes, etc. it starts to look like people here are trying too hard to make hyperbole out of stuff that is just plain common sense.

It looks like you're not educated enough to recognize hyperbole contextually and so in your ignorance call it "plain common sense". In the ancient world, moral exhortation was a normal place for excessive language. Please don't waste our time with silly threats of "we may have to start thinking that Jesus himself was a hyperbole. Or that his ressurection was hyperbole". The latter are spoken of in nartrative, Greco-Roman bioi format which was NOT a genre for hyperbole of that type. Instead, start reading some decent works of Biblical scholarship.



Okay, enough from me for now. Enjoy yourselves!

Shooting ducks is kind of fun.

[NathanielS]

I'd like to make an appeal to everyone (especially myself, for I'm guilty of this during this discussion): can we ease up on the sarcasm and quasi-insulting remarks? I admit I was using sarcasm earlier and it only confuses everything.

It seems many people on 'both sides' of this discussion are misinterpreting each other's statement. One persons responds to a sarcastic statement as if it is said in a completely truthful plain meaning. Another responds to a plain statement as if there is sarcasm behind it. In the end, it damages and confuses statements, ideas and arguments.

After all, one area of contention in understanding/interpreting the words of Jesus and His original followers is that there is a certain amount of hyperbole (and even sarcasm) in some of His sermons and statements to followers and others. If it is confusing when God the Son, the bringer of Truth and the Perfect Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), uses these polemical devices, then how much more difficult is it for others to understand when we, as imperfect and fallible men and women, use these devices for imperfect and fallible arguments?

[OldManZangetsu]

Hello again,

Howdy.


Well, lots to comment on again.

Yup.


I think the most significant thing was the complete lack of response to the verses that I posted where people are recorded as having taken Jesus literaly. I gave four examples, without any interpretation at all on my part, of people recorded as having literally forsaken all, to give some context to this verse from Luke 14:33. Here is the only response I got to that:

Well, we have given you a response. Since you missed it here’s a definitive list:

1) I have stated that it makes sense that the disciples left literally everything, because of the amount of work required to a) learn from Christ and b) get the Church started and keep it going. See here (”http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html”) for a few reasons why this was a difficult task. To add to that, they were in very hostile territory because many people thought Jesus was a blasphemer.
2) Jesus tells us to give to Cesar what is Cesar’s and give to God what is God’s. This is not a prescription to have a job, but it is also not a prescription to not have a job. This relates more the working and tentmaking deal from the JC website, however I state this here because if you have a job you’ll have possessions, such as money.
3) In light of #2, Jesus was a carpenter (per Mark 6:3). This shows us that Jesus has no problem with us having an earthly job, thus, no problem with having possessions. It’s what we do with these possessions He has a problem with, like storing unnecessary possessions or having an excess beyond what you need.
4) As I pointed out from Matthew 6:2, in order to give to the poor, you must be not poor. This entail having money. Unless you’re of the super rich, you generally have money via a job.
5) Also, Jesus had patronal support.
6) Ananias would have gotten to keep the money he got from selling his possessions, it is assumed that the other people mentioned in Acts did as well.
7) In light of the above, the hyperbole deal that I repeatedly mentioned is the lynchpin of your argument, but I will continue with one more example.
8) Zacchaeus from Luke 19:1-9. He only gave away half of his possessions to the poor, and never cheated anyone. Jesus commends him (this lynches your argument in totality because the commendation was of salvation!), and does not chide him and tell him to forsake all.


Huh, just more stuff about how there is absolutely no reason to consider a literal interpretation. There is a saying that goes like this: ''if it's a problem, then there is a problem.'' It's a bit like '' me thinks thou dost protest too much''. There has been A LOT of talk about NOT taking this teaching seriously, but when someone produces evidence to show that there IS a precedence for taking this teaching seriusly, it is completely ignored in favour of nasty comments about how we are no better than the likes of Benny Hinn. Seriously, there is a problem here.

Lol, well taking the above into consideration, we have been taking this teaching seriously. Just not according to your version of it. By the way, is that computer you’re using a public computer or your own private possession? And we never said y ‘all were no better than Benny Hinn. Here’s what we all had to say on the topic of Hinn:



There is no shortage or atheists or children in the world. You can witness to them any time any where. So what is the real issue here?
Witnessing is best done by building relationships, at least that is what I have experienced so far, today. People have a tendency to head the words of someone they look up to/trust/know as opposed to some random evangelist coming in to preach. Especially nowadays with crackpots like Benny Hinn and some of the others on TBN, and all the scandals we hear about in the Evangelical churches.

So we see here that my original usage of Hinn had nothing to do with the JCs. It had to do with witnessing, and why some people today automatically shut off their brains when hearing someone give a general gospel message to a large crowd of people.


How nice to see that they'd have no problem with Benny Hinn's extravagant wealth, since he personally owns very little of it and most of it--the houses, the cars, the jets, etc.--are in fact owned by his ministry. Even most of his clothes are donated to him by people in his ministry.

This is hardly saying y’all are no better than Hinn, this was a sarcastic comment directed towards how y’all are reading the forsake all passage.

Moving on…


Yes I agree there will be a conflict if you interpret the teaching the way the apostels did, and actually do what Jesus is commanding. The conflict is what is causing you to not even consider a literal interpretation, because if you did, you might actually have to let go of all the stuff you are clinging to. But, of course, that is the whole point of the lesson. How can you say you will lay your life down if you can't even forsake your possesions.

Cute. Can I pinch your cheeks, too? :teeth:

Read my comments above.


Actually, it is Jesus who talks about not working for food. We just copied him, but thanks for the compliment anyway. You also got the wrong verse, although it heavily relates. Try John 6:27

:brood: Duh Jesus said it. You know what I meant. And no I didn’t get the wrong verse, check it out



6. Don't work for food - Jn 6:27,Mt 6:24-33, Lk 12:29
I'm not quite sure how to take this one. A person gets a food somehow. Tilling the ground is working, hunting could loosely be considering working for your food, etc. Unless God gives us food like He did to those in Exodus, we're working in some form to get food. So about 6:27, this doesn't mean a person should not work for food, the emphasis is that the people should pay attention to the miracles Christ is performing and believe in Him. Matthew is not talking about not working, he's saying don't worry, how could the author of this list miss that? The idea of not worrying was explicit in this passage. Same with the Luke passage.

See that? Matthew 6:25-34 is listed right alongside John 6:27. Since you missed it the first time, though, I’ll clarify: John 6:27 is hardly telling everyone to not work for food. Look at the passage in it’s entirety (say… what happened to the Bible quote tags?)


When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.
Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” “Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this bread.”
Then Jesus declared “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. T is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers arte manna and died, but he who feeds on his bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

The full context involves all of chapter 6. But the jist is, the people were following Jesus around like he was some kind of side show or commodity, for the food. Note all of the parts I put in bold above. Jesus isn’t really talking about food, he’s talking about salvation. Food is just the medium for which he chooses to convey this thought. This is not saying “don’t work for food.” That is the reason why I referenced Matthew 6:25-34, because that is closer to the idea. But again, it’s not saying don’t work, it’s just saying, don’t worry, which would include someone having money and being worried about not having enough.


This one is hilarious, and actually illustrates the funny logic that happens when people start arguing about these teachings. Okay, fair enough, oldman didn't say anything about raw meat. But there were several other people who did talk about living in caves and not having any clothing. I guess it was unfair of me to go from what you guys said about living naked in a cave to suggesting raw meat. My bad!

Whatever :tongue:

Just please specify who and what exactly you are responding to, your posts make much more sense that way. It would also help to break your posts up into two posts rather than one. Like, one responding to JP, another to Nathaniel, and another to myself.


Actually, both Nathan and I did address the issue. I posted several supporting verses about forsaking all and Nathan posted something about how there is a difference between using things and owning things. Unfortunately, he turned that into something nasty about how we are just scaming people, much like Benny Hinn. In fact, here is what he said.

Again, see my comments above.



So, are you saying that as long as you do not own what you are using, it has been forsaken? So, if I build mansions and buy multiple yachts and give them away to someone else with a tacit agreement that they OWN it but that I can still USE it, then I have forsaken the mansions and yachts, but can still enjoy them. Thank you for that!

Well, Nathan, you have your loophole, but I don't think God will be very impressed with it. BTW, please don't credit ME what that little bit of slipsliding; you came up with that all on your own. All did was to agree with you that using things is different from owning them.

Oh boy… no, nowhere did Nathaniel say anything about scamming. What he said is not an example of scamming, it’s an example of loaning. And y’all are taking our sarcasm about Benny Hinn too far. First, Nathaniel wasn't making a comparison between him and y'all. Second, we aren’t saying y’all are like him, we’re commenting on how you are reading the passages in question. We express that idea through our usage of Hinn. We dislike Hinn, he is a dishonest kook. While we believe y’all are mislead, we at least see that y’all are honest. Hinn has been questioned about his beliefs and methods many times, and I believe at one point he even admitted he was in the wrong.


Joseph, the guy who was a secret ''beleiver'' for fear of the Jews is the perfect example of how to obey Jesus' teachings? Umm...can anyone else see a problem here? BTW, Joseph was also accompanied by Nicodemus (the other guy who was a secret believer, apparently, but also whom Jesus said was not even able to see the kingdom of Heaven) when he went to get the body of Jesus. You can follow these guys if you want, but I think I'll stick with following the example of the apostles, who actually died for thier faith.

Nathaniel did a wonderful job of explaining this.


okay, time for my own Bible study to happen.

Casey

Finally, someone who trusts the Bible. This is a huge step up from Spiess :thumb:

[OldManZangetsu]

OMZ did in fact do an excellent job of responding, so I have little to say other than, Thank you OMZ for sparing me this idiocy.

Yeah, you owe me :glare:

Just kidding :hehe:

[OldManZangetsu]

6. Don't work for food - Jn 6:27,Mt 6:24-33, Lk 12:29

I'm not quite sure how to take this one. A person gets a food somehow. Tilling the ground is working, hunting could loosely be considering working for your food, etc. Unless God gives us food like He did to those in Exodus, we're working in some form to get food. So about 6:27, this doesn't mean a person should not work for food, the emphasis is that the people should pay attention to the miracles Christ is performing and believe in Him. Matthew is not talking about not working, he's saying don't worry, how could the author of this list miss that? The idea of not worrying was explicit in this passage. Same with the Luke passage.

See that? Matthew 6:25-34is listed right alongside John 6:27. Since you missed it the first time, though, I’ll clarify: John 6:27is hardly telling everyone to not work for food. Look at the passage in it’s entirety (say… what happened to the Bible quote tags?)

I'd also like to add that in Exodus, God even tells them to gather twice as much food on Friday because He forbade them to gather on the Sabbath. So even then, they were working for their food.

[OldManZangetsu]

3) Is everyone called to apostleship? I'll let someone else answer that. Although one quick thing related to that: the Apostle Paul did work (I don't know if that is the tentmaking thing or what), yet you refuse to follow that example.

They see working as bad to begin with, so Paul's example in Acts is one (according to them) that we should not follow. Though since I pointed out Mark 6:3 they have nothing to argue with.

[NathanielS]

NATHANIEL'S RANDOM QUESTION OF THE DAY?

