|
Post by faune on Jan 30, 2015 22:20:18 GMT -5
Nathan I have told you before that Mark Huddle does NOT believe Jesus is God. Mark warned me to my face about believing that. I know you will cut and paste your notes about what Mark said once back in the 80's but TODAY he does not believe that. Please ask him yourself. Any workers today that openly preach regularly that Jesus is God will be in trouble. Seattle, Washington April 6, 1992 Dear Washington Staff, Here are some more lists that may interest you. I’ve worked on them while on the road in the van off and on! Just hope I haven’t left anyone out as we want everyone to get an out of state convention. I’m asking Wayne and Brian to type them up and mail them out as I’ll be on the road another week and a half at least. Let me know if for any reason these arrangements won’t work for any of you. Hope you are having good interest ib your meetings and not long until early preps will roll around. Since seeing all of you at the Washington Workers’ meeting held at Robert Den Herder’s home, we have traveled by van to Vancouver, B.C. for a workers’ meeting, Manhattan, Montana, Southern California, Northern California, and Eugene, Oregon. It sees that each staff or workers have appreciated an understanding of what took place in Alaska and how things worked out. It has been special and most helpful to have Fred Skalitzky along with us, but he left Saturday for Juneau where preps will start April 13th. As you know Mark Huddle is going to take Bob Dye’s place as Bob’s nerves were about to get him down. He will help in Bonners Ferry Preps and convention. Glen Hamilton, Sally Alexander, Myrna Danell and Charlene Beck fly to Juneau April 11th and will be with the prep crew there to learn their way around. Also Mark, Fred, Kay, Darlene and Suzie will come to Washington to labor after Wasilla convention. I look forward to being at the Juneau convention also. As we have traveled along in the van over many miles and days, we have had many helpful discussion about the Bible and doctrine we believe. Willis (Propp) has said that from now on he wants to start his gospel meetings by letting all know three major truths. 1. Christ is totally divine. 2. Jesus is totally human. 3. Jesus is totally sinless. The Bible is full of pictures which help us to see this picture. As Paul Sharp said, Jesus left footprints in the sand by the sea when He walked there, but He also walked on the water and we have no problem accepting both. Your letters have been appreciated and I hope you understand why I haven’t given you a personal answer this time. We are weary, but hope to hang in together until we finish the job. April 8th we speak to the Alberta staff in Edmonton and April 10th to the Sask. Staff in Saskatoon. We’ll surely miss Mark from Washington, but Dean and others will help me. I’ve asked Mike Thorsteinson to look after the Olympia preps this year. Tharold (Sylvester) and I hope to have a little time at each early preps, but it will be cut short with my going to Juneau. We’ll have a prep study list worked up by time for preps to start so all can be together on the study again this year. Thanks for all your prayers. Your brother in Him, (signed) Sydney Holt Breakingfree.... They teach/preach Jesus is totally Divine! that means Jesus is God. They teach/preach Jesus is totally Sinless! That means Jesus is God. ONLY God can be sinless. Jesus is Both God/Man. Most of the workers teach/believe Jesus is God... but the workers don't believe it because they don't know the word God/Elohim is Plural= God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The word God refers to the Father and the Son.
