Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Things not spoken into existence.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Hello Cow Poke. Let's not conflate the forms of knowledge that exist in reality. It would be my position that apart from personal revelation all other forms cannot rise above theory. No matter how logical the theory may appear it does not, nor can it, rise the the level of something "personally" revealed. A revelation is like a benchmark by which men can rightly deduce. If a deduction begins not with revelation the end of it is fallacious. Now, if someone is asserting a truth apart from the benchmark it is as if he believes in his heart he has the wherewithal in himself to find the truth out. He does not. Therefore, all of his conclusions will be amiss and his subsequent assertions will be as "special knowledge", not coming from God via personal revelation, but coming from self, or from other autonomous deducers he believes.

    To juxtapose. Here is the rock upon which the true Church is built. The personal revelation that Yeshua / Jesus is "...the Christ, Son of the Living God...". To go beyond this rock upon which my Lord builds His Church is to imply a further revelation where there isn't any. This is my confession and testimony. Far be it from me to go beyond what the Father revealed to Peter, and to me as well. Anything apart from this revelation goes beyond and I will count it as men claiming "special knowledge".
    Last edited by Jeff; 12-04-2018, 03:46 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Well, Cow Poke. I could say to the chagrin of Cerebrum that if you heard my Lord you would hear me, seeing that I speak nothing on my own. But I will refrain... at least until I make a case for it.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Jeff View Post
        Well, Cow Poke. I could say to the chagrin of Cerebrum that if you heard my Lord you would hear me, seeing that I speak nothing on my own. But I will refrain... at least until I make a case for it.
        wow
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #49
          Ya... wow. So, since you are familiar with this website and it's rules, can I realtime prophecy in the "eschatology" forum... or is it reserved for debate on what has been prophesied? Just curious since I have much to say concerning the times in which we all live. It's ok if I'm not allowed. I will abide by the rules as I learn them. For now I will stick to this forum and probably this thread until I am clear on the moderators expectations. Also, I do know that my views are not orthodox and so I do appreciate your and Cerebrum's willingness to engage. I thank you both for that.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Jeff View Post
            Ya... wow. So, since you are familiar with this website and it's rules, can I realtime prophecy in the "eschatology" forum... or is it reserved for debate on what has been prophesied? Just curious since I have much to say concerning the times in which we all live. It's ok if I'm not allowed. I will abide by the rules as I learn them. For now I will stick to this forum and probably this thread until I am clear on the moderators expectations. Also, I do know that my views are not orthodox and so I do appreciate your and Cerebrum's willingness to engage. I thank you both for that.
            It sounds like you're basically wanting to blog, and that's not what Tweb is. We don't allow "back to back posting", where somebody just keeps posting and posting without interaction with others.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #51
              Ok Cow Poke. I will stay here. Just a question about here though. If I continue to elaborate on the OP, as I fully intend to do, will I be cut off at a point if a period of "silence" is observed for a time? I mean, that would seem a bit unfair to me since I am perfectly content in keeping my unorthodox place. How would you judge? ...by responses or views? Just curious...

              Comment


              • #52
                So Cerebrum. To this particular post where you say Jesus is God, I ask you one thing. Jesus asked His disciples "...who do you say that I am..."? Would your response be different than Peter's?
                Last edited by Jeff; 12-04-2018, 11:05 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Here, Cerebrum, in your last statement the wrath of God flares up within me. There will come a time when I will become weary of holding it in. Do you really think I am not aware of the history? Should I expound upon that history and expose the deeds of those who established the doctrine and the disobedience it took to maintain it? Woe to them who establishes a city by blood ! Now, I refrain from lumping you in since we both live after the fact... but the wrath of God comes to all who approve of their deeds.

                  Next, please do not play a fool before me. I know full well that you are not ignorant of the scriptures. You know full well that believers are promised unity in the Son... the very same the Son has with the Father. To whom do you think you are speaking?

                  Also, It is written, "...have I not said you are gods...", to whom the Word of God comes? Even Moses, who foresaw Messiah, understood this. Or do you doubt the power of God displayed in him though he was not the promised seed?

                  So you say that I am not God. Well done captain obvious. Yet I confess this: I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me. This NOT by deduction, but by obeying His voice. And if He shall say to me "...discover the foundations unto the neck...", shall I not do it until it is accomplished? And if this be so, who are you to oppose?