Does anyone here (since this thread has turned into me bringing up questions about different things and seeking answers) have an opinion on Monastic Orders? Basically, as I am getting involved in Anglicanism (not to be confused with the theologically liberal Episcopalian Church USA), I have learned that they have Monastic Orders (albet different from Roman Catholic Orders, yet similar).

For example:

In Anglicanism the Benedictine and Franciscan orders are called the Order of St. Benedict and the Society of St. Francis. I must admit, as I am considering going into ministry, one option is get involved in monasticism. Does anyone have an opinion on whether this kind of thing is beneficial (both to the individual and to others) or not; also, what considerations should someone take into account if considering this kind of choice?

[Rayado]

That would certainly seem to be the case with the argument that the "Top Forty" commands of Jesus (simple little excerpts from the gospels) were "taken out of context". What theology class is it that teaches you how to use that argument, because over the years I have heard religious people all over the world use it even when they didn't have a clue what the context was. (Note: I'm not saying that it isn't possible to take something out of context, but I am saying that the argument is used repeatedly as a knee-jerk defence to anything that challenges your traditional way of viewing things... the "regular case".)That would be the Hermeneutics class, the one that you missed. Rather than distraction, I'd like to see you show if and why JP was wrong in his evaluation of your "Top 40," because--surprise!--most of them were, in fact, taken out of their context.

[NathanielS]

I knew we had though we had put Tim Spiess and his stuff to rest, but I was searching through that Alexa website history thing, and I found this very...interesting...article.

Mr. Spiess of the 1st Century Meets Paul the Apostle (http://web.archive.org/web/20051025205938/www.jesusfamilies.org/hot_topics/talkwithPaul.htm)

[Sparko]

I didn't read the whole thread, it was too long so sorry if I am about to say something that has already been covered.

But reading the Jesusfamilies web site one thing struck me right away. their central teaching seems to be that money is evil, the mark of the beast and to be saved you have to give it all away and follow Jesus.

Then a few pages over, I see a page where they are selling books from Amazon.

:irony:

Someone isn't practicing what they preach.

[NathanielS]

I didn't read the whole thread, it was too long so sorry if I am about to say something that has already been covered.

But reading the Jesusfamilies web site one thing struck me right away. their central teaching seems to be that money is evil, the mark of the beast and to be saved you have to give it all away and follow Jesus.

Then a few pages over, I see a page where they are selling books from Amazon.

:irony:

Someone isn't practicing what they preach.

It's the Jesus Christians (not Tim Spiess's Jesus Families) that are selling copies of 'Survivor' at Amazon. In fairness to the JCians, one can find an online copy free linked to their website and, according to some thread on their message board, they were giving away free copies of the book away in Australia or something.

Interesting to note though is that the only way to purchase things on Amazon is through credit/debit cards, PayPal, bank account, etc. They seem very harsh on things like credit and banking. Odd.

[Sparko]

It's the Jesus Christians (not Tim Spiess's Jesus Families) that are selling copies of 'Survivor' at Amazon. In fairness to the JCians, one can find an online copy free linked to their website and, according to some thread on their message board, they were giving away free copies of the book away in Australia or something.

Interesting to note though is that the only way to purchase things on Amazon is through credit/debit cards, PayPal, bank account, etc. They seem very harsh on things like credit and banking. Odd.


ah I didnt realize they were different. I was looking for Dave McKay's cult site and went to the JesusChristian site and mis spoke when I said the Jesus families site, (I was looking at the thread title)

[NathanielS]

What did anyone think of that Mr. Spiess meets the Apostle Paul conversation link?

[Rayado]

I think I'll take a stab at it later. Edit: Actually, I think I'll rewrite it and have Paul kick this 'disciple''s kiester.

[OldManZangetsu]

That would be the Hermeneutics class, the one that you missed. Rather than distraction, I'd like to see you show if and why JP was wrong in his evaluation of your "Top 40," because--surprise!--most of them were, in fact, taken out of their context.

Hey, hey. Don't confuse them now. Dave had enough trouble getting us all straight. That was me that critiqued it :tongue:

[fanaticool]

Hope you guys don't mind if I don't bother to bother with quotes this time around. If you have any questions you can just go back and re read your own posts.

On the one hand you say all that stuff about forsaking all was only for the apostles, when it can be clearly shown that they took Jesus literally, but on the other hand you talk about how it's something you only need to do in your heart. Huh, funny contradiction. If it was only for the apostels then why do we also get so much reaction from you guys about how it's only hyperbole? You guys seem to chop and change between arguments when it suits you. You are quite happy to take Jesus' salvation but when it comes to the discipline, you've got whole libraries and universities full of teachings on why that stuff was only for the apostels. Very convenient.

I have to say that I am kind of losing my inspiration about posting on this thread (I was quite excited about it at first), expecially when it comes to remarks about my idiocy and extreme ignorance. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, although I really do hope the atmosphere can lighten up a bit.

Casey

[NathanielS]

Perhaps you have misinterpreted our statements. Personally, I was never saying that the commands of Jesus applied only to the Apostles. We are getting into how to interpret and apply the commands of Jesus.

"So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:33, NKJV)

If this was a universal present imperative command to be taken literally at the plain meaning of the words, then how could Joseph of Arimathea be listed as a disciple? How could Peter, who was given authority to preach the Kingdom of God, tell Ananias that the land and its proceeds were his until he voluntarily promised them to God? Why would Jesus praise Zaccheus for giving up only half his possessions to the poor?

[OldManZangetsu]

Wow... can't even take on the evidence of Zaccheus and Joseph straight on. Sounds like someone's been proven wrong and doesn't want to admit it.


If it was only for the apostels then why do we also get so much reaction from you guys about how it's only hyperbole? You guys seem to chop and change between arguments when it suits you.

I never said it only applied to the apostles, either. I said, "It makes sense that they forsook everything because..." Likewise, there were others who forsook all as well, and given the proper circumstances, it made sense for them as well, like, the coming disaster in 70 AD. "It makes sense" does not equate to "only applies to", goofy. Perhaps the misunderstanding came about in my usage of words. Forsake/forsook is a word claimed by both sides in this conversation, thus, each side is applying different ideas to the word. The apostles weren't "taking Jesus literally", they were applying His teaching (the way we have read the passage) to their life to fit the circumstances. And no, this isn't "convenience", you only say that because you continue to read that passage as literally giving up every single thing on the spot. But we have answered you on this. Say... you still haven't answered us about your computer.

But clearly we've seen there are people who have been promised salvation that did not "take Jesus literally" on the forsake all teaching, and we even see one getting direct commendation from Christ (of salvation no less) when he only forsook half. Thus, our point has been proven about the passage not recommending every person in history to literally give up everything they own on the spot.

Care to confront Zaccheus and Joseph honestly?


although I really do hope the atmosphere can lighten up a bit.

That'll happen when you respond in honesty :teeth:

[NathanielS]

Hey guys (and girls),

I found another interesting website (http://kingshouse.org/). Does anyone have any opinion on this group and its ideas? I am not saying they are wrong or right, this is what I am trying to find out. They say some thing I agree with and other things I wonder about (I have not seen anything I can say I truly think is outright wrong).

Thanks.

EDIT: Link fixed.

[RumTumTugger]

Hey guys (and girls),

I found another interesting website (http://kingshouse.org/). Does anyone have any opinion on this group and its ideas? I am not saying they are wrong or right, this is what I am trying to find out. They say some thing I agree with and other things I wonder about (I have not seen anything I can say I truly think is outright wrong).

Thanks.

I got an error message when I tried the link.

[NathanielS]

All fixed.

[Raphael]

Hey guys (and girls),

I found another interesting website (http://kingshouse.org/). Does anyone have any opinion on this group and its ideas? I am not saying they are wrong or right, this is what I am trying to find out. They say some thing I agree with and other things I wonder about (I have not seen anything I can say I truly think is outright wrong).

Thanks.

EDIT: Link fixed.
Hi Nathaniel,

:lolo: Well glancing at some of there stuff, apparently I'm going against the bible for wanting to be cremated when I die.
http://www.kingshouse.org/cremation.htm

:thumbd: they are KJVO advocates. (I have no problem with people choosing to read the KJV; but for some reason the KJVO guys always seem to think that there are only two English translations, the NIV and the KJV, oh and maybe they'll consider the Message to be English as well)
http://www.kingshouse.org/KJVBible.htm

The rest is from their Statement of Faith (http://www.kingshouse.org/statement.html)
:shrug: They believe in a literal hell where people will literally, body and soul spend eternity. (not a problem, but there are other views that are just as valid.)

:shrug: They have a post-tribulation eschalotogical viewpoint. (again not a problem, but there are other valid viewpoints)

:thumbd: they are against women having any office that has an authoritarian position. (I don't know if you've read Glenn Miller's excellent article on the topic...if you haven't, do, if you have, make others read it).

:shrug: They believe that Christian children should either go to private Christian schools, or be home schooled. (I don't see what is wrong with government schooling, all my schooling was govt schooling)

:thumbd: :thumb: they're against Christmas and Easter (and Halloween, but I do agree on the Halloween one)

:thumb: They're against the "Prosperity Gospel"

:shrug: They believe that Christian's shouldn't follow the latest styles or fads (I say it depends on the style/fad). also they say no smoking (I agree) and no drinking (although I do not drink by choice, I disagree that having anything alcoholic to drink =being a drunkard)

:thumb: They don't believe in UFO's

:thumb: They disagree with cults

:thumbd: "The following are classified as heretical and apostate, in their overall conduct and practices. Roman Catholicism, Episcopal, Lutherans, Anglicans."

:shrug: they're against body piercing and tattoos (I dislike both, but I disagree with their scriptural reasoning)

:thumbd: They believe you shouldn't read any book that is fictional, because by definition fiction is a falsehood and deceptive.

:thumbd: Men mustn't have long hair, and women must.

[NathanielS]

they're against Christmas and Easter

I can agree with being against Christmas and Easter actually. Jesus could not have been, due to historical evidence, been born in the Winter and there was some pagan basis for the choosing of December 25th. On the other hand, since no definitive date is given for the birth of Jesus, I guess it is okay to celebrate it on Christmas BUT WE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS NOT HIS REAL BIRTHDAY AND WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE HISTORY OF IT.

On Easter, I fully agree. It is interesting they support KJVO, yet they admit the KJV mistranslates Passover into Easter. The Last Supper was a Passover (Pesah) seder. Passover certainly has a Biblical basis (God's miraculous rescue of His people from the Egyptians) and Easter has a pagan basis. We should celebrate Passover (recognizing both the OT and NT connotations of it).


They believe that Christian's shouldn't follow the latest styles or fads (I say it depends on the style/fad). also they say no smoking (I agree) and no drinking (although I do not drink by choice, I disagree that having anything alcoholic to drink =being a drunkard)

They said no drinking? On another part of their site, they say wine, in moderation, is okay.


they're against body piercing and tattoos (I dislike both, but I disagree with their scriptural reasoning)

Personally, I do not care for tattoos and piercings (I come from a Jewish background and the idea of defacing one's body is bad), but the question is: IS IT SINFUL OR NOT? In the OT law, it says it is, but a reason is given: God did not want His people copying the pagan rituals (which often involved tattoos/piercings/etc.).