The workers can't teach Jesus is totally Divine and Jesus is totally Sinless!.... A man can't be sinless except he is God. Nathan ~ What about the Catholic Church's teaching about Mary not being tainted by sin either and their elevation of her today right up there with Jesus? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 22:25:07 GMT -5
Not sure about this "impossible to sin" business It's a bit like the Trinity - a lot of air really. If Jesus could not sin then lots of Gospel don't make sense. He had to bring His human nature into subjection - it wasn't a free ride like some think Christianity is.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jan 30, 2015 22:36:56 GMT -5
Not sure about this "impossible to sin" business It's a bit like the Trinity - a lot of air really. If Jesus could not sin then lots of Gospel don't make sense. He had to bring His human nature into subjection - it wasn't a free ride like some think Christianity is. Can you tell us, what is the doctrine of the Trinity, Bert? Nathan ~ You beat me to asking that question myself. However, perhaps this article will help clarify things for Bert, in case he still has confusion regarding what it means? This excerpt below should offer some clarity on these two natures. I realize this is not taught within the 2x2's, but it is the acceptable view held by Christianity today. However, this entire article covers a lot of the arguments used against the Trinity and answers them with scripture which prove these assertions wrong. www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-can-jesus-be-god-and-man How Can Jesus Be God and Man
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jan 30, 2015 22:38:53 GMT -5
JS & Truitt did NOT preach Jesus is God. They taught that Jesus was divine and therefore, it was impossible for Jesus to sin. Was this also applied to the friends and workers supposedly born (again) of God and therefore cannot sin? I heard that was also the teaching by JS and TO.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jan 30, 2015 23:35:20 GMT -5
JS & Truitt did NOT preach Jesus is God. They taught that Jesus was divine and therefore, it was impossible for Jesus to sin. Cherie ~ I noticed that Nathan posted this statement in the past regarding Truitt Oyler beliefs, which tends to agree with your statement above. It appears Truitt didn't believe that Jesus had both a divine and human nature in one body, but that He only had a divine nature, which is why he could not sin. So, it appears "in part" that he did believe Jesus was God, but not with a human nature, which would put his ability to atone for our sins in question. In addition, he also believed in the doctrine of grace, which conflicted with the workers' doctrine of works. professing.proboards.com/thread/6262 Truitt Oyler www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-can-jesus-be-god-and-man How Can Jesus Be God and Man?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 23:48:53 GMT -5
This is interesting. I sat in on many an explanation of what T.O. was teaching then (in 1966) hardly recognize what I remember by what is posted in this forum. I'd like to relate this fact from personal first hand knowledge, acquaintance and companionship with them. I knew of no finer beings in that work than those two men. This was also Charlie Krub's impression of them. This has nothing to do with what they believed and taught, which apparently has changed through the years.
Regarding their teaching, I understood it to be that it is (was?) impossible for Christ (or anyone else) to sin while filled with the Spirit, and that our Lord never was contaminated by human nature. I never once heard them say nor suggest that they believed in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as all being of one God substance. Nor did I hear they believed in The Son as God, the Father. Never once. That appeared to me what some people believed they thought and taught. They had no definition of Divine, however told me they believed our Lord was only Divine and not human.
Knowing what I know now, I believe they were both fine men who simply thought they had a revelation for all believers to accept in time. They have not been the only ones with such convictions through the ages.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jan 31, 2015 0:01:03 GMT -5
I believe you hit the nail right on the head about TWO strikes against Truitt, Faune. Truitt believed Jesus is God, but he was sinless, therefore he didn't have human nature.... If he didn't have human nature then... our atonement is great danger! Could this be the reason the overseers excommunicated Truitt. "Truitt believed Jesus is God..." I think you are wrong. Again.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jan 31, 2015 0:08:25 GMT -5
"Truitt believed Jesus is God..." I think you are wrong. Again. So, tell us, Greg, what do you think Truitt had taught? that led to his excommunication.What I had written above, I think, is what got TO excommunicated. That is, "he that is born (again) of God cannot sin."
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jan 31, 2015 0:15:41 GMT -5
I believe you hit the nail right on the head about TWO strikes against Truitt, Faune. Truitt believed Jesus is God, but he was sinless, therefore he didn't have human nature.... If he didn't have human nature then... our atonement is great danger! Could this be the reason the overseers excommunicated Truitt. "Truitt believed Jesus is God..." I think you are wrong. Again. Greg ~ Well, from what I have read up on this Alaskan situation in 1989, it appears that Truitt did believe Jesus was God and believed in the doctrine of grace, which would naturally go against the worker's doctrine of works and would accumulate two strikes against him. Perhaps you remember an old thread on Truitt Oyler on TMB which addressed this issue as well?
professing.proboards.com/thread/13523/any-truths-excommunicated?page=2 Truitt Oyler
However, it does appear that Truitt believed that Jesus did not have a human nature, but only a divine nature, which is why he could not sin. Cherie also confirmed this in her earlier posting.