                  Lastly, I will agree that the One in whom the fullness of God dwells is equal to God... but not God Himself. Why? Because this fullness dwelt in a man in the fullness of time... and before Adam no man was... only God and His Word... the fullness of Him who spoke of those things that be not as though they were... and in the fullness of time "He is".
                  Last edited by Jeff; 12-05-2018, 12:25 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Jeff View Post
                    Ok Cow Poke. I will stay here. Just a question about here though. If I continue to elaborate on the OP, as I fully intend to do, will I be cut off at a point if a period of "silence" is observed for a time? I mean, that would seem a bit unfair to me since I am perfectly content in keeping my unorthodox place. How would you judge? ...by responses or views? Just curious...
                    Jeff, I reported this thread - not cause you're doing anything wrong, but to get consensus from other mods on what you asked.

                    Basically, this is a discussion board, not a blog. If nobody engages you in conversation, you can't just continue to "blog away". It's an indication that there is no interest in what you are saying, and your time would be better served reaching an audience that wants to hear what you're saying.

                    I'm not interested - not even a teenie tad. I'm just answering your question as a moderator, and letting you know the rules.

                    Continuing to address Brum, for example, when he is not responding, is "back to back posting", which is a no-no.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Jeff, I reported this thread - not cause you're doing anything wrong, but to get consensus from other mods on what you asked.

                      Basically, this is a discussion board, not a blog. If nobody engages you in conversation, you can't just continue to "blog away". It's an indication that there is no interest in what you are saying, and your time would be better served reaching an audience that wants to hear what you're saying.

                      I'm not interested - not even a teenie tad. I'm just answering your question as a moderator, and letting you know the rules.

                      Continuing to address Brum, for example, when he is not responding, is "back to back posting", which is a no-no.
                      Well, in Jeff's defense he appears to be responding to two different posts I made. If he used the quote function that would be more clear.

                      Jeff, I might get back to responding to you later. I have a dentist appointment today.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                        Well, in Jeff's defense he appears to be responding to two different posts I made. If he used the quote function that would be more clear.


                        Jeff, I might get back to responding to you later. I have a dentist appointment today.
                        Jeff - the quote function is very useful for letting people see what it is to which you are responding. In a long thread, it helps others keep track of what's going on, and see the actual words spoken rather than another person's attempt at summarizing them.

                        Do you need help in understanding how the quote function works?
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Jeff View Post
                          Here, Cerebrum, in your last statement the wrath of God flares up within me. There will come a time when I will become weary of holding it in. Do you really think I am not aware of the history? Should I expound upon that history and expose the deeds of those who established the doctrine and the disobedience it took to maintain it? Woe to them who establishes a city by blood ! Now, I refrain from lumping you in since we both live after the fact... but the wrath of God comes to all who approve of their deeds.

                          Next, please do not play a fool before me. I know full well that you are not ignorant of the scriptures. You know full well that believers are promised unity in the Son... the very same the Son has with the Father. To whom do you think you are speaking?

                          Also, It is written, "...have I not said you are gods...", to whom the Word of God comes? Even Moses, who foresaw Messiah, understood this. Or do you doubt the power of God displayed in him though he was not the promised seed?

                          So you say that I am not God. Well done captain obvious. Yet I confess this: I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me. This NOT by deduction, but by obeying His voice. And if He shall say to me "...discover the foundations unto the neck...", shall I not do it until it is accomplished? And if this be so, who are you to oppose?

                          Lastly, I will agree that the One in whom the fullness of God dwells is equal to God... but not God Himself. Why? Because this fullness dwelt in a man in the fullness of time... and before Adam no man was... only God and His Word... the fullness of Him who spoke of those things that be not as though they were... and in the fullness of time "He is".
                          So you believe in more than one God then?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Ok Cerebrum. Look forward to hearing from you. I will make a point to learn the qoute function. With 11 hr daily shifts time has been a factor... plus a cheap phone and spotty service. Hope the dentist went well.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              No Sparko. Just one. He who dwelt bodily in the man Jesus Christ.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Jeff View Post
                                No Sparko. Just one. He who dwelt bodily in the man Jesus Christ.
                                So God possessed Jesus or something?

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X