The question comes down to is that a ceremonial/cultural law (which was for the Israelites) or a moral law (thus, universal)? I don't know. Certainly, if we try to justify ourselves by God's law, we WILL fail, but, on the other hand, should we purposely go again His moral law (I confess I have done this on many occasions and that it is a sinful thing)?

What we can look at is what do we gain by piercings/tattoos? In my opinion, nothing, but maybe someone else feels that it is proper. That is between them and God. Certainly, if they are getting tattoos/piercing simply to fit in with certain secular crowds (punks, goths, etc.), then I'd say that that is wrong (same thing if I decide to earn a lot of money so I can build a huge house and fit in with the American yuppy).


they are against women having any office that has an authoritarian position.

I can see they're point about women not holding spiritual authority over men, but what about over other women or over men in a non-spiritual manner (i.e. Deborah, who although a prophetess, was commanding Israelite armies)?


The following are classified as heretical and apostate, in their overall conduct and practices. Roman Catholicism, Episcopal, Lutherans, Anglicans.

Do they say what makes these groups, esp. Anglicans, apostates? I ask because I currently attend an Anglican church. Reading some of their things, they seems to have a definite landmarkist/only-we-have-it-right-and-everyone-else-is-an-apostate mentality. Also, they call themselves the King's House (they base it on Scripture, but never do you see Jesus or the early Church using this as a name for themselves) and claim to be puritan/neo-puritan (again, Jesus nor His early Church used that title).

[Raphael]

I can agree with being against Christmas and Easter actually. Jesus could not have been, due to historical evidence, been born in the Winter and there was some pagan basis for the choosing of December 25th. On the other hand, since no definitive date is given for the birth of Jesus, I guess it is okay to celebrate it on Christmas BUT WE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS NOT HIS REAL BIRTHDAY AND WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE HISTORY OF IT.Oh I agree that we must remain clear on the fact that we actually don't know when Jesus' birthday was, but
i have no problem with commemorating it at christmas.


On Easter, I fully agree. It is interesting they support KJVO, yet they admit the KJV mistranslates Passover into Easter. The Last Supper was a Passover (Pesah) seder. Passover certainly has a Biblical basis (God's miraculous rescue of His people from the Egyptians) and Easter has a pagan basis. We should celebrate Passover (recognizing both the OT and NT connotations of it).What is in a name?
Eosteris (sp?) was certianly a pagan festival, but we use the word Easter now to relate that passover time.


They said no drinking? On another part of their site, they say wine, in moderation, is okay. in one part of their statement of faith they say "Drinking/Smoking we believe the character of the Christian should not marked with drunkenness or filthiness (Eph.5:18; Lk.21:34; Gal.5:21). Therefore purity and cleanness in all things must be desired."
And further down (on the same page) they say: "DRINKING, SMOKING, AND DRUGS – Of course the believer should have nothing to do with these vices. I should not even have to mention them except for the fact that we find many Christians that do these things.


Personally, I do not care for tattoos and piercings (I come from a Jewish background and the idea of defacing one's body is bad),My objection to them is I think they look disgusting. :eww:


but the question is: IS IT SINFUL OR NOT? In the OT law, it says it is, but a reason is given: God did not want His people copying the pagan rituals (which often involved tattoos/piercings/etc.).

The question comes down to is that a ceremonial/cultural law (which was for the Israelites) or a moral law (thus, universal)? I don't know. Certainly, if we try to justify ourselves by God's law, we WILL fail, but, on the other hand, should we purposely go again His moral law (I confess I have done this on many occasions and that it is a sinful thing)?

What we can look at is what do we gain by piercings/tattoos? In my opinion, nothing, but maybe someone else feels that it is proper. That is between them and God. Certainly, if they are getting tattoos/piercing simply to fit in with certain secular crowds (punks, goths, etc.), then I'd say that that is wrong (same thing if I decide to earn a lot of money so I can build a huge house and fit in with the American yuppy).As I said, I don't like them, I agree that you should do something just to "fit in". But Biblically the restriction is not getting tattoos in rememberence of the dead (Lev 19:28 You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD.).
I can think of plenty of reasons for not getting them, I just think they're misusing scripture with their reasons.

I can see they're point about women not holding spiritual authority over men, but what about over other women or over men in a non-spiritual manner (i.e. Deborah, who although a prophetess, was commanding Israelite armies)?
You should read Glenn Miller's Women in the Bible (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html), and specifically Paul and Women (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem09.html)

I just noticed this on their Statement of Faith:
:thumbd: PETS – People in ancient times kept dogs for working purposes, and some kept animals as pets. Today millions and millions of dollars are spent on pets. God did not intend to have animals to be companions for us, or have them in cages as we do with birds and such. The believer should have no pets for companionship.

I'm sorry JP, Toby has to go :teeth:

[NathanielS]

What is in a name?
Eosteris (sp?) was certianly a pagan festival, but we use the word Easter now to relate that passover time.

Why not just call it Passover then? Why supplant a Biblical name for a pagan name?


in one part of their statement of faith they say "Drinking/Smoking we believe the character of the Christian should not marked with drunkenness or filthiness (Eph.5:18; Lk.21:34; Gal.5:21). Therefore purity and cleanness in all things must be desired."
And further down (on the same page) they say: "DRINKING, SMOKING, AND DRUGS – Of course the believer should have nothing to do with these vices. I should not even have to mention them except for the fact that we find many Christians that do these things.

On the drugs and (pre-marital) sex part they are consistant, but on drinking, they seem to waver. Look here (http://www.kingshouse.org/wine.htm).


PETS – People in ancient times kept dogs for working purposes, and some kept animals as pets. Today millions and millions of dollars are spent on pets. God did not intend to have animals to be companions for us, or have them in cages as we do with birds and such. The believer should have no pets for companionship.

Huh? Where is the Scriptural basis for that? They admit that, historicall, people kept pets. If they say pets are wrong because they are not mentioned in the Bible...well, neither is going to the bathroom. Also, no OT law (ceremonial/cultural or moral) says pets are forbidden.

[Raphael]

Why not just call it Passover then? Why supplant a Biblical name for a pagan name?:shrug: old habits die hard.


On the drugs and (pre-marital) sex part they are consistant, but on drinking, they seem to waver. Look here (http://www.kingshouse.org/wine.htm).Then they are being inconsistent. but their article on wine seems to be pretty on the level though. compare it to JP's article here (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowine.html)
I'm anti-smoking because I think it's stupid to try make sure you gonna get cancer, but there is no real biblical reason against it. (and I'm sure that they had people smoking stuff back then). Let me be more clear, I'm rabidly anti-smoking.
Drugs....is a huge topic in itself (and I believe that alcohol and cigarettes should be considered drugs). For example I've got no problem with someone taking morphine for pain (a little 2yr old girl from my old church in South Africa, has just been diagnosed with leukaemia, and not even morphine is stopping the pain...the family needs prayer support), and in South Africa an extract from marijuana plant is being used to help cancer sufferers. But if you have to alter your state of mind with drugs in order to enjoy yourself, then something is seriously wrong.
That being said, the Bible is silent on the topic, but I think we can make a very educated guess at what Paul would have said (a big flaming red NO to drugs for anything other than medical reasons)


Huh? Where is the Scriptural basis for that? They admit that, historicall, people kept pets. If they say pets are wrong because they are not mentioned in the Bible...well, neither is going to the bathroom.:wink: I think that one point alone would make JP consider them for a screwball.

[NathanielS]

old habits die hard.

But why would we want to use a Pagan name for a holy day when there is already and Biblical name? Jesus is called our Passover and their are many allusion to Jesus in the Passover meal. The Last Supper was a Passover seder and all the original disciples and Apostles would have called it Passover (because to call it Easter would be pagan).

BTW- what is your view on this (http://www.kingshouse.org/tax.htm)?

[Raphael]

But why would we want to use a Pagan name for a holy day when there is already and Biblical name? Jesus is called our Passover and their are many allusion to Jesus in the Passover meal. The Last Supper was a Passover seder and all the original disciples and Apostles would have called it Passover (because to call it Easter would be pagan).Because I like easter eggs. :wink:

Seriously though, you are right.


BTW- what is your view on this (http://www.kingshouse.org/tax.htm)?An obscurity of American Tax law?

I really don't know, I battled to understand South African tax, and will soon have to try understand New Zealand tax; from what I've seen American tax makes both look like kids parties.

I do know that Tektonics has 501(c) 3 status
http://www.tektonics.org/doninset.html

[jpholding]

BTW- what is your view on this (http://www.kingshouse.org/tax.htm)?

The nimnul here apparently doesn't realize that that most of the rules he cites are things that we as citizens are subject to as well. If anything 501(c)(3) status merely releases an organization from one standard obligation to "Caesar" -- paying taxes.

Does he obey the laws of the USA? If he does, then he's "rendering to Caesar". Which is not something Christ condemned, by the way, but put in opposition to rendering to God what was God's.

[jpholding]

The believer should have no pets for companionship.

I'm sorry JP, Toby has to go :teeth:

They can have him when they pry him from my cold, dead fingers. :rasberry:


They believe you shouldn't read any book that is fictional, because by definition fiction is a falsehood and deceptive.

King's House is a House of Morons. I'd say more but I have to prep for travel.

Uh oh -- do they think that means I'm going to hell too?

[The Curtmudgeon]

BTW- what is your view on this (http://www.kingshouse.org/tax.htm)?

They are totally misrepresenting the 501(c)(3) status and the use of it by churches. Nobody believes that you have to file for 501(c)(3) status to be recognised as a church -- you simply have to file for it if you want to be a tax-exempt organisation of any kind. F'rinstance, I belong to the Southwest Celtic Music Association, a non-profit organisation that supports Celtic music in the US (primarily "southwest", but we haven't actually allowed that description to geographically restrict us very much) -- and the SCMA is definitely 501(c)(3) and just as definitely not a church of any kind.

Churches choose to file as 501(c)(3) if they want tax-exempt status from the IRS. That's all. Period. End of discussion. If they don't choose to file as 501(c)(3), then the only difference is that they have to pay taxes on income just like any other for-profit organisation (US Tax Law -- if you're not recognised as a tax-exempt organisation by officially filing as such, then by default you're a for-profit organisation and will be assessed for taxes just like any other corporation). Most churches prefer to be tax-exempt simply because that allows them to use all their income for the glory of God, not the US government and tax lawyers (they still need the services of a good CPA, as the US government doesn't just take your word for such things, they want continuous documentary proof that your organisation isn't squirrelling money away after all).

It really is that simple. Anybody who mistakes the purposes of 501(c)(3) as badly as this group does, has an obvious agenda that has little or nothing to do with telling the truth. Or else, they are very, very ignorant, which could be just as dangerous.

The (there is no US government department or form that recognises any group or organisation as a "church" -- it really is all about the money) Curtmudgeon

[Raphael]

They are totally misrepresenting the 501(c)(3) status and the use of it by churches. Nobody believes that you have to file for 501(c)(3) status to be recognised as a church -- you simply have to file for it if you want to be a tax-exempt organisation of any kind. F'rinstance, I belong to the Southwest Celtic Music Association, a non-profit organisation that supports Celtic music in the US (primarily "southwest", but we haven't actually allowed that description to geographically restrict us very much) -- and the SCMA is definitely 501(c)(3) and just as definitely not a church of any kind.