Unfortunately, that would conflict with basic Christian doctrine regarding the Trinity doctrine, which teaches that Jesus was fully divine and fully human, which is why he had the ability atone for our sins on the Cross and intercede for us personally.
I noticed one poster actually described what this belief was called in the past, which was also declared to be false teaching by an early church council.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jan 31, 2015 0:50:16 GMT -5
Nathan ~ Well, I'm happy for you if that's what you can attest to today within the 2x2's. However, during my years within the 2x2's, now 20 years ago, that was not the message I remember, which was imprinted upon my memory numerous times over in gospel meetings. All I can say is it's about time they change their message and do away with the Living Witness Doctrine altogether, which is nothing but heresy, as Edward Cooney himself called it. His own words can be found in an excerpt from Chapter 15 of Cherie's book on TTT as found below.
Leading people to believe a lie all these years is not exactly commendable on the behalf of workers who promote this Living Witness Doctrine either. It's not found in scripture either and is against the basic teachings of Christianity. It is interesting to note that years later after leaving the 2x2's, Joe Kerr wrote a letter apologizing for ever suggesting such a doctrine as the Living Witness Doctrine, which is still being taught today.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jan 31, 2015 1:57:01 GMT -5
This is interesting. I sat in on many an explanation of what T.O. was teaching then (in 1966) hardly recognize what I remember by what is posted in this forum. I'd like to relate this fact from personal first hand knowledge, acquaintance and companionship with them. I knew of no finer beings in that work than those two men. This was also Charlie Krub's impression of them. This has nothing to do with what they believed and taught, which apparently has changed through the years.
Regarding their teaching, I understood it to be that it is (was?) impossible for Christ (or anyone else) to sin while filled with the Spirit, and that our Lord never was contaminated by human nature. I never once heard them say nor suggest that they believed in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as all being of one God substance. Nor did I hear they believed in The Son as God, the Father. Never once. That appeared to me what some people believed they thought and taught. They had no definition of Divine, however told me they believed our Lord was only Divine and not human.
Knowing what I know now, I believe they were both fine men who simply thought they had a revelation for all believers to accept in time. They have not been the only ones with such convictions through the ages. Dennis ~ I believe what you shared above has a lot to do with the confusion shared about Jesus nature within the 2x2's? Obviously, they could not really believe in the Trinity as we know it today, which considered Jesus to be both fully human as well as fully divine? Apparently, you verified what Nathan said earlier about what Truitt possibly believed concerning "Jesus is God," but the reason he could not sin was become he didn't have a human nature, but only a divine nature? It appears he also believed in the doctrine of grace, whereas the workers endorsed more a doctrine of works and downplayed "grace" altogether?
However, I wonder if some of what Truitt believed relating to being unable to sin didn't come from 1 John 3:9 KJV? I brought this subject up with Greg on another thread dealing with Truitt Oyler, as referenced below. Honestly, everything you mentioned in your first paragraph is more like I remember it being taught back in the 1960's and 1970's as a young person. So, if this is the case, it's definitely NOT the version of the Trinity being taught today, which claims Jesus was fully human and fully divine in one person, and was a part of the triune Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Dennis, I believe you also confirm this by your own recollection?