Churches choose to file as 501(c)(3) if they want tax-exempt status from the IRS. That's all. Period. End of discussion. If they don't choose to file as 501(c)(3), then the only difference is that they have to pay taxes on income just like any other for-profit organisation (US Tax Law -- if you're not recognised as a tax-exempt organisation by officially filing as such, then by default you're a for-profit organisation and will be assessed for taxes just like any other corporation). Most churches prefer to be tax-exempt simply because that allows them to use all their income for the glory of God, not the US government and tax lawyers (they still need the services of a good CPA, as the US government doesn't just take your word for such things, they want continuous documentary proof that your organisation isn't squirrelling money away after all).

It really is that simple. Anybody who mistakes the purposes of 501(c)(3) as badly as this group does, has an obvious agenda that has little or nothing to do with telling the truth. Or else, they are very, very ignorant, which could be just as dangerous.

The (there is no US government department or form that recognises any group or organisation as a "church" -- it really is all about the money) Curtmudgeon
Reminds me kinda of Kent Hovind's comments on it....look where that landed him

[The Curtmudgeon]

If you file 501(c)(3), and then take a profit out of the kitty, you're breaking the law.

If you don't file 501(c)(3), and don't pay your taxes (or at least file your tax return to show that you didn't make enough to pay), you're breaking the law.

Remember that, regardless of Jesus' statement on the matter, Caesar's version of that phrase is "Render unto Caesar, or I'll send out the Legions!".

I know next to nothing about the Hovind case (other than that he is and/or has been spending time in the clink for something), but what little I do know says that it's because he broke one of the two rules above: either he filed fraudulently, or else he didn't file and still tried to act as if he had. You mess with Uncle Sugar's income, you go sit in the penalty box. Uncle is rather narrow-minded that way.

The (and nothing in God's Word justifies not rendering unto Caesar) Curtmudgeon

[Raphael]

I know next to nothing about the Hovind case (other than that he is and/or has been spending time in the clink for something), but what little I do know says that it's because he broke one of the two rules above: either he filed fraudulently, or else he didn't file and still tried to act as if he had. You mess with Uncle Sugar's income, you go sit in the penalty box. Uncle is rather narrow-minded that way.He didn't file any tax returns, claiming that as a missionary all he had belonged t0 God. He also did structured withdrawals to evade paying tax on things. It's a whole mess, but he was found guilty on something like 53 counts of tax evasion (including his attempting to renounce his American citizenship)

He also claimed that 501 (c) (3) was the governments attempt to control churches etc. (sorry my eyes tend to glaze over when the conspiracy theories start flying)

[The Curtmudgeon]

(sorry my eyes tend to glaze over when the conspiracy theories start flying)

The (:thumb: :yes:) Curtmudgeon

[NathanielS]

A couple of interesting articles from this group. Feel free to comment.

http://www.kingshouse.org/voting.htm
http://www.kingshouse.org/govandchristian.htm
http://www.kingshouse.org/denomonations.htm
http://www.kingshouse.org/oathsandvows.htm
http://www.kingshouse.org/tithing.htm

One thing I really like about King's House is that they appear to be firm supporters of Israel and the Jewish people.

[jpholding]

The voting and tithing ones seemed overall OK. I looked at those because they were subjects I dis research on once.

He could stand to learn how to write without sounding like he's hyperventiliating all the time.

[NathanielS]

Should Christians be voting or not? Also, should they be running for political office and doing other things to be involved in their nation's political system?

[jpholding]

Should Christians be voting or not? Also, should they be running for political office and doing other things to be involved in their nation's political system?

I can't see why not. Paul apparently didn't tell Erastus to quit his job as city treasurer of Corinth, and didn't tell Sergius Paulus to get out of his chair either.

[Theostudent]

I can't see why not. Paul apparently didn't tell Erastus to quit his job as city treasurer of Corinth, and didn't tell Sergius Paulus to get out of his chair either.

We are subjects to authority of the State as it is explained here.

Submission to Authority

13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, [2] whether it be to the emperor [3] as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants [4] of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

so if being a subject to a human institution involves voting, then subject yourself to it.

[OldManZangetsu]

Should this thread ever get moving again, let it be known that school has started for me so I will be on very little. Mostly just to observe the screwball traffic.

[fanaticool]

Hello again,

I've been away for a while; busy time for us here. I've also been spending time on the Jesus Christians forum as well so things are a bit tight time wise, but I wanted to make a few comments. It's a bit long but I hope people will find it interesting.

Some people have made comments about the role of Zacchaeus and Joseph of Arimathea (and to a lesser degree Ananias). I would like to comment on these men but first I hope you won't mind if I give a bit of background for the benefit of what I see as the over all context of this issue, and not just a verse here or there.

For the benefit of those looking on who didn't read from the beginning of this topic, we are talking about some of Jesus' teachings of forsaking all personal ownership and spending our time working for love rather than for money and the things money can buy. Throughout this thread there have been arguments made to suggest that it would be foolish to take a command like "forsake all you have" or "sell what you have, give it to the poor, and then come follow me" literally. We have heard arguments along the lines of these commands being hyperbole, or that they were only for specific people, or that we are not saved by works, or that there are people recorded as not having taken these commands literally, Jesus was a carpenter, Paul made tents, or any number of other reasons for why it's not necessary to take these commands in the same way that the apostles (and Jesus himself) took them (note: these arguments change back and forth depending on which verse is being discussed at the time, despite the differing verses themselves being consistent with one another). The bottom line in all of these arguments is that we don't really need to change our lifestyle in any significant way, as long as we do the right thing "in our heart". However, in all of the MANY references to forsaking all we never see Jesus saying anything about it being something we only need to do in our hearts. I would like to take a minute to explain what I think is happening here.

In the gospels Jesus gave a lot of commands for how people should be living life, what they should be doing and what they should not be doing. A lot of the commands revolve around work, money, and possesions. However, besides commands, he also said a lot about the significance of following these commands and the importance of his words. I could list at least 20 occasions right now which Jesus talks about the importance of obeying his teachings but this is going to be long enough already.

One of the most significant things he said about his teachings comes from Matthew 21:42-44


Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Just before saying this, Jesus told a parable about people who reject him when he comes to see what fruits they have produced. He goes on to say that the builders have rejected the most important stone. Who are these builders? At the time Jesus made this comment they were the respected religious authorities of the day. The pharisees; the guys who went to herganfruticals 101 and knew what the longest AND shortest verses in the holy scrollies were, etc... Much like some people we know today. They knew a lot about religion. However, despite all of this religous fervor, Jesus was/is saying that SOMETHING has been left out of the building. I would like to suggest that this something is his teachings. If you try to obey Jesus, you will be broken (and remade into a new creature for God's use i.e. being born again) but if you run away from it, eventually this stone will fall on you and crush you.

The reason I think this stone that the builders rejected is the teachings of Jesus is because Jesus himself referred to them as a stone (not to mention all the practical examples of rejection they are getting, even today). Check out Matthew 7:24-27. At the end of the sermon on the mount he finishes by saying that the man who hears his sayings and does them is a wise man building on a rock. The man who hears his sayings and does not do them is building on sand (notice nothing here about doing anything in your heart). With Jesus' teachings you are building on the stone, even if you have to break yourself of all your pride, fear, and greed to do it, but if you don't follow these teachings, you don't have that stone to build on. Can you see the connection here?

This is what I think has been happening here on this thread. The teachings of Jesus are being left out of the building. They threaten everything you hold on to, but until you can let go of all of that you won't even be able to see the invisible kingdom. Now I'll give just a few examples of why I think this is happening.

Let's start with Zaccheaus. Someone commented along the lines of "and what about Zacch, huh? He only gave half of his stuff away, so what about that!" Once again, it seems something has been left out here. Lets go back to the Bible to see what actually happened.


Luke 19:8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore [him] fourfold.

Hmmm...It appears that some fairly significant information was left out of the original post using Zacch as a good example of why it's not necessary to forsake all. Slip of the keyboard? Not according to what Jesus said would happen about people leaving something important out of the equation. We see that, indeed, Zacch gave away half of his stuff. The obvious question, then, is what did he do with the other half? Looks pretty clear to me that he used it to pay back all the people he cheated; not a bad guy, eh? So in the end we find that the Zacch example, quite apart from disproving, actually supports a literal forsake all.

Now we move back to the Joseph of Arimathea example. The Bible refers to this man as a "disciple" who was very rich, so people have used him as an example of why it's ok to disregard all the many other examples of a literal forsake all. However, even in this example I questioned the validity of following Joseph's example, based on the fact that he is also clearly described as a SECRET follower for FEAR of the Jews. Once again, this little bit of extremely relevant information was LEFT OUT of the original mention of Joseph. A consistent picture is being formed here, isn't it? The response to this revelation about Joseph's secret membership addressed nothing about this problem in Josephs resume, but instead insisted that he is actually the PERFECT example of what it means to be Christian, specifically because, you can keep all of your stuff. If you want to follow the guy who was afraid to follow Jesus, go right ahead, but I think you'll have some serious explaining to do when it comes time to pay the piper.

I would like to suggest that Joseph was only referred to as a disciple, most likely, because the author wanted to give him at least a bit of credit for having gone and fetched the body of Jesus and then provided a burial place for him, and not because he actually followed Jesus. Jesus himself says "Anyone who is ashamed of me and my words, I will be ashamed of him in the Judgment" (Mark 8) So much for secret "disciples".

All of these attempts to explain away a literal obedience to these commands of Jesus fall right into the category of something being left out of the building. There is one reference in the whole of the Bible to Paul making tents, yet some use that as their corner stone for why Jesus didn't really mean what he said about working for love rather than for money (Paul actually apologized for his slip up in 2 cor. 12. Look it up if you are inclined). Some say those teachings are just hyperbole, but then we have examples of the apostles literally forsaking all, so it can't really be just hyperbole, can it? Some say that forsaking all was only for the apostles, but then we have Jesus commanding the apostles to go and teach the world to do the same things they were told to do. Some say that the Bible clearly states Ananias's property as being his very own property to do with as he pleased, as though that somehow negates what Jesus said. I can't see that it does. The whole point of forsake all is choosing to give your stuff up in obedience to Jesus. Ananias was punished because he tried to cheat on the rules. When I mentioned that that example should make us even more careful about how we observe these commands of Jesus, someone came back saying that Ananias was only punished for lying, and not for cheating on the rules. In other words, if he had just been honest about only wanting to give half to God then everything would have been ok.

So, where do we go from here (assuming you've actually made it all the way to this point.)

Casey

[jpholding]

Hoo boy,


won't mind if I give a bit of background for the benefit of what I see as the over all context of this issue, and not just a verse here or there.

We have heard arguments along the lines of these commands being hyperbole, or that they were only for specific people, or that we are not saved by works, or that there are people recorded as not having taken these commands literally, Jesus was a carpenter, Paul made tents, or any number of other reasons for why it's not necessary to take these commands in the same way that the apostles

Uh HUH. So context doesn't matter at all. :lolo: That's the sort of thing a cultic group would say.