professing.proboards.com/thread/6262/truit-oyler?page=2&scrollTo=625753 Truitt Oyler
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 31, 2015 9:02:42 GMT -5
JS & Truitt did NOT preach Jesus is God. They taught that Jesus was divine and therefore, it was impossible for Jesus to sin. Was this also applied to the friends and workers supposedly born (again) of God and therefore cannot sin? I heard that was also the teaching by JS and TO. ?? 1 John 3:8-10: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. ?? They believed Jesus is the Son of God, but not God the Son; that the head of Christ is God as in 1 Cor 11:3.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 31, 2015 9:39:35 GMT -5
JS & Truitt did NOT preach Jesus is God. They taught that Jesus was divine and therefore, it was impossible for Jesus to sin. Was this also applied to the friends and workers supposedly born (again) of God and therefore cannot sin? I heard that was also the teaching by JS and TO. I can set the record straight on this point: No, Greg, they never taught that friends and workers born (again) of God could not sin--in fact, that's pretty much the opposite of what they taught. Jesus was the only human being who was in-dwelt entirely by God, without original sin, thus not only DID no sin but also HAD no sin. The born again folks, while they are in-dwelt by God, also continue to HAVE the sin nature within them (thus are in need of redemption) and, incidental to HAVING sin, COMMIT sin.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 31, 2015 9:44:12 GMT -5
This is interesting. I sat in on many an explanation of what T.O. was teaching then (in 1966) hardly recognize what I remember by what is posted in this forum. I'd like to relate this fact from personal first hand knowledge, acquaintance and companionship with them. I knew of no finer beings in that work than those two men. This was also Charlie Krub's impression of them. This has nothing to do with what they believed and taught, which apparently has changed through the years.
Regarding their teaching, I understood it to be that it is (was?) impossible for Christ (or anyone else) to sin while filled with the Spirit, and that our Lord never was contaminated by human nature. I never once heard them say nor suggest that they believed in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as all being of one God substance. Nor did I hear they believed in The Son as God, the Father. Never once. That appeared to me what some people believed they thought and taught. They had no definition of Divine, however told me they believed our Lord was only Divine and not human.
Knowing what I know now, I believe they were both fine men who simply thought they had a revelation for all believers to accept in time. They have not been the only ones with such convictions through the ages. Dennis, from my experience with JS, it's not entirely accurate to say they believed our Lord was only Divine and not human -- at least that was not what JS taught in the 1980s in Texas. He taught that our Lord was both Divine and human... human in every respect as we are human EXCEPT that our Lord's humanity was entirely without sin. That's a huge exception, of course, and requires an explanation of what JS believed SIN is, exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jan 31, 2015 9:45:30 GMT -5
Was this also applied to the friends and workers supposedly born (again) of God and therefore cannot sin? I heard that was also the teaching by JS and TO. I can set the record straight on this point: No, Greg, they never taught that friends and workers born (again) of God could not sin--in fact, that's pretty much the opposite of what they taught. Jesus was the only human being who was in-dwelt entirely by God, without original sin, thus not only DID no sin but also HAD no sin. The born again folks, while they are in-dwelt by God, also continue to HAVE the sin nature within them (thus are in need of redemption) and, incidental to HAVING sin, COMMIT sin. Thanks, Gene. Just to be clear, is all that you wrote what TO and JS believed and taught without any reasoning added by you? Also, since you seem clear on this, do you know if they believed and taught that Jesus is God the Son?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 31, 2015 9:48:34 GMT -5
By Paul Abenroth: I spent many hours visiting with Truitt. Truitt did not claim that Jesus did not have a human nature. What he claimed is that Jesus had a human nature, but it was a perfect, sinless human nature, not subject to sin. It was a nature which could be tempted in all points, yet would not sin. The doctrine in question concerned the nature of Jesus and his inability to sin. Jesus assumed a pre-fall human nature that was perfect and sinless just as Adam was perfect and sinless before the Fall. Given His person and nature as the Son of God, Jesus could not sin. In theology, this is called “The Impeccability of Christ.”The reason this teaching confused the friends is because they'd never heard of it before. The workers for decades took up the motto of "church in the home and preacher without a home", disdained the study of theology, and as a result the friends did not learn what Christianity had taught for centuries on this and other points. Along comes Truitt and a couple others teaching it, and many thought it was some new off-beat idea, when in reality it was orthodox Christian teaching. Doctrine of Impeccability.doc (25 KB)
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 31, 2015 9:48:46 GMT -5