(note: these arguments change back and forth depending on which verse is being discussed at the time,

Um, that's because the settings within which they are offered change back and forth. :doh:

If you're wondering why you don't get no respect here, that would be a good clue.


Who are these builders? At the time Jesus made this comment they were the respected religious authorities of the day. The pharisees; the guys who went to herganfruticals 101 and knew what the longest AND shortest verses in the holy scrollies were, etc... Much like some people we know today. They knew a lot about religion.

Oh dear. Smart people are going to hell. :lolo: Another mark of a cult.


Check out Matthew 7:24-27. At the end of the sermon on the mount he finishes by saying that the man who hears his sayings and does them is a wise man building on a rock. The man who hears his sayings and does not do them is building on sand (notice nothing here about doing anything in your heart). With Jesus' teachings you are building on the stone, even if you have to break yourself of all your pride, fear, and greed to do it, but if you don't follow these teachings, you don't have that stone to build on. Can you see the connection here?

No. As usual, you completely avoid critical contexts. The exhortation at the end of the sermon applies to just what preceded it: The sermon, which offers the closest thing to "universal" teachings offered anywhere by Jesus (yet even they must be contextualized to their settings, and the application for today determined, not just wrenched out of a modernist, English text without study).

And of course, the usual appeal to "pride, fear" etc that is also the mark of a cult, which uses fear to manipulate others.


This is what I think has been happening here on this thread. The teachings of Jesus are being left out of the building. They threaten everything you hold on to, but until you can let go of all of that you won't even be able to see the invisible kingdom.

Yes sir, Mr. Jim Jones, we understand. Pass the cherry Kool Aid please.


Let's start with Zaccheaus. Someone commented along the lines of "and what about Zacch, huh? He only gave half of his stuff away, so what about that!" Once again, it seems something has been left out here. Lets go back to the Bible to see what actually happened.

Luke 19:8And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore [him] fourfold.

Hmmm...It appears that some fairly significant information was left out of the original post using Zacch as a good example of why it's not necessary to forsake all.

Oh REALLY. Like what?


Slip of the keyboard? Not according to what Jesus said would happen about people leaving something important out of the equation. We see that, indeed, Zacch gave away half of his stuff. The obvious question, then, is what did he do with the other half? Looks pretty clear to me that he used it to pay back all the people he cheated; not a bad guy, eh?

:doh: Sorry, you just lost the game to fool everyone with the guilt trip. What you fail to realize is that the Greek verbs are in the present tense. Zach was ALREADY giving half his possessions to the poor, and already repaying people when he cheated them, when Jesus came to visit. What he did this for was for validation before those who accused him of NOT being honest.

In addition, for your thesis to work you would have to assume that the other half just happened to mathematically match what he was paying out to those he cheated. So what did he do, cheat people to a certain amount so that he could use every bit of that half? How do you know that paying off those he cheated didn't use up only 1% of that half? Or 10%? Leaving him the rest for himself? Hmmm? Sorry, but the odds of your mathematics working out are pretty slim. Tax collectors were among the elite in this time. It is far, far, far more likely he had plenty left over to do with as he pleased.

Do a favor to all concerned...stop trying to strain your cultic teachings out of the texts, and so some homework....


However, even in this example I questioned the validity of following Joseph's example, based on the fact that he is also clearly described as a SECRET follower for FEAR of the Jews. Once again, this little bit of extremely relevant information was LEFT OUT of the original mention of Joseph.

Because it is 100% irrelevant. There is nothing at all of him (or Nicodemus, who you didn't mention) being told to "forsake all". No one here says he is a "perfect" example. What we say is that a snipe at him for staying rich is CONSPICUOUSLY MISSING, when by your twisted rubric, it ought to have been on page 1.

By the way, Abraham is depicted in paradise -- and he was a WEALTHY tribal chieftain. Ooops.


to follow Jesus, go right ahead, but I think you'll have some serious explaining to do when it comes time to pay the piper.

Yes, sir, Mr. Koresh, we understand. We follow you into the burning building or we go to hell. Yes, sir.


Jesus himself says "Anyone who is ashamed of me and my words, I will be ashamed of him in the Judgment" (Mark 8) So much for secret "disciples".

Um, more ignorance on your part. Because you don't know anything about honor and shame societies, you don't realize that "ashamed" doesn't mean you can't be a secret disciple because someone might kill you. It means you regard association with Jesus as a stain on your personal honor. :ahem:



All of these attempts to explain away a literal obedience to these commands of Jesus fall right into the category of something being left out of the building.

You bet we're leaving something out of the building: The garbage and the manipulation tactics. The ignorance and the foolishness. The cultic exegesis. The guilt trips.



There is one reference in the whole of the Bible to Paul making tents, yet some use that as their corner stone for why Jesus didn't really mean what he said about working for love rather than for money (Paul actually apologized for his slip up in 2 cor. 12. Look it up if you are inclined).

I did. It doesn't support your case. Too bad.


Some say that the Bible clearly states Ananias's property as being his very own property to do with as he pleased, as though that somehow negates what Jesus said. I can't see that it does. The whole point of forsake all is choosing to give your stuff up in obedience to Jesus. Ananias was punished because he tried to cheat on the rules.

Can't help it if you're stupid, sorry. You didn't answer the point, you just described it and then postured. That's not an answer.

Looks to me like "Jesus Christians" is on the road to being a cult that passes out the Kool Aid. I'm sick of people like you who manipulate others with guilt and false teachings -- in that, you are no better than the atheists.

[OldManZangetsu]

I know JP already responded to this, but what Casey had to say was so stupid I just couldn't hold myself back.


The bottom line in all of these arguments is that we don't really need to change our lifestyle in any significant way, as long as we do the right thing "in our heart". However, in all of the MANY references to forsaking all we never see Jesus saying anything about it being something we only need to do in our hearts. I would like to take a minute to explain what I think is happening here.

You'll be hard pressed to find an instance where we say coming to the Lord doesn't require a change of lifestyle. Yes, that is true that action also needs to accompany a change of heart to prove something. But as I have pointed out, it is clear that what amount we give away depends on the circumstances. Now, to make sure you understand this correctly I’ll expound on that last sentence.

Let’s say all you own is Z, what you have that does not affect your relationship to God is X, and those things that keep you from God are Y. Depending on the circumstances X and Y are of varying sizes. For the disciples, Y comprised of basically 100% (not counting clothes or money with which to buy food, or tools to catch food), and X of basically 0%. How? Home = maintenance, protection from thieves, etc. Take that and carry it over to whatever else they might have had. These things would have kept them from doing what they needed to be doing: starting the church and keeping it going. So like I said, it makes sense they literally gave up everything.

Zaccheus (by the way, your approach to Zaccheus is pathetic, I’ll get to that below) shows us that not everyone needs to literally give everything up on the spot.

So today, I have X and Y, obviously I need to give up Y. X is made up of things like my Bible(s), my car that carries me and others to church and Bible studies, and my computer which I use to e-mail a few friends who have trouble with their faith, or to learn from those who know more. I use these things for the betterment of my faith and others. Do these things need to be given up? And if so, what word from God do you have that tells me specifically what I need to be doing with my life, down to every move of my finger, every thought of my mind? If you’re smart, which I have some faith left in you that you are, you’ll say, “Well I don’t have that kind of precise word.” So what we do with our life is left up to us to a large extent. We just need to live that life within God’s commandments.

About Zaccheus.


We see that, indeed, Zacch gave away half of his stuff. The obvious question, then, is what did he do with the other half? Looks pretty clear to me that he used it to pay back all the people he cheated; not a bad guy, eh? So in the end we find that the Zacch example, quite apart from disproving, actually supports a literal forsake all.

Sounds like you’re either hopelessly indoctrinated or just downright stupid.

IF. Zaccheus said IF he cheated someone, he will pay them back fourfold. Just where is it that you see him mentioning how many people he cheated and how much of his stuff he used for the fourfold to make these payments? How many people, how much stuff? We don’t know, you are performing an eisegesis on the text.


This is what I think has been happening here on this thread. The teachings of Jesus are being left out of the building. They threaten everything you hold on to, but until you can let go of all of that you won't even be able to see the invisible kingdom. Now I'll give just a few examples of why I think this is happening.

Like my Bibles? Like my car? Like my computer? What about you, mister fancy-shmanchy-I-have-a-computer-and-a-place-to-live? I hold onto my sole source of final revelation from God that tells me what is needed for salvation that it is actually keeping me from the kingdom, right? And my copy of the Septuagint and a concordance that helps me better understand the original text where an English translation couldn’t capture the full picture? And those books I have that have authors who went to the trouble of filling in the contextual blanks we have in some of the Biblical writings? Silly me. Silly, silly me.


Now we move back to the Joseph of Arimathea example. The Bible refers to this man as a "disciple" who was very rich, so people have used him as an example of why it's ok to disregard all the many other examples of a literal forsake all. However, even in this example I questioned the validity of following Joseph's example, based on the fact that he is also clearly described as a SECRET follower for FEAR of the Jews. Once again, this little bit of extremely relevant information was LEFT OUT of the original mention of Joseph. A consistent picture is being formed here, isn't it? The response to this revelation about Joseph's secret membership addressed nothing about this problem in Josephs resume, but instead insisted that he is actually the PERFECT example of what it means to be Christian, specifically because, you can keep all of your stuff. If you want to follow the guy who was afraid to follow Jesus, go right ahead, but I think you'll have some serious explaining to do when it comes time to pay the piper.

:doh:

Let’s go over this again. I have more faith in people than JP does, so I believe if we beat it into your brain enough times you’ll get it. You state that no one can be Jesus’ disciple without giving up everything they own. Yet Joseph didn’t, and he is regarded as a disciple. A consistent picture is being formed here, isn’t it?


Jesus himself says "Anyone who is ashamed of me and my words, I will be ashamed of him in the Judgment" (Mark 8) So much for secret "disciples".

JP nailed you, here. I’ll also note that Jesus Himself told the disciples to carry swords around. What, are they too ashamed of letting God defend them Himself? Casey, I’m beginning to think you spend more time on your computer and elsewhere than in the Bible learning what God has for us. Perhaps you need to consider forsaking some of your things to spend more time in study?


There is one reference in the whole of the Bible to Paul making tents, yet some use that as their corner stone for why Jesus didn't really mean what he said about working for love rather than for money (Paul actually apologized for his slip up in 2 cor. 12. Look it up if you are inclined).

Yeah, I looked it up as well. More eisegesis. Paul makes no mention of what exactly the thorn is; you’re going to have to do more explaining for us to believe you here. I’m also confused as to how anything in that chapter amounts to an apology. It appears to be more like an explanation. Reminds me of how Dave tried to say that Luke 2:41-51 as an argument as to what Jesus’ heavenly Father’s job was. :lolo:


Some say that forsaking all was only for the apostles,

You are a flaming idiot, Casey. No excuse will restore any shred of respect I had for you after this fabulously retarded tripe. I never said it was only for the apostles. No one here ever said it was only for the apostles. I (as opposed to some) said “it makes sense considering the circumstances”. I even took the time to explain this to you. There is a world of difference between the two statements. I’ll leave it to you to retrace your steps in this thread and find out where you screwed up.