I can set the record straight on this point: No, Greg, they never taught that friends and workers born (again) of God could not sin--in fact, that's pretty much the opposite of what they taught. Jesus was the only human being who was in-dwelt entirely by God, without original sin, thus not only DID no sin but also HAD no sin. The born again folks, while they are in-dwelt by God, also continue to HAVE the sin nature within them (thus are in need of redemption) and, incidental to HAVING sin, COMMIT sin. Thanks, Gene. Just to be clear, is all that you wrote what TO and JS believed and taught without any reasoning added by you? Also, since you seem clear on this, do you know if they believed and taught that Jesus is God the Son? It's part of what JS taught--no reasoning added by me. I never met TO, so I can't speak to what he taught, but I understood from JS that he and TO were of a common mind on this.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 31, 2015 9:54:48 GMT -5
I can set the record straight on this point: No, Greg, they never taught that friends and workers born (again) of God could not sin--in fact, that's pretty much the opposite of what they taught. Jesus was the only human being who was in-dwelt entirely by God, without original sin, thus not only DID no sin but also HAD no sin. The born again folks, while they are in-dwelt by God, also continue to HAVE the sin nature within them (thus are in need of redemption) and, incidental to HAVING sin, COMMIT sin. Thanks, Gene. Just to be clear, is all that you wrote what TO and JS believed and taught without any reasoning added by you? Also, since you seem clear on this, do you know if they believed and taught that Jesus is God the Son? To your second question, I don't recall discussing the Trinity doctrine with JS, or having heard JS explicitly teach that Jesus is God the Son.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 31, 2015 10:02:23 GMT -5
Thanks, faune and others.... This is my understanding of Truit O. situation and the overseers, the workers, and the friends belief today on the Trinity.
Truit O. is right on about Jesus is God. Incorrect about Jesus had no human nature but ONLY Divine nature.
The overseers, many workers, and the friends belief today... Jesus is NOT God which is Incorrect. They're correct on Jesus has two natures Divine and human within Himself. How can Jesus be Divine, and be sinless, without being God Himself. The phrase: "Jesus is God" has been a BIG stumbling block many years for the 2x2 overseers, and many workers and the friends today. I believe their mistake is believing the word God refers ONLY to the heavenly Father and NOT to the Son. The workers don't know or understand the word God/Elohim is Plural (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
Many of the workers and the friends today! do NOT understand fully the doctrine, and history of the Trinity, Divinity of Christ, and Godhead.
Christ is God/Divine (the Son). Christ incarnated as Immanuel (God with us)= Jesus so, He had two natures God/Divine and Man. Jesus is 100% God/Divine and 100% human/Man.
Nate, regarding the phrase "Jesus had no human nature" -- that was not a statement I ever heard JS make.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Jan 31, 2015 10:57:12 GMT -5
From Spiderman's earlier post - 'This is what William Lewis said to me. "I've talked to John and to be honest I guess I don't really know what the fuss is all about."'
This pretty much sums up my current view. Even the best minds can't possibly sort through this muck, among other matters.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 31, 2015 12:35:57 GMT -5
What good would a Jesus be if he wasn't capable of sin? Why would he have been tempted by the devil in the wilderness if there was no chance of him sinning? From what I got from sitting in gospel meetings, Jesus was human, more like a big brother. He was completely capable of not sinning only by choice and he was supposedly sinless, again, by choices he made. I never once heard that Jesus was also God, but a perfect example of what a human being was capable of if they allowed God to completely guide them and take over their lives. That seems like a more wonderful message imo. It gives mankind hope that they can also achieve that level of divinity. Having Jesus be a God that wasn't capable of sin even in human form seems to take away any hope of humanity ever being able to be like him. I don't agree with Christians that feel he had to be a God to be sacrificed to atone humanities sins. I would think that the achievement of being a human that was fully divine because of living a fully sinless life would be a far better role model and be quite capable of performing the atonement. (of course I don't agree that any of that was necessary and appalled by a blood sacrifice that Christians seem to think was necessary and of course I don't believe in original sin). But if the story was true, I would be far more inspired by a perfect, sinless human than a God that wasn't capable of sinning in the first place. jmt
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jan 31, 2015 12:57:52 GMT -5
Snow ~ This was the same impression I got in earlier gospel meetings that Jesus was a human who somehow attained to divine attributes at the end of his life. So, basically the workers would have been teaching that Jesus was a mere human who overcame the urge to sin and remained sinless, I would presume? However, I never did hear any worker during my 30 years of professing refer to the Trinity as being nothing but false teaching by the Catholic Church. Also, there was no mention of "God the Son" in their meetings, but instead they only referred to Jesus as "Son of God" and often as our "Elder Brother." Also, the "Elder Brother" concept was used as our example to aim at to achieve perfection through our works.
Snow shared...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jan 31, 2015 15:00:54 GMT -5
Was this also applied to the friends and workers supposedly born (again) of God and therefore cannot sin? I heard that was also the teaching by JS and TO. ?? 1 John 3:8-10: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. ?? They believed Jesus is the Son of God, but not God the Son; that the head of Christ is God as in 1 Cor 11:3. Cherie ~ Thanks. That sounds more like it to me, too. Also, their concept of Jesus as our "Elder Brother," always gave me the impression they viewed Jesus more as a human being who somehow obtained to divinity at the end of his life due to the perfect life he lived without sinning. However, I never heard the Trinity or Godhead described as one God in three distinct persons ~ Father, Son, and Holy Ghost or Jesus referred to as "God in the flesh" or "God, the Son." The Trinity was always presented as "false teaching" by them from 1965 up until I left in 1995, some 30 years later. If that has changed any, I would be surprised myself? No doubt any worker who taught the Trinity as the Godhead would be swiftly chided by their overseer for even teaching such doctrine in gospel meeting and probably removed if they continued, since it doesn't go along with their acceptable Living Witness Doctrine, which put the workers at the center of your only hope of salvation?
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203%3A8-10%3B%201%20Corinthians%2011%3A3&version=AMP;NIV;KJV 1 John 3:8-10 & 1 Corinthians 11:3
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jan 31, 2015 15:33:53 GMT -5
By Paul Abenroth: I spent many hours visiting with Truitt. Truitt did not claim that Jesus did not have a human nature. What he claimed is that Jesus had a human nature, but it was a perfect, sinless human nature, not subject to sin. It was a nature which could be tempted in all points, yet would not sin. The doctrine in question concerned the nature of Jesus and his inability to sin. Jesus assumed a pre-fall human nature that was perfect and sinless just as Adam was perfect and sinless before the Fall. Given His person and nature as the Son of God, Jesus could not sin. In theology, this is called “The Impeccability of Christ.”The reason this teaching confused the friends is because they'd never heard of it before. The workers for decades took up the motto of "church in the home and preacher without a home", disdained the study of theology, and as a result the friends did not learn what Christianity had taught for centuries on this and other points. Along comes Truitt and a couple others teaching it, and many thought it was some new off-beat idea, when in reality it was orthodox Christian teaching.
Cherie ~ I agree, this probably was what caused all the confusion in the first place ~ namely, the friends being ignorant of what Christianity actually taught regarding the nature and person of Christ, which is referred to as "the Impeccability of Christ."
Honestly, I had no real Christian teaching myself when the workers came to town when I was a young teen. Therefore, I accepted their view of Christ as gospel along with the Living Witness Doctrine they promoted as their "special gospel message," since I was equally ignorant of orthodox Christian teaching myself. No doubt many of the senior workers are ignorant of orthodox Christian teaching themselves or they would not have excommunicated Truitt Oyler for teaching on the nature and person of Christ or about God's grace? www.graceonlinelibrary.org/doctrine-theology/christology/the-impeccability-of-christ-by-arthur-w-pink/ the Impeccability of Christ ~ Arthur W. Pink
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jan 31, 2015 16:04:34 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 17:14:08 GMT -5
Thank you, Gene, for telling me what you understood JS to have believed, correcting any error I might have made. I was only with J.S. T & W O. for about a month and a half, and companions with T.O. alone for a couple of months, and that was soon 50 years ago, and it no longer matters one whit to me what they thought, believed and taught.