Some say that the Bible clearly states Ananias's property as being his very own property to do with as he pleased, as though that somehow negates what Jesus said. I can't see that it does.

Wow. Well, uh… you have it right for once. It doesn’t negate what Jesus said. What it does negate, though, is your faulty translation.


When I mentioned that that example should make us even more careful about how we observe these commands of Jesus, someone came back saying that Ananias was only punished for lying, and not for cheating on the rules. In other words, if he had just been honest about only wanting to give half to God then everything would have been ok.

Yeah… you missed the point, again. :sigh:

Hope you don’t mind if, again, I leave it to you to go through past posts to see how it is you’ve misinterpreted what was said.


So, where do we go from here

Where do we go? Did we ever leave square one?

[fanaticool]

Well it seems we've reached the end of the road as far as any progress on this issue. Once the "cult" word comes up there is no further room for discussion in the minds of the people throwing it around. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on what it means to follow Jesus.

Casey

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

That's the easy way out, Casey. It doesn't close the discussion, (not to me anyway) - are you able to answer the objections/arguments or not?

[Rayado]

That guilt trip thing cuts both ways: What if Jesus denies Casey and/or Dave McKay because they chose to post on a message forum instead of preach to others who would have fell for it believed them?

[NathanielS]

I know this is totally unrelated to the original topics of this thread, but I thought I'd give everyone a little update on my potential plans to go into ordained ministry.

This past Thursday (08/16), I met with the curate (assistant pastor) of the Anglican Church I currently am attending. This week I'll have to meet with the vicar (pastor) and, hopefully, move forward.

Basically, there will be about a year of discernment, in which a committee is formed to try and decide whether I am good candidate for ministry. They'll interview me probably multiple times (along with other church officials; potentially, I may to have to head to Kenya to meet with the bishop since our church is under a diocese Southern Nyanza, Kenya), give me a battery of various tests (psychological, intelligence, etc.), get my personal testimony and other attempts to temporally discern a spiritual issue.

If the discernment period goes well, I will be sent to a seminary (which usually three or so years to complete) and, after that, I will be subjected to further interviews and tests. At that point, I would probably be ordained if everything goes well.

I am looking at 4+ year process.

[OldManZangetsu]

I know this is totally unrelated to the original topics of this thread, but I thought I'd give everyone a little update on my potential plans to go into ordained ministry.

This past Thursday (08/16), I met with the curate (assistant pastor) of the Anglican Church I currently am attending. This week I'll have to meet with the vicar (pastor) and, hopefully, move forward.

Basically, there will be about a year of discernment, in which a committee is formed to try and decide whether I am good candidate for ministry. They'll interview me probably multiple times (along with other church officials; potentially, I may to have to head to Kenya to meet with the bishop since our church is under a diocese Southern Nyanza, Kenya), give me a battery of various tests (psychological, intelligence, etc.), get my personal testimony and other attempts to temporally discern a spiritual issue.

If the discernment period goes well, I will be sent to a seminary (which usually three or so years to complete) and, after that, I will be subjected to further interviews and tests. At that point, I would probably be ordained if everything goes well.

I am looking at 4+ year process.

Congratulations(?). You'll be prayed for :thumb:

[NathanielS]

Congratulations(?). You'll be prayed for :thumb:

Don't congratulate me yet. I have not even started that 'discernment period' yet. Hopefully, I'll meet with them vicar this week though and the ball rolling.

[OldManZangetsu]

That's the easy way out, Casey. It doesn't close the discussion, (not to me anyway) - are you able to answer the objections/arguments or not?

A politician once said to "answer the questions you wish you were asked." In other words, give your response in a fashion that rephrases the person's original question. Perhaps Casey is well acquainted with this concept?

[NathanielS]

I sent this question to JPH in an e-mail, but I guess I'll ask it openly 'on the floor' as it were. As I am getting more involved in Anglicanism and and am giving strong consideration to ordained ministry, one thing that greatly bothers me in the Anglican Church is that they practice infant baptism. Does anyone have an opinion on this practice?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I disagree with infant baptism in that in the bible everyone who was baptised seems to have been an adult. (you could I suppose appeal to the jailer in Acts 16 where it says all his family was baptised, or Paul where he remembers baptising a family, but that's not very strong support)

The idea of baptism is therefore about a public demonstration that you have faith in Christ. That you've made an informed decision for Him. An infant cannot do this, and so I don't think that kind of baptism is valid.

In my opinion, the trend towards accepting homosexuality in the Anglican church is far more serious a problem.

[NathanielS]

In my opinion, the trend towards accepting homosexuality in the Anglican church is far more serious a problem.

It's the Episcopalians (the American branch of the Anglican Church) that is going all theologically liberal. The Episcopalians were formed after the US Revolutionary War because Americans did not want a church involved with Britain. As the Episcopalians are going more and more liberal, there is a call for a return to the Bible and the roots of Anglicanism. The church I attend is NOT Episcopalian, but is Anglican (under the diocese of Southern Nyanza, Kenya in the Anglican Church of Kenya, a theologically conservative diocese/primacy).

[Frogwarrior]

Oddly enough, two of the coolest people I know (sisters) go to an Episcopal church in pretty much one of the last remaining Episcopal dioceses. I hear they're seceding and joining an African diocese. I'm amused.

[NathanielS]

Earlier tonight, I was praying (confession of willful sin I had committed) and I ended it by making the sign of the cross (see here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=100596)) and making it in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I felt really guilty for some reason or like it was phony and it made me really nervous and I ended up making another prayer. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Is this just my OCD at work?

Also, when I was sinning and I heard a voice (I think it was like my internal/mental voice) telling me if I did this sin I would lose my Salvation. I ended up doing the sin and felt really guilty and a little scared afterwards. I've had this issue many times before about hearing a small mental voice (threatening loss of Salvation if did/didn't do something [from something very trivial all the way up to sin issues]) before. Again, do you think this is just my OCD/fear/etc. coming out?

EDIT: I found a blog somehow related (through a search) to Tim Spiess. BLOG (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog&FriendID=153561662) Would anyone care to respond to any of the articles, esp. "The Family and Our Brother John" by George Davis (who seems to use some phraseology very close to that of Tim Spiess).

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

The only way you can lose your salvation is to reject Jesus' works as the devil's. (Mark 3:28-29)

Every other sin is forgivable.

[Theostudent]

Casey Says,

This is what I think has been happening here on this thread. The teachings of Jesus are being left out of the building. They threaten everything you hold on to, but until you can let go of all of that you won't even be able to see the invisible kingdom. Now I'll give just a few examples of why I think this is happening.

OldManZang Says,

Like my Bibles? Like my car? Like my computer? What about you, mister fancy-shmanchy-I-have-a-computer-and-a-place-to-live? I hold onto my sole source of final revelation from God that tells me what is needed for salvation that it is actually keeping me from the kingdom, right? And my copy of the Septuagint and a concordance that helps me better understand the original text where an English translation couldn’t capture the full picture? And those books I have that have authors who went to the trouble of filling in the contextual blanks we have in some of the Biblical writings? Silly me. Silly, silly me.

Jesus does not say that you have to give up everything you have to be his Disciple.

Only if you want to be Rich in Heaven.

Mark 10:21 (Show me Mark 10)
And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

Just Practice Justice, Mercy, and Faithfulness.

And Give 10% of your Salary before Taxes!

Matthew 23:23 (Show me Matthew 23)
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

I wont mind being poor in Heaven, I will sit at the end of the Table of the Kurios.

For now I just Eat the Scraps though, being a Humble Gentile.

The Faith of Theostudent.

21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Theo, does that verse apply to people generally or to the one man Jesus spoke to?

[Theostudent]

Theo, does that verse apply to people generally or to the one man Jesus spoke to?


which verse, I Quoted 3.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Since one verse was written to a group, and the other Jesus spoke to a woman, is that so hard to work out which verse I meant?

[Theostudent]

Since one verse was written to a group, and the other Jesus spoke to a woman, is that so hard to work out which verse I meant?


Well you said to a man, not to a woman.

Are you an Isrealite?

If not it was spoken to you.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

What was the point of God giving you a brain if you don't use it?

I shall leave you to your delusions. Goodbye.

[Dave McKay]

I haven't had time to read through all that is being said here, but it is depressing that so much energy is wasted insulting people, rather than seriously trying to listen to one another, in an effort to understand how we differ and where our differences are coming from.

I notice that one point keeps coming up, which is about who is smart and who is stupid. It seems like a smart person could skip that altogether and just give smart answers (I don't mean "smart aleck" answers, but, you know, intelligent answers... as well as asking intelligent questions.)

I know that people studying theology in a formal way don't like non-students making blanket judgments about anyone who studies theology. But it can be just as rude for the students to try to put down the non-students too because they don't know words like hermeneutics or exegesis.

Now, here are some quotes from just ONE posting that seem to be hurting the overall tone of what could be an intelligent forum. Please notice that from these quotes alone (and there were a few bits left out which actually did discuss issues), one could hardly even guess what was being discussed. It's like someone says, "E=mc squared" and the response is, "Yeah, tell us another one, stupid. You're a cult, that's what you are!" It doesn't really help, does it? Anyway, here is it:

Uh HUH. So context doesn't matter at all? That's the sort of thing a cultic group would say.

If you're wondering why you don't get no respect here, that would be a good clue.

Oh dear. Smart people are going to hell. Another mark of a cult.

And of course, the usual appeal to "pride, fear" etc that is also the mark of a cult, which uses fear to manipulate others.

Yes sir, Mr. Jim Jones, we understand. Pass the cherry Kool Aid please.

Do a favor to all concerned...stop trying to strain your cultic teachings out of the texts, and so some homework....

Yes, sir, Mr. Koresh, we understand. We follow you into the burning building or we go to hell. Yes, sir.

You bet we're leaving something out of the building: The garbage and the manipulation tactics. The ignorance and the foolishness. The cultic exegesis. The guilt trips.

Can't help it if you're stupid, sorry.

Looks to me like "Jesus Christians" is on the road to being a cult that passes out the Kool Aid. I'm sick of people like you who manipulate others with guilt and false teachings -- in that, you are no better than the atheists.

Anyway, thanks, Nathanael for the exhortation for all of us to try not to be sarcastic and insulting. Hopefully that will get through to some of the people posting here. I too apologise for times I have insulted people rather than arguing intelligently with them.

[NathanielS]

Anyway, thanks, Nathanael for the exhortation for all of us to try not to be sarcastic and insulting. Hopefully that will get through to some of the people posting here. I too apologise for times I have insulted people rather than arguing intelligently with them.

Thank you. I hope you got my Personal Message to you. I agree with Mr. McKay on this: those responses were way too belligerent to the writer as opposed to merely challenging the claims of the writer. Remember that the Scriptures say that Jesus had great compassion for the Pharisees even as He judged what they said and their fruits.