What does matter to me is any inference they were not fine men, for I accept both were much finer men than myself, and am bothered when anyone would fault such as they. However, what I or another might think of me, really no longer is much of a player in my life. Thanks for your input, all I have to go by is what I was told first hand so very long ago. I understood their doctrine to have changed, and I may well have a suspect memory.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 31, 2015 18:20:12 GMT -5
What good would a Jesus be if he wasn't capable of sin? Why would he have been tempted by the devil in the wilderness if there was no chance of him sinning? From what I got from sitting in gospel meetings, Jesus was human, more like a big brother. He was completely capable of not sinning only by choice and he was supposedly sinless, again, by choices he made. I never once heard that Jesus was also God, but a perfect example of what a human being was capable of if they allowed God to completely guide them and take over their lives. That seems like a more wonderful message imo. It gives mankind hope that they can also achieve that level of divinity. Having Jesus be a God that wasn't capable of sin even in human form seems to take away any hope of humanity ever being able to be like him. I don't agree with Christians that feel he had to be a God to be sacrificed to atone humanities sins. I would think that the achievement of being a human that was fully divine because of living a fully sinless life would be a far better role model and be quite capable of performing the atonement. (of course I don't agree that any of that was necessary and appalled by a blood sacrifice that Christians seem to think was necessary and of course I don't believe in original sin). But if the story was true, I would be far more inspired by a perfect, sinless human than a God that wasn't capable of sinning in the first place. jmt But Snow, the main point of the Jesus redeemer doctrine is not that we could be perfect on Earth as he was on Earth, but that he is our Redeemer to make up for what we could not, EVER be! If the objective is to be like Jesus during this life, we will ALL FAIL. Hence, the need for a redeemer.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 31, 2015 18:47:04 GMT -5
What good would a Jesus be if he wasn't capable of sin? Why would he have been tempted by the devil in the wilderness if there was no chance of him sinning? From what I got from sitting in gospel meetings, Jesus was human, more like a big brother. He was completely capable of not sinning only by choice and he was supposedly sinless, again, by choices he made. I never once heard that Jesus was also God, but a perfect example of what a human being was capable of if they allowed God to completely guide them and take over their lives. That seems like a more wonderful message imo. It gives mankind hope that they can also achieve that level of divinity. Having Jesus be a God that wasn't capable of sin even in human form seems to take away any hope of humanity ever being able to be like him. I don't agree with Christians that feel he had to be a God to be sacrificed to atone humanities sins. I would think that the achievement of being a human that was fully divine because of living a fully sinless life would be a far better role model and be quite capable of performing the atonement. (of course I don't agree that any of that was necessary and appalled by a blood sacrifice that Christians seem to think was necessary and of course I don't believe in original sin). But if the story was true, I would be far more inspired by a perfect, sinless human than a God that wasn't capable of sinning in the first place. jmt But Snow, the main point of the Jesus redeemer doctrine is not that we could be perfect on Earth as he was on Earth, but that he is our Redeemer to make up for what we could not, EVER be! If the objective is to be like Jesus during this life, we will ALL FAIL. Hence, the need for a redeemer. Well that's the thing, if Jesus was human, he didn't fail did he. So that means it's achievable by a human. Similar to Buddha teaching that nirvana is achievable by any who strive towards enlightenment. I guess if we need Jesus to be a God and atone for our sins, we get to take the lazy road and not do any of the work ourselves. If Jesus was human, he did the work himself to attain that level of divinity. For us to just expect to be saved because he sacrificed his life for us seems rather pointless really. And, if he was God, his sacrifice wasn't much anyway because after all he would have known he couldn't die. Also, the concept of sacrificing himself to atone us for himself seems awfully messed up.
|
|