I hope you're not offended by that JP, but I think we have to keep the debate/discussion free of too much vitriol or else it becomes a debate of person as oppposed to of ideas. Perhaps it is because I know you (JP Holding) are capable of very intelligent rebuttals and very reasoned arguments that I feel willing to harp on this issue of ad hominem (sp?) attacks. After all, we have communicated a lot over e-mail and I have read a fair amount of your Tekton website and have learned (and hope to continue learning) a lot from you and you're very articulate and intelligent.

I admit I am quite capable of personal attacks (and have probably made quite a few or at least allowed unrighteous anger, hatred, inappropriate judgments, violent/hateful thoughts, and the like to enter my mind, esp. related to Tim Spiess and his ideas) and I know it is something I am trying to work on for myself (with greater or lesser success).

Also, if we truly want a good debate where people that know they disagree with what we claim/say/believe are willing to speak openly and honestly, we have to keep a certain level of decorum.

[OldManZangetsu]

Ehh... this guy is a joker, Nathaniel. Even if someone is “too sarcastic or insulting”, the person responding can still respond honestly/intelligently. McKay and Casey failed in that area and instead now choose to avoid the arguments altogether. They’re in over their heads, so they do something they feel they can win at: complain about how their feelings were hurt and that it prevents them from responding.

And I know you meant no ill by this, but:


I hope you're not offended by that JP, but I think we have to keep the debate/discussion free of too much vitriol or else it becomes a debate of person as oppposed to of ideas. Perhaps it is because I know you (JP Holding) are capable of very intelligent rebuttals and very reasoned arguments that I feel willing to harp on this issue of ad hominem (sp?) attacks. After all, we have communicated a lot over e-mail and I have read a fair amount of your Tekton website and have learned (and hope to continue learning) a lot from you and you're very articulate and intelligent.

There isn’t anything unintelligent or unreasonable about ad hominems, and namely the ones used here. They just make people feel uneasy. Our point had been proven long before JP chimed in, so there really wasn’t much of a debate to be had. JP was simply pointing out what was true. I have yet to see JP use an ad hominem that did not have a proper rhetorical meaning, one that is not valid.

Don’t let the guilt trips phase you; McKay and Casey may feel insulted, but their false teachings are still being flung around in the wind. And don’t forget Jesus’ own vitriol.

Though, I must say that a large part in this is the fact that you are reading things and not hearing them. We can’t put emphases on syllables like we do in speech. I believe you are reading too much into the ad hominems.

=====================================================


I haven't had time to read through all that is being said here,

So let me guess, instead of answering arguments you’re just going to complain?


but it is depressing that so much energy is wasted insulting people, rather than seriously trying to listen to one another, in an effort to understand how we differ and where our differences are coming from.

Wow, I’m psychic.

We spent enough time understanding your position, and we get it. We don't need to have a polite conversation about it, it's right there on your website. Why we got "insulting" is because when we presented our case against your beliefs, you didn't answer our arguments, you just repeated yourself (or what you believe) and/or complained.

It is y'all that didn't spend enough time seeing where we differ in our beliefs, as is evident with the continual misrepresentation of our position.


I notice that one point keeps coming up, which is about who is smart and who is stupid. It seems like a smart person could skip that altogether and just give smart answers

We don't think y’all’re too bright, and that's because when you read something you come to really odd conclusions, like how the Luke passage was an argument about what God’s job is and the Corinthians passage being an apology about Paul working for money (just two examples); deal with it and tackle the arguments we make. You can stay on your high horse and play the “nice guy” if you want, but you can do more than complain/repeat yourself.


(I don't mean "smart aleck" answers, but, you know, intelligent answers... as well as asking intelligent questions.)

Well uh... we did, and y'all continually missed it and/or stubbornly insisted on portraying us believing something that we don't.

Our questions regarding the items that y'all own were very poignant but were initially not responded to well and then were continually dodged. You say we should forsake everything yet you have a computer. Of course, it could very well be a public computer like at a library, but how should I know since the question was never answered? And I still haven't been answered as to how y'all get food. I don't know of any grocery stores that give food away for free. Is it possible that you work for money in order to eat?

I found an interesting quote from http://cust.idl.net.au/fold/teach/JesusMoney/WWFJD.html


Last night I had a dream. I had purchased an extremely cheap non-refundable ticket on an ocean cruise... something I've often dreamed of being able to afford. But when I got to the docks, I discovered that the cruise "ship" was an inflatable dingy, which was so constructed that if I were to move at all on it, it would simply sink. Nothing I could do would make the "ship" live up to my expectations, and it was too late to get a refund.

Something you’ve dreamed of being able to afford? As in, you have money but just not enough? Where is this money coming from, McKay? Certainly not a job, I hope. After all, according to you we shouldn’t work for money and not charge for what we do.

Just checking to see if y'all are able to live consistently with your beliefs.

It was Casey originally that said he didn’t think we should “assume the worst in Christ’s teachings.” But I wasn’t, I was simply following y’all’s teaching to its logical conclusion. You say we need to literally forsake everything we own. That’s everything, home included, unless there is some double standard I missed. So where will you live and sleep at night to protect yourself from the elements? A cave seems like the only plausible option to me, unless you’re a beaver or a woodpecker. That’s not “the worst”, that’s common sense.

Unless Casey is willing to say that the caves God has provided us are not but garbage. Eh Casey? :eh:


I know that people studying theology in a formal way don't like non-students making blanket judgments about anyone who studies theology. But it can be just as rude for the students to try to put down the non-students too because they don't know words like hermeneutics or exegesis.

Why the dichotomy of student and non-student? That's not the issue. And neither is knowing the words hermeneutics and exegesis.

The issue is: are you reading things properly and making correct conclusions. You don't need a formal education to make correct conclusions from what you read. It is not blanket judgments I don’t like, what I don’t like is how you are treating the revelation God has given us.


Now, here are some quotes from just ONE posting that seem to be hurting the overall tone of what could be an intelligent forum.

This is an intelligent forum, you just can’t see past the “insults” to notice.


Please notice that from these quotes alone (and there were a few bits left out which actually did discuss issues), one could hardly even guess what was being discussed. It's like someone says, "E=mc squared" and the response is, "Yeah, tell us another one, stupid. You're a cult, that's what you are!" It doesn't really help, does it? Anyway, here is it:

If someone doesn't get it the first time, shame will usually do the trick. That is, unless you're a prideful wimp, then you just complain about how your feelings got hurt. But this isn’t just a conversation between a few people, this is also a public forum with people observing.

So about the things you quoted from JP: again, you just can’t see past the insults.



won't mind if I give a bit of background for the benefit of what I see as the over all context of this issue, and not just a verse here or there.

We have heard arguments along the lines of these commands being hyperbole, or that they were only for specific people, or that we are not saved by works, or that there are people recorded as not having taken these commands literally, Jesus was a carpenter, Paul made tents, or any number of other reasons for why it's not necessary to take these commands in the same way that the apostles

Uh HUH. So context doesn't matter at all. :lolo: That's the sort of thing a cultic group would say.

That actually did address the issue. What Casey was implying was that context doesn’t matter, just read things literally like they were written in a vacuum. This is so because the things that we said are important contextual data, and he brushes them off rather than address them directly.

Context is important, but Casey doesn’t seem to think so, rather, we should just come up with whatever meaning we wish to. And "context doesn't matter" is in fact a common trend amongst cults. It allows them the luxury of their claims not being easily refuted. At least to them.



Who are these builders? At the time Jesus made this comment they were the respected religious authorities of the day. The pharisees; the guys who went to herganfruticals 101 and knew what the longest AND shortest verses in the holy scrollies were, etc... Much like some people we know today. They knew a lot about religion.

Oh dear. Smart people are going to hell. :lolo: Another mark of a cult.

This also addressed the issue. Casey was right that the religious leaders were smart, but what he forgot to mention was the fact that they were hypocrites. So essentially Casey is saying is that there are people today who are smart like the religious leaders back then, thus those people are going to hell just like those guys… because they know a lot. JP was pointing out the ridiculousness of this. And "smart people are going to hell" is actually something some cults say, though not usually explicitly.



This is what I think has been happening here on this thread. The teachings of Jesus are being left out of the building. They threaten everything you hold on to, but until you can let go of all of that you won't even be able to see the invisible kingdom.

Yes sir, Mr. Jim Jones, we understand. Pass the cherry Kool Aid please.

This also addresses the issue, however, I’ve forgotten what JP means by Kool Aid, he’ll have to fill you in on that.



Slip of the keyboard? Not according to what Jesus said would happen about people leaving something important out of the equation. We see that, indeed, Zacch gave away half of his stuff. The obvious question, then, is what did he do with the other half? Looks pretty clear to me that he used it to pay back all the people he cheated; not a bad guy, eh?

:doh: Sorry, you just lost the game to fool everyone with the guilt trip. What you fail to realize is that the Greek verbs are in the present tense. Zach was ALREADY giving half his possessions to the poor, and already repaying people when he cheated them, when Jesus came to visit. What he did this for was for validation before those who accused him of NOT being honest.

In addition, for your thesis to work you would have to assume that the other half just happened to mathematically match what he was paying out to those he cheated. So what did he do, cheat people to a certain amount so that he could use every bit of that half? How do you know that paying off those he cheated didn't use up only 1% of that half? Or 10%? Leaving him the rest for himself? Hmmm? Sorry, but the odds of your mathematics working out are pretty slim. Tax collectors were among the elite in this time. It is far, far, far more likely he had plenty left over to do with as he pleased.

Do a favor to all concerned...stop trying to strain your cultic teachings out of the texts, and so some homework....

That also addressed the issue. Casey was in fact straining cultic teachings out of the text. It’s a problem, and JP pointed it out.

So on and so forth...


Anyway, thanks, Nathanael for the exhortation for all of us to try not to be sarcastic and insulting. Hopefully that will get through to some of the people posting here. I too apologise for times I have insulted people rather than arguing intelligently with them.

And why is it that "insults" and sarcasm can't be intelligent arguments? They are quite effective in weeding out the ones who don't care to address arguments and showing them for what they are. If Jesus and likewise the apostles saw no reason to always (in all situations no matter the circumstances) cater to peoples’ feelings, then there is no reason why we need to. Even God the Father has seen fit to get sarcastic with people.

We approached the issue with an understanding that y’all are teaching faulty doctrine, i.e. misrepresenting Christ’s teachings. God being the most important in our lives, we kind of take it personally. We acted accordingly.

And by the way, a question I did answer but looking back should have added something to it. McKay, you charged me as being “aching to start an argument” because of my critique of the Top 40; I should have added these to my response:

1. I critiqued it because Nathaniel asked what our opinion of it was.
2. How the heck was I supposed to know the origin of the Top 40 was a little Bible study group?
3. If it was just something a Bible study group threw together one night, why put it out on the internet with no explanation? Other people do come to your site. Having that article there makes it seem like a proper teaching tool (in fact, you posit it as such), yet your complaint of my critiquing it made it sound like I was verbally abusing some poor group of Sunday-school students rather than critiquing a teaching. If it is something used to teach, people will test it; if it’s not meant for that but just a little trophy of what some people could throw together one night, don’t bother having it up there and just keep it between them folk.

[RumTumTugger]

This also addresses the issue, however, I’ve forgotten what JP means by Kool Aid, he’ll have to fill you in on that.

Jim Jone's followers drunk poisoned Kool Aid when Jim Jones was found out to be what he was by a senator on a fact finding mission who he had killed by some of his more fanatic followers. A false preacher whose teachings were not only spiritual poison but literal also.

[jpholding]

I haven't had time to read through all that is being said here, but it is depressing that so much energy is wasted insulting people, rather than seriously trying to listen to one another, in an effort to understand how we differ and where our differences are coming from.

Oh my. The postmodern solution: Never mind finding out what is correct, just sit down and jaw at each other so that you can spend hours getting nowhere. :lolo:


Now, here are some quotes from just ONE posting that seem to be hurting the overall tone of what could be an intelligent forum.

How about you spend less time whining, and more time actually answering the points which showed that the language was warranted? Just show us it wasn't. Go on. Answer the arguments. Show why OMZ is wrong. Prove you don't deserve what the prophets of Baal got when they tried to lead the people astray.

Well? :whistle:

Didn't think so. :hmph:

[jpholding]

Remember that the Scriptures say that Jesus had great compassion for the Pharisees even as He judged what they said and their fruits.

I have plenty of compassion. If Dave, etc needs a kidney transplant or CPR, he'll get it from me. But that doesn't mean I won't call him or anyone else down for being deceptive and using guilt and manipulation tactics just to further their cultic agenda. They're not showing any interest in honest debate. They're trying to validate their views by hook or by crook. They use the Bible like a john uses a prostitute, and I demonstrated this in great detail.

When they stop with the games and the tricks, they'll get a more level response. Their tactics mirror those of major cult leaders like Jones and Koresh; when that stops, they get respect. Not one second before.

[jpholding]

Our questions regarding the items that y'all own were very poignant but were initially not responded to well and then were continually dodged. You say we should forsake everything yet you have a computer. Of course, it could very well be a public computer like at a library, but how should I know since the question was never answered? And I still haven't been answered as to how y'all get food. I don't know of any grocery stores that give food away for free. Is it possible that you work for money in order to eat?


And there's one other thing about their views that smacks of absurdity.

They say we should give away everything. Um, well, if everyone became a Christian, then who could possibly have anything at all? We'd end up with 7 billion people trying desperately to give away everything they have, running away from each other so that they can't be in possession of anything. In the end all possessions will be sitting around in piles on the ground as everyone deftly walks around them trying to avoid being in possession of anything. :lolo:

One of the fastest ways to show the absurdity of a teaching is to ask, "What if EVERYONE followed it as presented?" This one sure doesn't pass the test.

[NathanielS]

And there's one other thing about their views that smacks of absurdity.

They say we should give away everything. Um, well, if everyone became a Christian, then who could possibly have anything at all? We'd end up with 7 billion people trying desperately to give away everything they have, running away from each other so that they can't be in possession of anything. In the end all possessions will be sitting around in piles on the ground as everyone deftly walks around them trying to avoid being in possession of anything. :lolo:

One of the fastest ways to show the absurdity of a teaching is to ask, "What if EVERYONE followed it as presented?" This one sure doesn't pass the test.

I understand and I agree, at this time at least, that the interpretation promoted by the Jesus Christians is an incorrect one, but that is different from verbally assaulting people and comparing them various dangerous cults. It's the idea of attack the issue, but not the person behind the issue.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hang on, didn't Jesus verbally assault the Pharisees after he had corrected their incorrect interpretations, considering such to be dangerous? (you travel across land and sea, to make a single convert, and afterwards he is worse off etc[paraphrase])

[NathanielS]

Hang on, didn't Jesus verbally assault the Pharisees after he had corrected their incorrect interpretations, considering such to be dangerous? (you travel across land and sea, to make a single convert, and afterwards he is worse off etc[paraphrase])

Hmm. Is that really an insult or merely a statement of fact said with gusto? Compare it to if you kill someone wrongly/ilegally and I call out to you, "Hey, you're a damn murderer!" Am I insulting you or merely making a very strong statement of fact. Since we can assume that God the Son (Jesus) would know the workings of the Pharisees (both because He is God and because He probably grew up around them), we can also assume He was stating fact about the Pharisees and the results of following them at the expense of Jesus.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

So is JP's post merely said with gusto? :teeth:

Is it stating fact if someone acts like cults do (being manipulative) and calls them on it, or not?

[NathanielS]

So is JP's post merely said with gusto? :teeth:

Is it stating fact if someone acts like cults do (being manipulative) and calls them on it, or not?

You are both correct and incorrect in that statement in my personal opinion. Obviously, it is necessary to call people out when they make mistakes or errors, but, especially using words like cult, we have to be careful that we are not just smearing a person/group so as it excuse no longer listening to what they have to say.

Certainly, in my opinion, they show some cultish tendencies, but that is very subjective. Also, there is a difference between saying they are behaving in a cultish way and/or show all the signs of a cult and comparing them to two of the most dangerous/controversial cults of modern times (the People's Temple and the David Kore[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]es).

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I think what JP was saying is, if a group displays cultic tendencies then there is always the possibility it will end up like the People's Temple, not that it is currently about to pass out Kool-Aid (correct me if I'm wrong)

And if I call a group a cult I am not doing it because I no longer wish to listen to them. It's to warn the members. (I don't use the word much myself)

[NathanielS]

I think what JP was saying is, if a group displays cultic tendencies then there is always the possibility it will end up like the People's Temple, not that it is currently about to pass out Kool-Aid (correct me if I'm wrong)

And if I call a group a cult I am not doing it because I no longer wish to listen to them. It's to warn the members. (I don't use the word much myself)

Perhaps you're right, but I think the vitriol and anger got a little too much. After all, we are trying to debate/discuss/reason with the leader of the group, Dave McKay, so using a lot of insults can be counter-productive.

Instead of using cult, perhaps the better description would be they take an extreme and radical (by their own admission) interpretation of the Gospels that is, according to people like JPH, yourself and me, incorrect.

[jpholding]

You are both correct and incorrect in that statement in my personal opinion. Obviously, it is necessary to call people out when they make mistakes or errors, but, especially using words like cult, we have to be careful that we are not just smearing a person/group so as it excuse no longer listening to what they have to say.

I'm very careful....remember I've been doing this sort of thing for years.

It doesn't take long to identify a duck when it quacks loudly, waves its feathers around, and repeatedly jumps in the water and paddles with its webbed feet.

"Cult" is defined in this context as, "a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader."

"Jesus Christians" doesn't have a charismatic leader (not that I can tell) but that's not integral to the definition. They fit the rest to a T. They are a cult. Not a very good one, at that. It is not subjective. This is the agreed upon definition by experts. It is accurate and I will use that term as long as they fit the definition. I will not drop it just because they pretend they are hurt by it.


and comparing them to two of the most dangerous/controversial cults of modern times (the People's Temple and the David Kore[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]es).

No one thought they were any different than Jesus Christians when they started, either. Hopefully my comparison will make them think twice and draw in their horns and stop trying to trick people. So yes, Punkish has my gist right. The behavior leads to the excesses. They have the behavior. Excesses are just a matter of time if they don't wise up.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Perhaps you're right, but I think the vitriol and anger got a little too much. After all, we are trying to debate/discuss/reason with the leader of the group, Dave McKay, so using a lot of insults can be counter-productive.

Except we're not getting very far with the reasoning. What happens when this group, like other extremist groups, uses vitriol?

[NathanielS]

I'm very careful....remember I've been doing this sort of thing for years.

I understand that and I am not trying to cast aspersions, just trying to keep the discussion on the issues and keep various parties (i.e. Dave McKay and Casey) willing to openly participate in the debate/discussion. If we get too vitriolic, we risk turning people away.


It doesn't take long to identify a duck when it quacks loudly, waves its feathers around, and repeatedly jumps in the water and paddles with its webbed feet.

Point taken.


"Cult" is defined in this context as, "a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader."

Again, this is a subjective definition (which I admittedly agree with) and, as such, we need to be carefuly how it is bantered around.


"Jesus Christians" doesn't have a charismatic leader (not that I can tell) but that's not integral to the definition. They fit the rest to a T. They are a cult. Not a very good one, at that. It is not subjective. This is the agreed upon definition by experts. It is accurate and I will use that term as long as they fit the definition. I will not drop it just because they pretend they are hurt by it.

Is our goal to banter insults back and forth or to have an open discussion? I will agree that by the definition offered by you of a cult (and I agree with the definition) that the Jesus Christians fits many of the characteristics of a cult, but now let's move on, otherwise it'll end up as a back-and-forth with us saying they're a cult and them denying it.


No one thought they were any different than Jesus Christians when they started, either. Hopefully my comparison will make them think twice and draw in their horns and stop trying to trick people. So yes, Punkish has my gist right. The behavior leads to the excesses. They have the behavior. Excesses are just a matter of time if they don't wise up.

Perhaps, but remember that part of what drove the People's Temple and Kore[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]es to such extreme behavior was because they came under a lot of pressure from the outside. I believe psychology/sociology can confirm the following (I admit I could be totally off-base):

When a group is under heavy pressure from the external, one of two things will happen:

A) The group collapses under that pressure.

B) In response to the pressure, the groups strengthens itself including through further radicalization to seperate themselves from the external force.

Again, I admit this supposition could be entirely incorrect.

EDIT: In terms of a charismatic leader, they do have a leader (Dave McKay) and use some form of democratic process to make decisions (according to their site). Whether Dave McKay is charismatic or not is really not something I can address since I have yet to speak to him in person or been around him (and thus see how he behaves, etc.).

[jpholding]

IIf we get too vitriolic, we risk turning people away.

We risk shaking the dust from our feet? :wink:


Again, this is a subjective definition (which I admittedly agree with) and, as such, we need to be carefuly how it is bantered around.

How is it "subjective"? There's no room for wigging in any of it: False, unorthodox, or extreme are the key words. They fit on two of the three. We've shown that they teach false things. Their demand to give away all is "extreme".


Is our goal to banter insults back and forth or to have an open discussion?

How about a third option at least? Once they've shown that they aren't willing to discuss things openly at all, but want to try to manipulate people, the goal is to shame and expose them as a way of stopping them from spreading their poison.

They passed the realm of "open discussion" long ago and adopted denial mode from the start, even when all anyone did was point out the flaws in their arguments. So actually....you're too late. :smile:


Perhaps, but remember that part of what drove the People's Temple and Kore[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]es to such extreme behavior was because they came under a lot of pressure from the outside.

No....nothing drove them to those particular actions. They had plenty of options and chose the worst for a purpose. Koresh and Jones could have just killed themselves. Or they could have surrendered. Or changed their teachings. No, they chose the most spectacular option as a way of in-your-facing their opposition and/or trying to bring their eschatology into fruition, hoping that the judgment would spread.


Whether Dave McKay is charismatic or not is really not something I can address since I have yet to speak to him in person or been around him (and thus see how he behaves, etc.).

If he doesn't speak any better than he writes, he has a long way to go before being charismatic. :hehe:

[jpholding]

Theo,

There's enough guck in this thread without you making more messes here. GO BACK TO YOUR NAMED THREAD.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Sorry JP. I guess that's my fault.

[jpholding]

Sorry JP. I guess that's my fault.

No worries. Mods can move it. :smile: