I truly feel for you dawg. No one should have to go through something like that. At the same time that splinter really went off on their own doctrine. The Way Ministry has none of those stipulations. Free will's the key like anything else. I think you said it best when you stated you and your girlfriend were heading toward breaking up anyway. So that probably made the choice easier.
I went to The Way International since I was a baby, so I only knew that. I did go to a few other churches with friends and girlfriends - that was very frowned upon and I was told to not have my mind opened to other churches. They also gave me the choice to either break up with my girlfriend, marry her now or leave...so I left. The place is corrupt, the leaders sow seeds of do as I say not as I do. It is very morbid how they run within the higher leaders - the sex scandles, money hoarding group.
I don't know about this splinter group. But this is only vaguely similar to the things that the Way does or believes. And no internet! What would I do! haha :D
you are sooooo off. okay so yes, people in the way CAN watch tv, or use the internet, or do everything in the culture of the world-yes. we go to the movies. back when you were in the way, there were corrupt people in there. anybody could join the way core or go to the advance class. you honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about you jackass. the way international is a wonderful ministry. we don't do any brainwashing you dick.
I was into the Way for 15 years from 1975. It was a great experience, and it DID change my life in an wonderful way. I grew out of it, but you are being dishonest about your presentation, suggesting brainwashing and control. Yeah, they swear if they want to. They tried to help you, and you declined. OK, what's the problem? Why the hell do say you "escaped"? Why do you call them a "cult"?
Now I got it -- you finally said it... "That's my STORY and I'm sticking to it."
Although, i wouldnt call that christianity. Just dont give up on the Bible because of all of those cults who twist it and ruin it, and honestly because of all of us Christians who twist it and ruin it as well. We're all to blame for this mess but i definitly know taht their ar churches out there that follow God and the Bible in a way that lines up with who Jesus was and what the Bible has to offer
The Way is so corrupt. Thank you for posting this. I GREW UP with them and had deep scars because of their doctrine, and how my parents were instructed to treat me because of their doctrine. Needless to say, I'm happy to have found The Way out.
the guy in the video definitely has an axe to grind. i've never been to a way fellowship, but i bet it's nowhere close to his claims. i've been on several way related videos tonite and many people who post comments are way believers. the credibility of the guy in the video in highly suspect.
do you know who made you break up with your girlfriend romaine? you!
great point. the only person who could have made him break up with his girlfriend is himself. listen to this guy represent himself as some king of authority. has he spent any real time with every christian organization out there? i haven't, but to the ones i have, they are all alike. they practice superstition and delusion.
@fredmelmackian Yes, he took full responsibility for breaking up with his girlfriend, did you not watch the video?
The leader of this cult had sex with a bunch of his young followers, this is well documented. Spend 15 minutes on google and figure it out for yourself. The followers of this organization are victims.
You were in a splinter group, that's not the way. the way did have some problems in the time that Craig Martindale was running it, but those times are over. The class which you didn't take is nothing like what you discribe, you have a bible and a very good set of notes to work from. Your mocking tone is sad, but i understand that you feel a need to lash out at things, you really should actually check it out. by the way Christ witnessed. Not watch TV? I've never seen that! God Bless you
@Robzantay you're full of shit buddy. you're prolly in the way. how are you gonnatell this guy it's not "the way' when it clearly is "the way". the same fucked up people are in my town doing the same thing to one of my friends ive known since i was a kid. And i cant tell her that they're brainwashing her cause they already got to her. Ive hung out with these people enough times to know......CULT!
@Andrewarez No I'm not full of shit, I'm being honest with you, I don't have any reason to lie, i don't follow any cult leader, which I believe is a requirement of being in a cult, i just think you got your feelings hurt when your friend found other interests and you are lashing out at The way. I'm sorry for your hurt feelings, but The way is not a cult, just a fellowship of believers in Jesus Christ who put what the bible says first, before any religious nonsense. God bless you, and keep you
I married an ex-way member. we were married for 2 years when we moved to Hawaii and joined a home fellowship. Within 4 years, I wanted out, so he left me for the group. The last year I have seen the true colors of this cult! They are vindictive, mean, and godless. If your not one of them, then your just noone. I'm so glad I'm free, I hope my ex gets free one day, but the control is so strong!
I understand where you're coming from. I grew up in The Way and for a time my dad was a twig coordinator for a few years. As can be expected of someone who grew up with the doctrine, I just believed everything I was told without questioning for many years. I never particularly *liked* going after I hit middle/high school since all my friends were from families that were "Marked and Avoided", but I never really stopped and thinking that The Way was right and everyone else was just plain wrong.
Continuation: It wasn't until I hit college and was removed from the influence of weekly fellowship meetings that I woke up from that nightmare. I waited until I moved out of my parent's house to stop all association with The Way. My life has been *way* better for it!
I'm ex-way; i leaved it after 7 mounths. This small time was enough for me to watch that TWI is a cult: 1) The hypergrace theory 2) Holy Spirit and holy spirit sometimes being 2 differents entity 3) Adultry as not sin 4) Jesus-Christ sodomized before his crucifixion 5) Mary wasn't virgin during pregnancy 6) The speaking in tongues as the opening of all other 8 spiritual gifts 7) Carrying the illness of someone you delivered some time ago 8) And moooooore!!! You must be blind to stay there!
'@eyokfla I don't know what kind of bs you are spewing but I haven't even Heard of the things in that list except maybe that Mary wasnt a virgin her whole life. She had 7 kids!
Roman Philosopher... being around for 30 years, I can stick to my story and tell people there was so many things said that we teach that I have NEVER heard, there is no class that lasts 9 hours a pop, no one has ever told me to stay off the internet, coming from Brooklyn, New York, I can tell you I was never "love bombed", never heard of it, and so many doctrinal things I had to wonder "Huh?" Sorry you had a bad experience.
Philospher? I feel bad for you. I was raised baptist and then I attended a Way fellowship 5 years ago and continue to today and my life has never been better. I c/n speak for the splinters or any other groups but I know the Way is the real deal. I read all kinds of evil untrue things about them online but I kept going because I had been with every other kind of church and this one actually teaches the scriptures. The classes are only 2 hours a night and it's all Bible, you decide what's true.
All you have showed was that the church struggled with division and a few dates that you speculate upon as solid reasons to reject all gosples- which is rediculous, thru a few things in there about Judas with No proof at all and the only proof you placed in here was while using scripture that you dont believe in anyways. You point to the view of the church thru using gosples that show Jesus as a man only when each gosple also teaches his deity. We know he was a man!!!! what is ur point?
well, Mark you give credit for as being less tanted, Even inthis gospel Christ is seen as Son of God. I dont have a problem with Mark, John, or any of the others they were accepted as the Gospels, they were the most widely used by the church because they were in contact with the Apostles thus were authoritative. When I say in contact with the Apostles I dont mean written but those people who wrote were generally accepted to havebeen in contact with the Apostles and that the Apostles were aware.
When we speak of Mark, Luke, Matthew and John- we all need t realize what each meant when they called Jesus the Son of God. What does the term mean??? Mark was saying in this that Jesus was of the same Nature= to the Father. We cant pick one topic in Mark and say this is the whole topic of Mark. That is silly. The term Son of God implies DEITY. So all the gosples are in agreement on the issue.
@42cody1 i'll agree with you this far. All the Gospels agree that Yeshua was put on trial for the blasphemy of calling himself the Son of God. If the charge had merit or not though varies and is unconfirmable beyond what you choose to believe. If he had said so publicly though, why the need to bribe Judas for his testimony?
You do understand the Roman view of Passover at that time right? They viewed it as a time of uprising, as it celebrated their winning their freedom from a foreign power.
@RomanPhilosopher so where do you find them offering Judas a Bribe for his testimony, I never saw that in there enlighten me please. You bring a lot of speculation to the floor- where does this speculation find root? Where does it come from? I can get up here and place a bunch of uneducated speculation all over this page just to sound good in front of you- not saying you are- what are your sources? I know they gave a Judas a bribe but prove to me your reasoning is correct and why?
@42cody1 What were they bribing him for? Where to find him?! Come on. They could bribe almost anyone for that, if not just place a trail on him to find that out. They bribed him so they would have a charge against him. If you look at his trial they ask him, "Is it True they call you the King of the Judeans?" And he doesnt reply. Where do they get that from? From Judas testimony. It simply makes logical sense.
@RomanPhilosopher this is so speculative, where did they get that from, perhaps christs own mouth, now you go to a text that you find unauthoritative and use it to prove something lol, that is really funny, thanks for the laugh. Roman you really sound rediculous at this point.
@RomanPhilosopher Ever read John 8? lol, now where did they hear it from??? Ever read John 10?? These are different accounts of the story and it was allowed. Judas saying this finds no support in any of the gosples scripture and verse please not your speculation stick to the facts please. The four gospels were wdely accepted why? because they came from apostolic social circles and affilitations. This is why other gospels were refuted against because they didnt carry the authoritative connections
to all we have to keep in mind yes the church had divisions and wrong teachings at times that had to be corrected. The churches early leaders ppl that were connected to the ORGINAL APOSTLES. In their writings they declare this Jesus as God. They also teach the Lords humanity. The disciples placed these men in positions of authority- these men's views were no doubt guided by the Apostles. The differnet books arent teaching a different Jesus at all. You have to take them all into account 4 a view.
@42cody1 Which works do you ascribe to the original apostles? The original apostles wrote jack crap. It was their apostles and companions who wrote things down. And keep in mind, the victor's write the history books. The Romans killed church leaders for centuries, then after one of the worst persecutions comes along a christian sympathizer, who's mother had a proto-orthodox christian view, whom he championed, until by the time of his death, there was only his mother's beliefs which remained.
@RomanPhilosopher I dont know that i do ascribe them or if any to the original apostles and it doesn't bother my faith - I although see why it would with you, you obviously have studied materials that have brought doubt and speculation into your view. Please share your sources for this information- so I can check its credibility. I run into many ppl who speak scholastically and talk a good show. I am more than wlling to listen to anything-just let me know your sources so I can compare.
@42cody1 Much of my beliefs are due to my own research, reading as many original sources as I can, etc. I have listed for you already who I have studied under and what works I have read.
@RomanPhilosopher Constantine was baptized at his death not acccpeting the orthodox view. Your point here is found wanting because he left this world denying the orthodox view meaning he saw Christ as just a creature.
@42cody1 And yet his Mother was Orthodox, and yet he say over the council of Nicea which affirmed the Orthodox view. It doesn't seem odd to you that the way Christianity spread in the Province of Aegyptus or in Judea or in Persia or in Gaul or in India or in Ethiopia, or in Northern Africa... all of those Christianities were thrown out, and Pauline Christianity accepted, and the writings of Paul accepted as scripture, while other men's were not. Why Paul's letters? Paul wasn't a prophet.
@RomanPhilosopher So now you dont believe in Paul? Wow, this is no different from the 1 Corinthians account where Paul defended against this view, The Apostles accepted Paul. What if Pauls coversion was real? what if the account is true? what if he trully persecuted the church to death for claiming Jesus to be God? Acts 9:14 they called upon Jesus as Lord, then Paul defends this later on and is then persecuted himself for it. Paul wasnt a prophet? Never said he was, you are arguing from silence.
@RomanPhilosopher Nope he called arius out of exile, an was baptized by the opposing view at his death. Thegosples had aposotolic connections and affiliations this is why they were ACCEPTED AND WIDELY USED, even by those who rejected 3 of the gospels and only accpeted one of them, they had to go to the gospel even the enemies of selected gosples still had to use one of the accpeted ones due to apostlic connections that showed their authority.
@42cody1 The orthodox view became dominant because of Constantine's influence, not because there were great debates. The Christianity of Judea wasn't accepted. The Chrisitianity of Assyria wasn't accepted. Nor the Christianity of Aegyptus. Nope, the Christianity of Roma and Hellas was accepted as orthodox. Coincidence? I doubt that.
@RomanPhilosopher This is where you and I would part some, Constantine called Arius back from exile and was baptized at his death by those who held - what you would call now the unorthodox view. Surely you are aware of this being the scholar of history that you obviously are.Perhaps the view that prevailed was the one blessed by God to prevail- Christ did say that the Church would be built upon "this Rock" and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, but I know that wouldnt be right 2 U.
@42cody1 And Maybe God didn't create man but Vice Versa. Have you ever read Julian II's work, Against the Galileans. Quite a good read and a look at arguements against christianity by the Pagans at the time right after Constantines Death.
@RomanPhilosopher This is rediculous, you have men who were persecuted to death and men missing body parts from previous persecution showing up to the council and now a peaceful emperor shows up and dictates the whole shame of what is now christianity - thats a shame and any logical person knows it. These men would die for their faith and never let a dictator decided the view, the view of Arius was soundly defeated by men not willing to let a roman dictate to them what their faith would be.
@RomanPhilosopher if his mother held to the orthodox view than good for her, her son didnt hold to it, he was baptized at his death by those who didnt hold to the orthodox view as history shows and called Arius out of exile - whom died after releaving himself along the way- so the opposite is true about constantine that you say. Constantine died rejecting this view that you say he started , seriously now.
@RomanPhilosopher Constantine influence had nothing to do with the decision but rather careful diliberation. Constantine was only concerned about the peace and unity of his empire and saw the dispute as causing a disruption, he stated that the parties shouldnt let such a trivial matter cause such contention, such a statement shows that constantine had no understanding of the matter thus and how important it was- he wanted peace and unity. his statement shows he wasnt biased to a view.
@RomanPhilosopher his statement showed that he only wanted peace and that he had no true understanding to its importance at all, he called arius from exile and died believeing the opposite view as he was baptized at his death bed by those who were not of the ORTHODOX VIEW.
@42cody1 It just happens that the later they were written the more and more divine Yeshua became... from simply healing the sick and feeding the poor, to teleporting, levetating, walking on water, phase shifting, raising Lazarus... He takes on the Pagan Demi-God status, in Gospels directed at Pagans. For instance. Heracles was just strong as ten men until he died willingly at a burning stake, then the human part melted, and he was all god and could do all sorts of things like the Gods.
@42cody1 Before the crucifixion, minor miracles. Post Crucifixion he breaks the laws of Physics. Of course none of this takes place in the earliest Gospel: Mark, since it originally ends with an empty tomb and nothing else and was later amended to make it seem to match the others. Which makes me say BULL!
@RomanPhilosopher slow down now, you said it ended with the empty tomb, well what does that mean that christ arose? well it couldnt mean his body was stolen no reason to start a faith on that lol. Ok when was it later amended to say as such, as though Im argueing the point lol, We have Christ being called the Son of God and an empty tomb good enough for me. But do tell specificy scholarly info and authorship of the above stated, and the persons credentials.
@RomanPhilosopher speculation again, this doesnt prove anything??? This is opinon only, we know the pagans had these beliefs soooooooo? you are just speculating, the psalms even that Jesus soul wouldnt see corruption nor his soul left in hell, these are way before and agree with the widesread authoitative Gospels that the apostles were connected to.
Guys I can only respond as I can - I have a ministry to run and seminars that I travel and teach all over the country at churches, colleges, ect. I will repsond as quickly as I can. Roman Philosopher thank you with your brief history of the church and all, you left me with the feeling that you don't really know what to believe? honestly feel for you and understand your frustration. We have early writings of Leaders that were connected to the apostles- they declare Christ deity. Hang in thereman
@RomanPhilosopher Yes, so now I guess you will say something like Justins view of Jesus being God only means in a mighty sense such as great men only ? am I right? Origen use of eternal sonship towards Christ I guess would mean something less than what it means, although I believe his use of this has brought many problems.
@RomanPhilosopher Dont forget Iranaeus - this church father especially refuted alot of which you bring up as to why Valentius and the Edomites were rejected in their views. The four gospels had apostolic connections and that is why theseguys used them in the first place as inspired. Even these guys used a portion of the gospels because they were widely accepted as having connections to the apostles social connections and which ever they chose still declared Chirst as Son of God. They had roots.
To all even if we only had mark to go on for an explanation of the identity of Christ would it only define Christ as a man, not hardly. The book of Mark declares Christ to be the SON OF GOD. So we cant take one view of Mark anddecide it was teaching Jesus was only a man. That is silly. Mark wouldnt have thought this because he said Jesus was killed for saying he was the Son of God. PPL the term means Deity!!! Son of Man shows he was human as well? Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail.
@42cody1 Yeshua was killed because Judas told the authorities that Yeshua claimed to be the Son of God. Hardly the same thing as it recording him saying such.
@RomanPhilosopher wow- where did you find this at? I never read that- evidence please and if he did it doesnt take away from the fact that Christ accepted the term and I do believe it is in all the gosples that he does. Please tell me which books are the true gosples and the correct writings specifically so I can add them to my personal cannon please just because you say so. I will get right on that so tell me the right and wrong books.
@42cody1 none are "true gospels" as in to say they are 100% without flaw. But Mark is the superior document of the 4 by far, as it is the least embellished and altered by the passing of time and the creation of tall tails.
@RomanPhilosopher these are you opinions - and you are entitled to them - you post a few dates and decide to throw all of them out. That hardly disproves that they were divinely inspired, I could take the same argument and say they have stood the test of time thus inspired, you have found reasons to doubt that isyour perogative. So now you think man made God, man you discredit yourself. The whole testimony of nature and the cosmos and the order of things speaks against your illogic.
What my point is that I as a christian have to tell the truth, The Way international leads ppl into denying the deity of Christ. Paul said if anyother man creature teaches a different Jesus other than the one in scripture let him be accursed. It is serious business and that is why I contend vigorously here. Souls are at stake.
@42cody1 there are so many issues I have with what you just said. So this will take several comments to address them all.
First off, I in no way like THE WAY, but they don't deny the deity of Christ, they do deny the existence of God as the Holy Spirit, claiming that as there were no lower case letters in the original, it was the editors that made it a proper noun and not simply a holified spirit more or less. The saved persons own spirit.
@RomanPhilosopher I reallydont know where you are pulling this info from they do indeed deny that Jesus is God, the founder wrote a book called Jesus Christ is not God. I agree about your comment about the Holy Spirit as per their belief that part is accurate. I was involved in the Way for many years I assure you theydeny the deity of christ as Almighty God Creator.
@RomanPhilosopher so which truth, I believe the whole council about Christ, no doubt the early church struggled and had divisions but rather than seeing it as a seperate Jesus you honestly should understand that Mark was right, John , Timothy, Paul, Peter, Isaiah, David, God the Father in Hebrews, Titus, Micah, I think at som point we should bow our knee and say God was able to preserve his word. The early christians were used to emperors persecuting- constatine could not push those redy 2 die.
@42cody1 He preserved his word so much that John and the Synoptics disagree on which day Yeshua died. That Matthew points to Yeshua being born during the Census of 6 CE, and Luke to the end of Herod the great's reign in 4-6 BCE. Is that how it's preserved? How John makes his ministry last seemingly 3 passovers, while Marks lasts only through the first one. Or how not even 2 of the gospels agree on the order of events in the passion week, the most important week recorded in the damn book.
@RomanPhilosopher lol, well you give me some things to look at here lol, I dont have an answer for these things and am found lacking and needing further study on the matter. These issue dont shake the faith at all though- all agree christ died for us and that he was the son of God.
@RomanPhilosopher he preserved the Gosple message, and here you go with these dates again go study some moreIm sure the Catholics hvean answer for you f not im sure the portestants will have one for you - you are missing out on eternal life over few dates that is not sound reasoning, you always fall back on the dates. So what what is the gosple? That Jesus died for your sins and took your punishment as a perfect man and God raised him from death . Jesus as God raised himself John 2:19-22.
@RomanPhilosopher You dont care for the way int. I believe you do. They are neither scholarly and they as well have a leader who stole the works of other men and passed them off as his own- hardly a man of God in this respect. My speaking was of the Way int, but yet you speak unapproving yet try to discredit me with history. why? I believe you have some affiliation with them. Anyways I believe in the Jesus of Genesis to Revelation - that he was both God and man, son of man and God.
@42cody1 Not at all. I'm agnostic. The Way to me is no worse than being Mormon or Baptist or Lutheran... in so much I mean, it requires one to live in Plato's Allegorical Cave. You believe what you believe. You are free to, I'm not going to change your mind, but don't think for a second that you are right and everyone else is wrong, as you come off doing without providing any evidence to really support that outside of Bible verses you interpret the way you choose to.
@RomanPhilosopher I thank you for your stern criticism -it helps keep me sharp, I can say that I never have seen a challenge that the orthodox church hasnt met on a scholastic level and have refuted effectively, I dont think yours will be any different but am keeping an open mind on the issue, perhaps you have more schooling than all the scholars of the orthodox church and better character. So far I see opinions and it seems as though you will resist all efforts to deny the deity of christ.
@42cody1 Not even the two major splits in the Church? The Catholics splitting with the Orthodox, then the Protestant splitting from the Catholics... Both of those were challenges that were not refuted effectively. They didn't refute Martin Luther's Thesises. They simply attacked the man and his followers.
And I will deny the Deity of anyone of flesh and bone. Furthermore, I don't believe its possible to know if God exists or is made up. Such an issue requires belief, not knowledge.
@RomanPhilosopher Listen you can deny the Deity of anyone that is your choice, I in a nutshell am really not for sure what you are saying? The four gospels were circulated widely although there are debates of authourship. They were circulated widely because they were seen as having apostolic connections meaning the Apostles knew of them and they were written in around the apostles social circles. this is evident from the inclusion of Mark and Luke both not apostles but connected to Peter, Paul
@42cody1 what they do believe however is that Jesus was a completely righteous man, without blame, who ascended and was adopted by YHWH and became the savior of man's sins and all that jazz. And they back that up actually with a ton of Paul's Writings, as well as Gospel verses. That is no longer a mainstream view to say the least, but then the issue becomes, why is the mainstream view the way it is...
@RomanPhilosopher yes a perfect man and all that jaze correct but God they do not believe that he was at all, they reject his deity totally and put him among the created. Surely you know this. They cant back it with scripture because scripture speaks of the Deity of Christ. Even the book of Acts places as to why the christians were being persucuted for "calling upon the name of the Lord" which in context is Jesus Christ, Paul/saul persecuted the church for calling upon Christ as LORD.
@42cody1 when you see LORD in the English Bible, it is simply a holdover from the Feudal system. Its a placeholder for YHWH in every instance. The term LORD isn't even as old as Revelations, it isn't used in any of the original texts. So stop trying to plug into the word what you like. it means YAHWEH or if your nutty and prefer JEHOVAH, same difference, the proper pronunciation of YHWH was lost with the Levites.
@RomanPhilosopher Scholars would disagree with most of what you said here, it would really depend on the context in how it was meant lord/ Lord. They although would probably agree with the YHWH being lost with the Levites. I know that worship doesnt always mean worship when aplied to Christ, it depends on the context and the usage of the word in how it was meant at the time. Apparently you have many scholars that you accept for your info-and I would like to study from them with a open mind.
@RomanPhilosopher what was the Greek term for Lord? used by those who wrote the originals, way before those feudal systems that we all know about on an elementary educated level. Whatw as the Greek term for Lord? I know it do you?
@RomanPhilosopher I dont doubt any scripture and see that Genesis to Revelation as being inspired because I have a special source on the matter. So you seem overwhelmingly educated and well schooled -but why not except them all as inspired? Mark had the true Christ= said he was equal to God. That is what Son of God means my friend. The church had to come to terms with what they felt was the whole inspired cannon. Some talked more of his humanity and some his deity. Christ had two natures.
@RomanPhilosopher when he accepted the term Son of God for himself in Mark? what is your point, that is what the term means. That was how it was viewed. That is why he had to die. It was blasphemy to those that heard it.
@42cody1 In Mark others call him Son of God, he calls himself Son of Man. And I don't accept it all as inspired because of the numerous contradictions. For instance... the Census was in 6 CE, but King Herod died in 3 BCE, and for him to kill the babies when Jesus was a toddler, then there is a disparity between the events by 10 years. How can it be inspired by God and be imperfect? If God Inspired it, there would be no contradictions or disagreements.
@RomanPhilosopher dude there you go again, go ask an apologist of the church, that has been edcated enough to answer your question from a scholarly level, before you get on here and with all your doubts. Can you name one scholar you have approached call a seminary??? So the dates you go to again to discredit the whole book when all the books are in agreement collectivley and solitarily on the identity of Christ.- the dates did nothing to take away from the inspired story of the identity.
@RomanPhilosopher could it be the view that righteously prevailed? I would assume that anywhere it speaks of deity towards christ - you would say- it is either interpreted incorrectly, or was it was a conspiracy against the true view of Jesus. Could it be that you have a personal problem with Jesus being God and have found what you think are justifications as such? you dont seem to have a problem with his humanity.
@42cody1 No not at all. It just doesn't seem rational is all in light of the evidence. I don't doubt Yeshua's existence, nor that he was a teacher, and he was more than likely crucified because others called him the Messiah and/or the Son of God and/or the King of the Judeans. Further, to say a man is human, is perfectly acceptable. To say a man is God I think requires a fair amount of evidence. Many throughout history have made that claim, from Mithras to Dionysos to the Pharoahs to Augustus.
@RomanPhilosopher thats my whole point he was called Son of God as you admit, now go study the term Son of God by the scholars and how the view was meant at the time, it I assure you didnt apply to his humanity. This is my point exactly, you adhere to teacher, or human attributes but miss what all foUr gospels are saying that Jesus was Son of God=DEITY! You contradict yourself when you say yes they call him Son of God- what does that mean=that he had the same nature as God and was EQUAL 2 God.
@RomanPhilosopher they all believe that Christ claimed to be the Son of God and was crucified for it. They all believe and state that as per his identity including the book of Mark, Mark was believed to have contact with Peter thus Peter being the connection for this gospel- this is what was widely believed by the people from the era of this time therefore Mark was seen as authoritative, because of a apostolic connection. Christ as Son of God showed his Identity but yes also human. I agree
Paul said, "Man Creature"? LOL oookay... can you provide me a chapter and verse for that.
Back to the point, ah, yes, in the first century CE, the Church in Judea known as Ebionites (sometimes called Jewish Christians or Jewish Christian Adoptionists), believed that God was YHWH. They believed that Yeshua had been the most righteous man on earth and, because of his righteousness, was “adopted” by God to be his son when he was baptized by John the Baptist.
@RomanPhilosopher Scripture attest no where that Jesus was the adopted Son of God. In fact, the early church believed full well of Jesus' humanity and had to stand by this against gnostic views. The whole point about Christ is that he was theeternal word/logos and that this word was of the same nature as the Father. for Christ to havebeen the adopted son of God- then he could not be of the same nature at all. It is we who through Christ receive adoption. Man creature was a typo, sorry lol
@42cody1 Did you know that in John 3 where Yeshua and Nicademus are chatting, Nicademus becomes confused in how a man can be born again. Which makes sense in Greek, because the same word is used for both spiritual birth and physical birth. But in Hebrew they are very seperate words. So either that story is made up, or Yeshua and a tax collector were so fluent in Common Greek that they conversed in it. Of course the question still stands. Who recorded the conversation and passed it down?
@42cody1 The Ebionites believed that as God’s son, Jesus had a specific task: to fulfill the Jewish expectations of the messiah by dying for the sins of the world. Jesus fulfilled his mission, and as a reward, God raised him from the dead. The Ebionites believed that because Jesus was the Jewish messiah, appointed by the Jewish God as the Jewish savior for the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Jewish law, anyone who wanted to be right with God obviously had to become Jewish.
@RomanPhilosopher Where did you get this information from and what is your educational background? Scripture as a whole in reference to Christ speaks of his Deity, calls him creator, in fact The Father does as well. The early church was persecuted for caling upon Christ as Lord, it means to invoke, worship, and adore. This is why they were persecuted. Thomas worshipped Christ John 20:28 calling him both his Lord and God. Paul equated confessing Jesus as Lord to Joel 2:32= yahweh.
@42cody1 The Ebionites believed that Jesus attained divinity through a perfect life, so Thomas' views would still fit that view. And I get many of these ideas from my time in seminary at UNC - Chapel Hill, Specifically Professor Bart Ehrman's courses. As well as Albert Schweitzer's "Out of My Life and Thought" Amongst other places, and my own personal research and reading of Young's Literal Translation.
@42cody1 Obviously the Ebionites, who existed within a lifetime of the crucifixion in the same location as the events of the Gospels took place had a different perspective than we have. They even appear in the Book of Acts when Paul was teaching that Gentiles didn't have to convert & be circumcised according to the law of Moses, which is why Paul was arrested BTW. He was considered a Heretic to the Ebionites. They also denied that Jesus was himself divine.
@RomanPhilosopher The disciples and Christ would be the proper example for the identity of Jesus Christ. God gave his only Son hence a uniqueness. When did he give? at the baptism I think not. The term Son of God means- sameness of nature and equality of being among the ancient semetic languages. Christ claim to be God's Son was a claim to equality and that is why he was killed and as equal to God he raised himself from death. John 2:19-22 note bible says that God was the one who raised christ.
@42cody1 we have in the old testament that God sent God to dwell among men Zacheriah 2:10-12. This is the same view of John's gospel, also is the smae view of Isaiah 40:3 that John the Baptist prepared the Way for GOD. The church is speaking of a composite unity something found in the hebrew language. Shall a man leave mom and dad and be joined to his wife as ONE =ECHAD FLESH. Composite unity sir and its is in genesis and Deut 6:4 hear oh Israel .....ONE=ECHAD LORD. Iand the Father are ONE.
@42cody1 I'm not saying I agree with their baptism story, just relating thats what early Jewish christians, those living in the region where Jesus taught, and his own brother was bishop, believed. And just because it lost a doctrinal battle against gentiles backed by the Roman Empire doesn't mean they're beliefs were worthless.
@RomanPhilosopher Why was the Chrstian church persecuted to begin with ? It was because they were calling upon the name of Jesus- I'm sure we can at least agree on that surley.
@42cody1 Well the first Roman persecution was because Nero needed a scape goat for the fire of Roma. Further, they were secretive and their beliefs seemed odd from the outside. They called each other brother and sister and kissed each other, they partook of cannibalism (Eating Jesus Flesh and Drinking his Blood), etc... Without a proper introduction, their beliefs made little sense. In all likelihood, the Gospel of Luke was written to clear up these issues for his Patron.
@42cody1 And no, not because they called on the name of Yeshua. Only the Judeans persecuted them for their beliefs. The Romans were very accepting of various religions, as most polytheistic religions are. Where they drew the line thought was that one's civic duty was to celebrate the Holy Days. It was believed by the Romans that they must be celebrated for the good of the nation, so it was one's patriotic duty to show up to them, even if you didn't believe in the Gods. Orthopraxy > Orthodoxy.
@RomanPhilosopher Yes although there gospel declared it when he accepted the term Son of God. The early church fathers refuted the Ebionites. There is a book called Breaking the Divinci Code, he covers all the things you are talking about "Bock" is his last name. He is a PHD. I appreciate your church history lesson but you need to really understand it from an educated view. check this man's book out. love in Christ.
@42cody1 Instead, the Ebionites believed he was fully human, born of Joseph and Mary & only adopted to be God’s son at baptism. Why such a belief? Well largely because they only had the Gospel of Mark and a variant form of the book of Matthew which started with his ministry, not his childhood. Further, the Ebionites did not think highly of Paul. They claimed to follow the teachings of James, Jesus’ own brother who became the head of the church in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death.
@RomanPhilosopher with christ having two natures can we see this in scripture yes we can. Christ prayed as a man, ate, slept, but as GOD raised his body from death. Christ was creator, Christ was human. So to answer your question I believe that Jesus was accurately defined in the whole accepted scriptural cannon. I believe he was in the form of a servant hence a man, I believe he preexisted as God. phil 2:5-11. So which do you believe in sir or do you call into question all accepted scripture?
@42cody1 what verse says he raised himself from the dead? Where does it say he was "creator"? You can BELIEVE he pre-existed as God, and that BELIEF can alter the way you read the rest of the Bible, but you are then reading a 3 millenia old text in a modern context, completely ignoring the intent and views of the authors of the books, specifically Moses, who was raised Kemetic, worshiping Horus, Osiris, Isis, Ra, and a host of other Gods, before founding the religion dedicated to YHWH.
@RomanPhilosopher but that doesnt mean that it isnt authentic we can find similarities with pagans in many things such as Tummaz being raised from death and say the resurrection is pagan. I am aware of similarities, and as far as reading froma modern context, I do my best to be careful with that. but I dont mind being enlightened so where did you obtain all this information? What are your sources and references perhaps I need to take a look at them. What is your educational level.
@42cody1 Obtain which information? That Moses was raised Kemetic? Its in Exodus... You think he was raised by Pharoah as a Kemet (Egyptian if you prefer) and didn't worship the Egyptian Gods? And if you weren't reading it from a modern christian perspective, then why do the Hebrew feel that #1 Yeshua doesnt meet the requirements to be Messiah, but that Messiah isn't part God, and then on top of that that Messiah wasn't around at creation. Nothing there points to that unless you want it to.
@RomanPhilosopher You dont accpet scripture as inspired so it isnt your final authority, your a skeptic and the only thing you are really forsure of is skepticism. Like I said I have a source that has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is inspired, there might be small issues but therein lies the gospel saving truth for mankind. That however isnt meant for you but was for me and for me only. Ppl can be biased for sure but you seem to hold yourself in exemption.
@42cody1 And what is my Bias? My opinions are based off the best facts and best theories available, using historical criteria, and looking at the earliest sources. If the Bible was Divinely inspired there would be NO issues. No contradictions. If there is a contradiction, its not perfect. A Perfect Being cannot create a imperfect creation unless the perfect being is also imperfect, thus not being perfect, thus not being God. Thus God could never forge an imperfect document.
@42cody1 I give the Gospel of Mark the most creedence. I believe there was a historical man named Yeshua, who was an apocalyptic prophet, who taught a message not that unlike the Essennes, who was betrayed by one of his own who told the Authorities that he called himself the Son of God, even though in his public ministry he never called himself that, at best this was something he only taught to his closest followers. He then was crucified prior to passover to avoid any uprising.
@RomanPhilosopher so much for the virgin birth lol, that is rediculous no mere man could ever accomplish that- the blood had to be pure- sinless, Surley you are educated enough to know this. There view is against Isaiah totally and i KNOW THEY HAD ISAIAH LOL. They would know from Isaiah that Jesus was God lol, come on man. For only God is Savoir. geez, I dont see them missing Isaiah or Zacheriah 2:10-12 God sending God dude to dwell among men or Micah 5:2 Jesus' goings forth from eternity.
@42cody1 The virgin birth. Who witnessed and testified about that? The gospels of Luke and Matthew were written in the 70s and 80s CE, the average lifespan in that time was 50. Considering Jesus was bron between 6BCE and 6 CE its practically impossible for there to have been any witness to the events, even if a shepherds son had witnessed the birth at age 10, he couldnt account for her being a virgin, and he would have had to be somewhere between 80 and 100 when the Gospels were released.
@RomanPhilosopher This is silly at this point, how do you think it was passed on and recorded. I think we have a God that knows the human condition and preserves truth despite the death of witnesses. This is where faith comes in my friend. I undertsand it is hard to trust and let go and say hey maybe I will just reach out and grab God;s hand and believe he preserves the truth for all generations.
@42cody1 Faith is believing what you know cannot be true. And besides, the evidence is there that he doesn't preserve truth. And honestly that entire sentence of: "I think we have a God that knows the human condition and preserves truth despite the death of witnesses." is deeply disturbing. Would you trust a Defense Attorney who would go before a judge and jury and say, well the Mob killed all the witnesses i was going to call, but just take my word for what they would have said... NO WAY, JOSE!
@42cody1 even if the birth was witnessed, no way to say it was a virgin birth. On the issue of Isaiah, the verse in question uses the word which means young girl and/or virgin girl. It can be translated either way. Now most accounts do say Mary was around 13-15 when she gave birth, so she still qualifies as a young girl. However, as the liklihood of any witness other than Mary having any contact even with the apostles, and Luke wasn't an apostle, and the author of Matthew wasn't either...
@RomanPhilosopher boy makes us wish we had video cameras for use at that time perhaps we could have gotten for you Mary with her leggs open saying here can you see- Im a virgin that way this young girl could have some soild proof for you. listen, I see that this is hard for you and like i said at some things we have to bend our knee and trust God on. I will say this you have entertained me and gave me a few valid points to pursue study on.
@42cody1 I really don't see how Mary being a Virgin or not affects who Yeshua was. Who knows, maybe she claimed to be a Virgin, but in Mark, there is no reference to such a thing, and Mark is the oldest Gospel. Paul wrote numerous books before the rest of the Bible was written, and he makes no reference to it... no one mentions it until roughly 80 CE. If we was born of a Virgin, and if his mother probably died between 40-50 CE... then you'd think earlier books would record it if its true, but no
@42cody1 It seems more likely that the Q gospel and/or the M and L source saw the verse in isaiah and made up the story to make it seem more legitimate. As far as the ebionites, they had no scripture that stated Yeshua was born of a virgin, his story for them begins with his baptism by John and the voice from Heaven saying, "Thou art My Son -- the Beloved, in whom I did delight." Further, while the Septuagint had been written prior, at the time, the Torah was still the scripture of the Judeans
@RomanPhilosopher so what if their gospel had it or not, that doesnt prove any contradiction at all,and its uneducated to think as such. So you at least admit that God from heaven states you are my son, so I guess he really was the God's Son since God said and not just Judas, now study ancient semetic languages to see what this term meant. Logically speaking all sons have the same nature as their fathers' do they not and that is what the church is saying- that Jesus had the same nature is all.
@42cody1 The Ebionites believed at the Baptism is when Yeshua became the son of God. I don't believe any of that personally. But that is what the Ebionites believed. And that passage was written in Greek, not a Semetic Language.
@RomanPhilosopher man you are the most hard headed stubborn man I have ever met in my life- geez, but also very intelligent and I hope that God will one day deal with you on a personal level as he has me- because the reason I know that the bible is truth is that "he told me so". Like I said that i only for me though. May God bless your life and may he honestly show you personally, I do not know why he does this for one and not the other. In the love of Christ.
@42cody1 So you hear voices in your head? And the answer to your question I suppose is that you are one of the elect, and I am not. You keep on believing what makes you feel good at night, knowing all your dead loved ones you'll see again and all your enemies will suffer for eternity... and I'll go to sleep with the knowledge that life is hard for everybody, we all suffer together in this, we find what joy we can, then we die. The End. Your story makes you feel better about yourself. Enjoy that.
@RomanPhilosopher I will never say that you are not one of the elect, God forbid, I pray that you can come to know Christ and that he settles all your doubts. I never said life isnt hard for everyone me included, I watched my loved ones die, I have heard their last breath- death is ugly, but thru Christ we can beat it if we believe that Jesus is the Son of God=deity and confess him as Our Lord =God and savior. Believe he arose from death and paid the price of our sins mine yours and all.
@RomanPhilosopher My point about my experience was that God deals with ppl differently.That is my tesimony and Im proud of it and not ashamed. it was for me and me alone. please do not place words in my mouth like Paul i wish myself accursed from christ if it meant that all my enemies and christ would come to a saving knowledge. I would rather want to be in hell if it meant that all other souls would come to christ. so dont speak for my heart becaus you only reveal how tanted your has become.
@42cody1 Then there were the Marcionites who were of the opposite view. He said that the God of the Old Testament is nothing like the God of Jesus and Paul, therefore they were seperate Gods and he developed his teachings and his Christianity off of Paul's writings. Rather than refusing to acknowledge Jesus’ divinity, they emphasized it too much, stressing that Jesus was so much God, he was not really human.
@42cody1 Marcion taught that the God of Jesus is a God of mercy and love. Jesus came to save people from the just wrath of the Old Testament God who created this world.Jesus himself could obviously not belong to the creator God or to the material world that he created: Marcion’s conclusion was that Jesus was not actually born into this world or part of it. He was not a flesh-and-blood human but a phantasm.
@42cody1 Scholars have called this view docetism, from the Greek word dokeo for “to seem, to appear.” The Jewish God required a death penalty for those who sinned; given that Jesus died for others, the Jewish God was compelled to accept his sacrifice for the sake of others (even though it was a deception, because Jesus did not have a real body)
Marcion was the first Christian to put together a canon of Christian texts. It contained eleven books... the Old Testament was obviously excluded.
@42cody1 In Marcion's canon he included: ten of Paul’s letters (all that are now found in the New Testament, except 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) and a gospel very much like our Luke.
Then there were the Gnostics, who believed there was the physical world which was evil and the spiritual world that was Good and that they were at odds. They believed parts of God are in humans which gives them the divine spark. They believed Jesus came to impart knowledge on how to free the spark inside of us.
@42cody1 Many gnostics believed that The Old Testament could not have been inspired by the one true God because it is not perfect. It has, for instance, commands that are not appropriate to God (such as, when God tells the Israelites to murder the Canaanites). Further, Jesus had to “fulfill” some of the laws of the Old Testament (so that they were imperfect before). But the Old Testament could not have been inspired by the Devil either because it contains laws that are just and good.
@42cody1 Some Christians believed that eternal life was to be a spiritual, disembodied existence. For them, Jesus did not have a real body when he was raised (he could walk through doors & the like), and Christians, too, were “spiritually” raised. Some insisted that this spiritual resurrection had already happened to Christians (for ex, 2 Tim. 2:18). Other Christians insisted that just as Jesus had been raised in the flesh, so, too, the future res would be a physical one (for ex, 1 Cor. 15).
@42cody1 Many of the older christian groups and texts also preached celibacy for life for believers, this is found on the lips of Paul and St Thomas in numerous places. This believe was picked up by the Montanites who preached celibacy to death as a way to keep your body pure, and told couples to marry God instead of one another. They also believed in asceticism and speaking in tongues. The survived the Pagan persecutions strong, but were wiped out by the Church & Justinian & labeled heretics.
@42cody1 then there are the Arians, one of the strongest Christianities of the pre-catholic period, they denied the fully deity of Yeshua. The viewed God the father as the only God, and Yeshua as the only Lord.
So why the history lesson on the early Christianities? I'll tell you why... why did the current belief system set root? Where did the notion of the trinity come from?
@42cody1 Where did the notion of the dead going to Heaven or Hell come from (Revelations says the Righteous go to the New Earth & the wicked die a second death in the lake of burning sulpher... Nothing about going to heaven or hell)? From councils compromising. Not from scripture. How do you reconcile one group that wants him to be a phantasm, another that wants him to be human, one that wants him to be God himself, another just a demi-god, one a jew, another the destroyer of judaism...
@42cody1 and another important factor was the backing of the Roman Emperors starting with Constantine. When Constantine was born there were multiple forms of Christianity existing. When he died, Arianism was barely alive and what now would be Orthodox believe was the majority. Constantines mother was a member of a Proto-Orthodox Church, the Church of Roma, which held a compromised view, that made Jesus both man and God. Despite reason. Made the trinity one god. Despite reason. Etc.
@42cody1 And they had the perfect explanation fro making no sense. Its the ways of God, man is too stupid to understand how that works. How God is one, yet he is somehow 3 persons. You sure as hell won't find a verse in the Bible that explains the Trinity, because it wasn't a believe that existed before the 3rd century, much like the notion of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture didn't exist until the 19th century in Ireland, when a girl had "visions" and a priest broke with the church over it.
@42cody1 So you say TWI leads people into denying the deity of the anointed one. You say only the Yeshua of Scriptures will do. Which Scriptures though? The current canon? The one that was first suggested over 300 years after Yeshua's death? The Ebionites used their scriptures to understand Yeshua and had a different image of him than you probably do because of the other books they lacked. What makes you sure your books are the proper ones?
@42cody1 Then there is the issue of authorship. Mark was written by a companion of Paul and then later Peter, who recorded the stories Peter told during sermons regarding his experiences with Yeshua, then after Peter's death, he organized the stories in a chronological order and released his book. The Gospel of Matthew used Mark, the Q Gospel and the M source to write his book about a decade later in the 70s or 80s CE, Luke wrote his based on Mark, Q, and the L Source around the same time.
@42cody1 The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous and could have been written by anybody. Its only called Matthew because it calls the Apostle Levi by the name Matthew for some reason. Perhaps confusion over the post-Pentecost apostle Mathias who replaced Judas as a member of the 12. Maybe not. Luke was a companion of Paul's. the Gospel of John was written by one of John's disciples. Paul barely ever mentions anything about his life or ministry, despite the fact he wrote the earliest in the 40s-60s.
@RomanPhilosopher I believe in the Jesus of Timothy that declares that Jesus the man stands as mediator. I believe in the creative Jesus that laid the foundations of heaven and earth in Hebrews 1:10-12. I believe in the Jesus of 2 Peter 1:1 that he was both God and savior, I believe in the Jesus of Jude that calls Christ our only owner and Lord. I believe in the Jesus who died as manand was raised and said his identity was the First and Last. I believe in the Jesus from Genesis to Revelation.
@42cody1 Mark paints him as more or less an Apocalyptic Prophet who believed the world was ending soon and the Kingdom of God was at hand. Matthew and Luke paint him as a miracle and blessing from God. John paints him as God in the Flesh. Mark and the Synoptics say Jesus died on 15 Nisan while John says it was on 14 Nisan. Why? because John is trying to paint the picture of Jesus as Passover lamb, while the other 3 were trying to report more or less the facts. They'd have no reason to mess it up
@RomanPhilosopher I think we would all have to agree that all the gospels pointo Christ humanity and Deity, Marks gospel would not contradict Johns on the nature of Christ both call him the Son of GOD. Right? The terms means deity- Matthew also calls him Emanuel with us is The God. Your points are very scattered and not fully defining of what terms mean and Luke likewise. You cant bring one point out of each and say this is what look is about that is not very good reasoning.
@42cody1 So which Jesus do you believe in from scriptures? The one who preached in Mark that those around him would see the end of the world in their own lifetimes, or Matthew and Luke who rephrase extreme phrases to make more sense when its 40-50 years later and most of that generation is dead. Or the Jesus of John who is God himself? There was never any clear answer on if he was the messiah or if he was God (different, unrelated issues in terms of Judaism). So which Jesus are you referring to?
@RomanPhilosopher I believe in the Jesus of Mark, which calls Christ the Son of God, The early church knew this meant equality. I believe in the Jesus of John which was worshipped as God and also called Christ the Son of God. I believe in the Jesus of Matthew which says he is Emanuel= with usis the God. I believe in the Jesus of the 4 gospels which declare his full humanity. I believe in the Jesus of the book of Acts that declares him as Lord=yahweh.
@42cody1 And on more of a philosophical level. You say souls are at stake. What even makes you believe that there is such a thing as a Soul. Can you see it, touch it, feel it... where is it in the body? Where does it attach or transmit into your body? How does it communicate with your body? Why do you even think one exists? I see no logical explanation why anyone would assume such a thing exists. We're told they exist as children. Just something to think about... if souls are at stake and all...
@RomanPhilosopher I also believe in the Jesus of Isaiah that delcares him as the everlasting father. I believe in the Jesus of Isaiah which declares that John the baptist prepared the way of Yahweh God. Isaiah 40:3, I believe in the Jesus of Romans that declares that for one to be save then he has to call Jesus his Lord, and the passage is taken from Joel 2:32 referring to God but placed on Jesus which would be blasphemy. I believe in the Jesus of Micah 5:2 messiah is from the days of eternity.
@42cody1 This isn't correct. Paul teaches that Jesus Christ was the son of God and that his father was God. This is what the Way teaches, so this scripture isn't being ignored or trampled on or misquoted. Your point is vague at best.
@42cody1 The way international is well explained by a real doctor. It covers history of the church by a qualified man and ministry. "about the way international" a website for people just like yourselves and answers given to them by qualified men. It as well exposes Victor Paul Weirwille for the dishonest man that he is with his foundational books and his exegesis of church history.
@pogy1man E.W Bullinger "Figure of Speech" used by the Way international defines the term Son of God as DEITY, AS IN THAT JESUS IS GOD. They wont tell you that one though. go check it out my friend. Check out the website "About the Way International" it will answer all your questions sir. I dont have a problem with Jesus being the Son of God because I know its meaning= God. Son of Man = human. He was human and divine. Your statement you made is vague when you correctly define the term sir.
@42cody1 Did you know that Paul only mentions anything about Yeshua's life twice in all of his writings? No mention of the virgin birth, or any of his great teachings... in fact Paul in some instances taught contrary to what is recorded in the Gospels, if he hadn't founded half of the church's that later would be the crux of the orthodox church, his works wouldn't even be in the Canon. You discredit the influence of politics. You fail to see the pressure and consequences that Roma pushed on them
i wouldn't call you an idiot. just because one is naive, like yourself, does not mean you are incapable of learning. your video just parrots what fundamentalists say about anything that is outside of your well known large churches. were there people in the way who abused their power? although i don't know of any personally, there must have been. power doesn't corrupt everyone, but it will corrupt some. as others have said, the way has no more guilt than any other church.
@aliashumanist4 While I admittedly was raised in a fundamentalist household. My beliefs are nowhere near that of them, and if I were religious and Christian, I'd be a Messianic Judean before I'd be Baptist or a member of the Way. The Ebionites were the closest to being true in my opinion. I have no issue with the anti-trinitarian views of the Way and its splinter groups. My issue was with the manipulation used to entice members. Its as bad as playing sappy music during an invitation.
@aliashumanist4 Also. Power corrupts absolutely. Care to name people with power who did not corrupt? Chances are they were just better liars and better at covering their tracks than others.
And the Catholics have the most guilt. I don't think the Way has authorized a war where a ship load of children were sent to fight and instead they ended up all enslaved. I don't think the Way has shoved snakes up Judeans sphincters then seered it with a hot poker if they wouldn't convert.
The Way splinter group I'm in contact with is much cooler than the one described here. They are big into the whole once-saved always-saved doctrine, so they're extremely chill with what you do as it isn't supposed to matter. The pastor at one of the big meetings used the F-word in a sermon, and apparently, the group does not believe in hell as well. Some of these The Way splinter groups sound very corrupt, though, but there are some good ones.
@AuldLangSyne1000 what do you mean what you do isn't supposed to matter? I mean, there were sects of early christianity, even traces of it in Paul which indicate early christians weren't even supposed to have sex, that they're bodies were to remain pure until death. It seems like your group has escaped from this ideal to the extreme opposite. And of course you'd think its cool. Christianity is already a easy religion, this group just made it even easier to belief by making it retarded. Have fun
I mean you should be a good person as it's the right thing to do. I wouldn't mind being celibate either if that's what's best. What attracted me was that this Way splinter group held many of the beliefs I already held on my own. I think they're onto something very true that other Christians don't see. People can be verily easily lead astray even if they have good ideas, and you seemed to met people who were either corrupted, ignorant, or overzealous. Whatever makes people happy, though.
Bengals there are many in the way organization not splinters that that has happened too. They keep a tight rope on their followers.
GenerationY1000 6 months ago
But, I respect you for what you've been through and though I don't agree with beliefs I respect that stand firmly on them. Walk in love brother
Baddz2004 6 months ago
I truly feel for you dawg. No one should have to go through something like that. At the same time that splinter really went off on their own doctrine. The Way Ministry has none of those stipulations. Free will's the key like anything else. I think you said it best when you stated you and your girlfriend were heading toward breaking up anyway. So that probably made the choice easier.
Baddz2004 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I went to The Way International since I was a baby, so I only knew that. I did go to a few other churches with friends and girlfriends - that was very frowned upon and I was told to not have my mind opened to other churches. They also gave me the choice to either break up with my girlfriend, marry her now or leave...so I left. The place is corrupt, the leaders sow seeds of do as I say not as I do. It is very morbid how they run within the higher leaders - the sex scandles, money hoarding group.
bengals628 7 months ago
I don't know about this splinter group. But this is only vaguely similar to the things that the Way does or believes. And no internet! What would I do! haha :D
Walkonby19 8 months ago
you are sooooo off. okay so yes, people in the way CAN watch tv, or use the internet, or do everything in the culture of the world-yes. we go to the movies. back when you were in the way, there were corrupt people in there. anybody could join the way core or go to the advance class. you honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about you jackass. the way international is a wonderful ministry. we don't do any brainwashing you dick.
wannapop14 9 months ago
I was into the Way for 15 years from 1975. It was a great experience, and it DID change my life in an wonderful way. I grew out of it, but you are being dishonest about your presentation, suggesting brainwashing and control. Yeah, they swear if they want to. They tried to help you, and you declined. OK, what's the problem? Why the hell do say you "escaped"? Why do you call them a "cult"?
Now I got it -- you finally said it... "That's my STORY and I'm sticking to it."
Congratulations.
createVisionsOfLove 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Interesting.... Glad you got out of that
Although, i wouldnt call that christianity. Just dont give up on the Bible because of all of those cults who twist it and ruin it, and honestly because of all of us Christians who twist it and ruin it as well. We're all to blame for this mess but i definitly know taht their ar churches out there that follow God and the Bible in a way that lines up with who Jesus was and what the Bible has to offer
DCdefender77 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Interesting.... Glad you got out of that
DCdefender77 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Way is so corrupt. Thank you for posting this. I GREW UP with them and had deep scars because of their doctrine, and how my parents were instructed to treat me because of their doctrine. Needless to say, I'm happy to have found The Way out.
FindTheBody 10 months ago
the guy in the video definitely has an axe to grind. i've never been to a way fellowship, but i bet it's nowhere close to his claims. i've been on several way related videos tonite and many people who post comments are way believers. the credibility of the guy in the video in highly suspect.
do you know who made you break up with your girlfriend romaine? you!
fredmelmackian 10 months ago 7
@fredmelmackian
great point. the only person who could have made him break up with his girlfriend is himself. listen to this guy represent himself as some king of authority. has he spent any real time with every christian organization out there? i haven't, but to the ones i have, they are all alike. they practice superstition and delusion.
motormansglove 10 months ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@fredmelmackian Yes, he took full responsibility for breaking up with his girlfriend, did you not watch the video?
The leader of this cult had sex with a bunch of his young followers, this is well documented. Spend 15 minutes on google and figure it out for yourself. The followers of this organization are victims.
markowens75 7 months ago
You were in a splinter group, that's not the way. the way did have some problems in the time that Craig Martindale was running it, but those times are over. The class which you didn't take is nothing like what you discribe, you have a bible and a very good set of notes to work from. Your mocking tone is sad, but i understand that you feel a need to lash out at things, you really should actually check it out. by the way Christ witnessed. Not watch TV? I've never seen that! God Bless you
Robzantay 11 months ago 2
@Robzantay you're full of shit buddy. you're prolly in the way. how are you gonnatell this guy it's not "the way' when it clearly is "the way". the same fucked up people are in my town doing the same thing to one of my friends ive known since i was a kid. And i cant tell her that they're brainwashing her cause they already got to her. Ive hung out with these people enough times to know......CULT!
Andrewarez 10 months ago
@Andrewarez No I'm not full of shit, I'm being honest with you, I don't have any reason to lie, i don't follow any cult leader, which I believe is a requirement of being in a cult, i just think you got your feelings hurt when your friend found other interests and you are lashing out at The way. I'm sorry for your hurt feelings, but The way is not a cult, just a fellowship of believers in Jesus Christ who put what the bible says first, before any religious nonsense. God bless you, and keep you
Robzantay 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I married an ex-way member. we were married for 2 years when we moved to Hawaii and joined a home fellowship. Within 4 years, I wanted out, so he left me for the group. The last year I have seen the true colors of this cult! They are vindictive, mean, and godless. If your not one of them, then your just noone. I'm so glad I'm free, I hope my ex gets free one day, but the control is so strong!
nrsgurl1 11 months ago
hahahhah they on't let people use the internet? you are a dumbass lol.
jacksenjoisk8 1 year ago
I understand where you're coming from. I grew up in The Way and for a time my dad was a twig coordinator for a few years. As can be expected of someone who grew up with the doctrine, I just believed everything I was told without questioning for many years. I never particularly *liked* going after I hit middle/high school since all my friends were from families that were "Marked and Avoided", but I never really stopped and thinking that The Way was right and everyone else was just plain wrong.
rthane 1 year ago
Continuation: It wasn't until I hit college and was removed from the influence of weekly fellowship meetings that I woke up from that nightmare. I waited until I moved out of my parent's house to stop all association with The Way. My life has been *way* better for it!
Thanks for sharing your story.
rthane 1 year ago
I'm ex-way; i leaved it after 7 mounths. This small time was enough for me to watch that TWI is a cult: 1) The hypergrace theory 2) Holy Spirit and holy spirit sometimes being 2 differents entity 3) Adultry as not sin 4) Jesus-Christ sodomized before his crucifixion 5) Mary wasn't virgin during pregnancy 6) The speaking in tongues as the opening of all other 8 spiritual gifts 7) Carrying the illness of someone you delivered some time ago 8) And moooooore!!! You must be blind to stay there!
eyokfla 1 year ago
'@eyokfla I don't know what kind of bs you are spewing but I haven't even Heard of the things in that list except maybe that Mary wasnt a virgin her whole life. She had 7 kids!
Walkonby19 8 months ago
Roman Philosopher... being around for 30 years, I can stick to my story and tell people there was so many things said that we teach that I have NEVER heard, there is no class that lasts 9 hours a pop, no one has ever told me to stay off the internet, coming from Brooklyn, New York, I can tell you I was never "love bombed", never heard of it, and so many doctrinal things I had to wonder "Huh?" Sorry you had a bad experience.
NOICON1957 1 year ago
Philospher? I feel bad for you. I was raised baptist and then I attended a Way fellowship 5 years ago and continue to today and my life has never been better. I c/n speak for the splinters or any other groups but I know the Way is the real deal. I read all kinds of evil untrue things about them online but I kept going because I had been with every other kind of church and this one actually teaches the scriptures. The classes are only 2 hours a night and it's all Bible, you decide what's true.
Gregglesism 1 year ago
you are a major weak ass church goer. Man Up and be a Christian!
GuroDon 1 year ago
All you have showed was that the church struggled with division and a few dates that you speculate upon as solid reasons to reject all gosples- which is rediculous, thru a few things in there about Judas with No proof at all and the only proof you placed in here was while using scripture that you dont believe in anyways. You point to the view of the church thru using gosples that show Jesus as a man only when each gosple also teaches his deity. We know he was a man!!!! what is ur point?
42cody1 1 year ago
well, Mark you give credit for as being less tanted, Even inthis gospel Christ is seen as Son of God. I dont have a problem with Mark, John, or any of the others they were accepted as the Gospels, they were the most widely used by the church because they were in contact with the Apostles thus were authoritative. When I say in contact with the Apostles I dont mean written but those people who wrote were generally accepted to havebeen in contact with the Apostles and that the Apostles were aware.
42cody1 1 year ago
When we speak of Mark, Luke, Matthew and John- we all need t realize what each meant when they called Jesus the Son of God. What does the term mean??? Mark was saying in this that Jesus was of the same Nature= to the Father. We cant pick one topic in Mark and say this is the whole topic of Mark. That is silly. The term Son of God implies DEITY. So all the gosples are in agreement on the issue.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 i'll agree with you this far. All the Gospels agree that Yeshua was put on trial for the blasphemy of calling himself the Son of God. If the charge had merit or not though varies and is unconfirmable beyond what you choose to believe. If he had said so publicly though, why the need to bribe Judas for his testimony?
You do understand the Roman view of Passover at that time right? They viewed it as a time of uprising, as it celebrated their winning their freedom from a foreign power.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher so where do you find them offering Judas a Bribe for his testimony, I never saw that in there enlighten me please. You bring a lot of speculation to the floor- where does this speculation find root? Where does it come from? I can get up here and place a bunch of uneducated speculation all over this page just to sound good in front of you- not saying you are- what are your sources? I know they gave a Judas a bribe but prove to me your reasoning is correct and why?
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 What were they bribing him for? Where to find him?! Come on. They could bribe almost anyone for that, if not just place a trail on him to find that out. They bribed him so they would have a charge against him. If you look at his trial they ask him, "Is it True they call you the King of the Judeans?" And he doesnt reply. Where do they get that from? From Judas testimony. It simply makes logical sense.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher this is so speculative, where did they get that from, perhaps christs own mouth, now you go to a text that you find unauthoritative and use it to prove something lol, that is really funny, thanks for the laugh. Roman you really sound rediculous at this point.
42cody1 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher Ever read John 8? lol, now where did they hear it from??? Ever read John 10?? These are different accounts of the story and it was allowed. Judas saying this finds no support in any of the gosples scripture and verse please not your speculation stick to the facts please. The four gospels were wdely accepted why? because they came from apostolic social circles and affilitations. This is why other gospels were refuted against because they didnt carry the authoritative connections
42cody1 1 year ago
to all we have to keep in mind yes the church had divisions and wrong teachings at times that had to be corrected. The churches early leaders ppl that were connected to the ORGINAL APOSTLES. In their writings they declare this Jesus as God. They also teach the Lords humanity. The disciples placed these men in positions of authority- these men's views were no doubt guided by the Apostles. The differnet books arent teaching a different Jesus at all. You have to take them all into account 4 a view.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 Which works do you ascribe to the original apostles? The original apostles wrote jack crap. It was their apostles and companions who wrote things down. And keep in mind, the victor's write the history books. The Romans killed church leaders for centuries, then after one of the worst persecutions comes along a christian sympathizer, who's mother had a proto-orthodox christian view, whom he championed, until by the time of his death, there was only his mother's beliefs which remained.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher I dont know that i do ascribe them or if any to the original apostles and it doesn't bother my faith - I although see why it would with you, you obviously have studied materials that have brought doubt and speculation into your view. Please share your sources for this information- so I can check its credibility. I run into many ppl who speak scholastically and talk a good show. I am more than wlling to listen to anything-just let me know your sources so I can compare.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 Much of my beliefs are due to my own research, reading as many original sources as I can, etc. I have listed for you already who I have studied under and what works I have read.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher Constantine was baptized at his death not acccpeting the orthodox view. Your point here is found wanting because he left this world denying the orthodox view meaning he saw Christ as just a creature.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 And yet his Mother was Orthodox, and yet he say over the council of Nicea which affirmed the Orthodox view. It doesn't seem odd to you that the way Christianity spread in the Province of Aegyptus or in Judea or in Persia or in Gaul or in India or in Ethiopia, or in Northern Africa... all of those Christianities were thrown out, and Pauline Christianity accepted, and the writings of Paul accepted as scripture, while other men's were not. Why Paul's letters? Paul wasn't a prophet.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher So now you dont believe in Paul? Wow, this is no different from the 1 Corinthians account where Paul defended against this view, The Apostles accepted Paul. What if Pauls coversion was real? what if the account is true? what if he trully persecuted the church to death for claiming Jesus to be God? Acts 9:14 they called upon Jesus as Lord, then Paul defends this later on and is then persecuted himself for it. Paul wasnt a prophet? Never said he was, you are arguing from silence.
42cody1 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher Nope he called arius out of exile, an was baptized by the opposing view at his death. Thegosples had aposotolic connections and affiliations this is why they were ACCEPTED AND WIDELY USED, even by those who rejected 3 of the gospels and only accpeted one of them, they had to go to the gospel even the enemies of selected gosples still had to use one of the accpeted ones due to apostlic connections that showed their authority.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 The orthodox view became dominant because of Constantine's influence, not because there were great debates. The Christianity of Judea wasn't accepted. The Chrisitianity of Assyria wasn't accepted. Nor the Christianity of Aegyptus. Nope, the Christianity of Roma and Hellas was accepted as orthodox. Coincidence? I doubt that.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher This is where you and I would part some, Constantine called Arius back from exile and was baptized at his death by those who held - what you would call now the unorthodox view. Surely you are aware of this being the scholar of history that you obviously are.Perhaps the view that prevailed was the one blessed by God to prevail- Christ did say that the Church would be built upon "this Rock" and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, but I know that wouldnt be right 2 U.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 And Maybe God didn't create man but Vice Versa. Have you ever read Julian II's work, Against the Galileans. Quite a good read and a look at arguements against christianity by the Pagans at the time right after Constantines Death.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher This is rediculous, you have men who were persecuted to death and men missing body parts from previous persecution showing up to the council and now a peaceful emperor shows up and dictates the whole shame of what is now christianity - thats a shame and any logical person knows it. These men would die for their faith and never let a dictator decided the view, the view of Arius was soundly defeated by men not willing to let a roman dictate to them what their faith would be.
42cody1 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher if his mother held to the orthodox view than good for her, her son didnt hold to it, he was baptized at his death by those who didnt hold to the orthodox view as history shows and called Arius out of exile - whom died after releaving himself along the way- so the opposite is true about constantine that you say. Constantine died rejecting this view that you say he started , seriously now.
42cody1 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher Constantine influence had nothing to do with the decision but rather careful diliberation. Constantine was only concerned about the peace and unity of his empire and saw the dispute as causing a disruption, he stated that the parties shouldnt let such a trivial matter cause such contention, such a statement shows that constantine had no understanding of the matter thus and how important it was- he wanted peace and unity. his statement shows he wasnt biased to a view.
42cody1 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher his statement showed that he only wanted peace and that he had no true understanding to its importance at all, he called arius from exile and died believeing the opposite view as he was baptized at his death bed by those who were not of the ORTHODOX VIEW.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 It just happens that the later they were written the more and more divine Yeshua became... from simply healing the sick and feeding the poor, to teleporting, levetating, walking on water, phase shifting, raising Lazarus... He takes on the Pagan Demi-God status, in Gospels directed at Pagans. For instance. Heracles was just strong as ten men until he died willingly at a burning stake, then the human part melted, and he was all god and could do all sorts of things like the Gods.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 Before the crucifixion, minor miracles. Post Crucifixion he breaks the laws of Physics. Of course none of this takes place in the earliest Gospel: Mark, since it originally ends with an empty tomb and nothing else and was later amended to make it seem to match the others. Which makes me say BULL!
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher slow down now, you said it ended with the empty tomb, well what does that mean that christ arose? well it couldnt mean his body was stolen no reason to start a faith on that lol. Ok when was it later amended to say as such, as though Im argueing the point lol, We have Christ being called the Son of God and an empty tomb good enough for me. But do tell specificy scholarly info and authorship of the above stated, and the persons credentials.
42cody1 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher speculation again, this doesnt prove anything??? This is opinon only, we know the pagans had these beliefs soooooooo? you are just speculating, the psalms even that Jesus soul wouldnt see corruption nor his soul left in hell, these are way before and agree with the widesread authoitative Gospels that the apostles were connected to.
42cody1 1 year ago
Guys I can only respond as I can - I have a ministry to run and seminars that I travel and teach all over the country at churches, colleges, ect. I will repsond as quickly as I can. Roman Philosopher thank you with your brief history of the church and all, you left me with the feeling that you don't really know what to believe? honestly feel for you and understand your frustration. We have early writings of Leaders that were connected to the apostles- they declare Christ deity. Hang in thereman
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 have you read Justin martyr? St Augustine? Origen? If you rather we can shift this debate to their works.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher Yes, so now I guess you will say something like Justins view of Jesus being God only means in a mighty sense such as great men only ? am I right? Origen use of eternal sonship towards Christ I guess would mean something less than what it means, although I believe his use of this has brought many problems.
42cody1 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher Dont forget Iranaeus - this church father especially refuted alot of which you bring up as to why Valentius and the Edomites were rejected in their views. The four gospels had apostolic connections and that is why theseguys used them in the first place as inspired. Even these guys used a portion of the gospels because they were widely accepted as having connections to the apostles social connections and which ever they chose still declared Chirst as Son of God. They had roots.
42cody1 1 year ago
To all even if we only had mark to go on for an explanation of the identity of Christ would it only define Christ as a man, not hardly. The book of Mark declares Christ to be the SON OF GOD. So we cant take one view of Mark anddecide it was teaching Jesus was only a man. That is silly. Mark wouldnt have thought this because he said Jesus was killed for saying he was the Son of God. PPL the term means Deity!!! Son of Man shows he was human as well? Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 Yeshua was killed because Judas told the authorities that Yeshua claimed to be the Son of God. Hardly the same thing as it recording him saying such.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher wow- where did you find this at? I never read that- evidence please and if he did it doesnt take away from the fact that Christ accepted the term and I do believe it is in all the gosples that he does. Please tell me which books are the true gosples and the correct writings specifically so I can add them to my personal cannon please just because you say so. I will get right on that so tell me the right and wrong books.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 none are "true gospels" as in to say they are 100% without flaw. But Mark is the superior document of the 4 by far, as it is the least embellished and altered by the passing of time and the creation of tall tails.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher these are you opinions - and you are entitled to them - you post a few dates and decide to throw all of them out. That hardly disproves that they were divinely inspired, I could take the same argument and say they have stood the test of time thus inspired, you have found reasons to doubt that isyour perogative. So now you think man made God, man you discredit yourself. The whole testimony of nature and the cosmos and the order of things speaks against your illogic.
42cody1 1 year ago
What my point is that I as a christian have to tell the truth, The Way international leads ppl into denying the deity of Christ. Paul said if anyother man creature teaches a different Jesus other than the one in scripture let him be accursed. It is serious business and that is why I contend vigorously here. Souls are at stake.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 there are so many issues I have with what you just said. So this will take several comments to address them all.
First off, I in no way like THE WAY, but they don't deny the deity of Christ, they do deny the existence of God as the Holy Spirit, claiming that as there were no lower case letters in the original, it was the editors that made it a proper noun and not simply a holified spirit more or less. The saved persons own spirit.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher I reallydont know where you are pulling this info from they do indeed deny that Jesus is God, the founder wrote a book called Jesus Christ is not God. I agree about your comment about the Holy Spirit as per their belief that part is accurate. I was involved in the Way for many years I assure you theydeny the deity of christ as Almighty God Creator.
42cody1 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher so which truth, I believe the whole council about Christ, no doubt the early church struggled and had divisions but rather than seeing it as a seperate Jesus you honestly should understand that Mark was right, John , Timothy, Paul, Peter, Isaiah, David, God the Father in Hebrews, Titus, Micah, I think at som point we should bow our knee and say God was able to preserve his word. The early christians were used to emperors persecuting- constatine could not push those redy 2 die.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 He preserved his word so much that John and the Synoptics disagree on which day Yeshua died. That Matthew points to Yeshua being born during the Census of 6 CE, and Luke to the end of Herod the great's reign in 4-6 BCE. Is that how it's preserved? How John makes his ministry last seemingly 3 passovers, while Marks lasts only through the first one. Or how not even 2 of the gospels agree on the order of events in the passion week, the most important week recorded in the damn book.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher lol, well you give me some things to look at here lol, I dont have an answer for these things and am found lacking and needing further study on the matter. These issue dont shake the faith at all though- all agree christ died for us and that he was the son of God.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 but if there are these errors, then how could God have divinely inspired them? He couldn't have.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher he preserved the Gosple message, and here you go with these dates again go study some moreIm sure the Catholics hvean answer for you f not im sure the portestants will have one for you - you are missing out on eternal life over few dates that is not sound reasoning, you always fall back on the dates. So what what is the gosple? That Jesus died for your sins and took your punishment as a perfect man and God raised him from death . Jesus as God raised himself John 2:19-22.
42cody1 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher You dont care for the way int. I believe you do. They are neither scholarly and they as well have a leader who stole the works of other men and passed them off as his own- hardly a man of God in this respect. My speaking was of the Way int, but yet you speak unapproving yet try to discredit me with history. why? I believe you have some affiliation with them. Anyways I believe in the Jesus of Genesis to Revelation - that he was both God and man, son of man and God.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 Not at all. I'm agnostic. The Way to me is no worse than being Mormon or Baptist or Lutheran... in so much I mean, it requires one to live in Plato's Allegorical Cave. You believe what you believe. You are free to, I'm not going to change your mind, but don't think for a second that you are right and everyone else is wrong, as you come off doing without providing any evidence to really support that outside of Bible verses you interpret the way you choose to.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher I thank you for your stern criticism -it helps keep me sharp, I can say that I never have seen a challenge that the orthodox church hasnt met on a scholastic level and have refuted effectively, I dont think yours will be any different but am keeping an open mind on the issue, perhaps you have more schooling than all the scholars of the orthodox church and better character. So far I see opinions and it seems as though you will resist all efforts to deny the deity of christ.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 Not even the two major splits in the Church? The Catholics splitting with the Orthodox, then the Protestant splitting from the Catholics... Both of those were challenges that were not refuted effectively. They didn't refute Martin Luther's Thesises. They simply attacked the man and his followers.
And I will deny the Deity of anyone of flesh and bone. Furthermore, I don't believe its possible to know if God exists or is made up. Such an issue requires belief, not knowledge.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher Listen you can deny the Deity of anyone that is your choice, I in a nutshell am really not for sure what you are saying? The four gospels were circulated widely although there are debates of authourship. They were circulated widely because they were seen as having apostolic connections meaning the Apostles knew of them and they were written in around the apostles social circles. this is evident from the inclusion of Mark and Luke both not apostles but connected to Peter, Paul
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 what they do believe however is that Jesus was a completely righteous man, without blame, who ascended and was adopted by YHWH and became the savior of man's sins and all that jazz. And they back that up actually with a ton of Paul's Writings, as well as Gospel verses. That is no longer a mainstream view to say the least, but then the issue becomes, why is the mainstream view the way it is...
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher yes a perfect man and all that jaze correct but God they do not believe that he was at all, they reject his deity totally and put him among the created. Surely you know this. They cant back it with scripture because scripture speaks of the Deity of Christ. Even the book of Acts places as to why the christians were being persucuted for "calling upon the name of the Lord" which in context is Jesus Christ, Paul/saul persecuted the church for calling upon Christ as LORD.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 when you see LORD in the English Bible, it is simply a holdover from the Feudal system. Its a placeholder for YHWH in every instance. The term LORD isn't even as old as Revelations, it isn't used in any of the original texts. So stop trying to plug into the word what you like. it means YAHWEH or if your nutty and prefer JEHOVAH, same difference, the proper pronunciation of YHWH was lost with the Levites.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher Scholars would disagree with most of what you said here, it would really depend on the context in how it was meant lord/ Lord. They although would probably agree with the YHWH being lost with the Levites. I know that worship doesnt always mean worship when aplied to Christ, it depends on the context and the usage of the word in how it was meant at the time. Apparently you have many scholars that you accept for your info-and I would like to study from them with a open mind.
42cody1 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher what was the Greek term for Lord? used by those who wrote the originals, way before those feudal systems that we all know about on an elementary educated level. Whatw as the Greek term for Lord? I know it do you?
42cody1 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher I dont doubt any scripture and see that Genesis to Revelation as being inspired because I have a special source on the matter. So you seem overwhelmingly educated and well schooled -but why not except them all as inspired? Mark had the true Christ= said he was equal to God. That is what Son of God means my friend. The church had to come to terms with what they felt was the whole inspired cannon. Some talked more of his humanity and some his deity. Christ had two natures.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 Where in Mark does it say Ywshua was equal to God?
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher when he accepted the term Son of God for himself in Mark? what is your point, that is what the term means. That was how it was viewed. That is why he had to die. It was blasphemy to those that heard it.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 In Mark others call him Son of God, he calls himself Son of Man. And I don't accept it all as inspired because of the numerous contradictions. For instance... the Census was in 6 CE, but King Herod died in 3 BCE, and for him to kill the babies when Jesus was a toddler, then there is a disparity between the events by 10 years. How can it be inspired by God and be imperfect? If God Inspired it, there would be no contradictions or disagreements.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher dude there you go again, go ask an apologist of the church, that has been edcated enough to answer your question from a scholarly level, before you get on here and with all your doubts. Can you name one scholar you have approached call a seminary??? So the dates you go to again to discredit the whole book when all the books are in agreement collectivley and solitarily on the identity of Christ.- the dates did nothing to take away from the inspired story of the identity.
42cody1 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher could it be the view that righteously prevailed? I would assume that anywhere it speaks of deity towards christ - you would say- it is either interpreted incorrectly, or was it was a conspiracy against the true view of Jesus. Could it be that you have a personal problem with Jesus being God and have found what you think are justifications as such? you dont seem to have a problem with his humanity.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 No not at all. It just doesn't seem rational is all in light of the evidence. I don't doubt Yeshua's existence, nor that he was a teacher, and he was more than likely crucified because others called him the Messiah and/or the Son of God and/or the King of the Judeans. Further, to say a man is human, is perfectly acceptable. To say a man is God I think requires a fair amount of evidence. Many throughout history have made that claim, from Mithras to Dionysos to the Pharoahs to Augustus.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher thats my whole point he was called Son of God as you admit, now go study the term Son of God by the scholars and how the view was meant at the time, it I assure you didnt apply to his humanity. This is my point exactly, you adhere to teacher, or human attributes but miss what all foUr gospels are saying that Jesus was Son of God=DEITY! You contradict yourself when you say yes they call him Son of God- what does that mean=that he had the same nature as God and was EQUAL 2 God.
42cody1 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher they all believe that Christ claimed to be the Son of God and was crucified for it. They all believe and state that as per his identity including the book of Mark, Mark was believed to have contact with Peter thus Peter being the connection for this gospel- this is what was widely believed by the people from the era of this time therefore Mark was seen as authoritative, because of a apostolic connection. Christ as Son of God showed his Identity but yes also human. I agree
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 More on that in a moment.
Paul said, "Man Creature"? LOL oookay... can you provide me a chapter and verse for that.
Back to the point, ah, yes, in the first century CE, the Church in Judea known as Ebionites (sometimes called Jewish Christians or Jewish Christian Adoptionists), believed that God was YHWH. They believed that Yeshua had been the most righteous man on earth and, because of his righteousness, was “adopted” by God to be his son when he was baptized by John the Baptist.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher Scripture attest no where that Jesus was the adopted Son of God. In fact, the early church believed full well of Jesus' humanity and had to stand by this against gnostic views. The whole point about Christ is that he was theeternal word/logos and that this word was of the same nature as the Father. for Christ to havebeen the adopted son of God- then he could not be of the same nature at all. It is we who through Christ receive adoption. Man creature was a typo, sorry lol
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 Did you know that in John 3 where Yeshua and Nicademus are chatting, Nicademus becomes confused in how a man can be born again. Which makes sense in Greek, because the same word is used for both spiritual birth and physical birth. But in Hebrew they are very seperate words. So either that story is made up, or Yeshua and a tax collector were so fluent in Common Greek that they conversed in it. Of course the question still stands. Who recorded the conversation and passed it down?
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 The Ebionites believed that as God’s son, Jesus had a specific task: to fulfill the Jewish expectations of the messiah by dying for the sins of the world. Jesus fulfilled his mission, and as a reward, God raised him from the dead. The Ebionites believed that because Jesus was the Jewish messiah, appointed by the Jewish God as the Jewish savior for the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Jewish law, anyone who wanted to be right with God obviously had to become Jewish.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher Where did you get this information from and what is your educational background? Scripture as a whole in reference to Christ speaks of his Deity, calls him creator, in fact The Father does as well. The early church was persecuted for caling upon Christ as Lord, it means to invoke, worship, and adore. This is why they were persecuted. Thomas worshipped Christ John 20:28 calling him both his Lord and God. Paul equated confessing Jesus as Lord to Joel 2:32= yahweh.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 The Ebionites believed that Jesus attained divinity through a perfect life, so Thomas' views would still fit that view. And I get many of these ideas from my time in seminary at UNC - Chapel Hill, Specifically Professor Bart Ehrman's courses. As well as Albert Schweitzer's "Out of My Life and Thought" Amongst other places, and my own personal research and reading of Young's Literal Translation.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 Obviously the Ebionites, who existed within a lifetime of the crucifixion in the same location as the events of the Gospels took place had a different perspective than we have. They even appear in the Book of Acts when Paul was teaching that Gentiles didn't have to convert & be circumcised according to the law of Moses, which is why Paul was arrested BTW. He was considered a Heretic to the Ebionites. They also denied that Jesus was himself divine.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher The disciples and Christ would be the proper example for the identity of Jesus Christ. God gave his only Son hence a uniqueness. When did he give? at the baptism I think not. The term Son of God means- sameness of nature and equality of being among the ancient semetic languages. Christ claim to be God's Son was a claim to equality and that is why he was killed and as equal to God he raised himself from death. John 2:19-22 note bible says that God was the one who raised christ.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 we have in the old testament that God sent God to dwell among men Zacheriah 2:10-12. This is the same view of John's gospel, also is the smae view of Isaiah 40:3 that John the Baptist prepared the Way for GOD. The church is speaking of a composite unity something found in the hebrew language. Shall a man leave mom and dad and be joined to his wife as ONE =ECHAD FLESH. Composite unity sir and its is in genesis and Deut 6:4 hear oh Israel .....ONE=ECHAD LORD. Iand the Father are ONE.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 I'm not saying I agree with their baptism story, just relating thats what early Jewish christians, those living in the region where Jesus taught, and his own brother was bishop, believed. And just because it lost a doctrinal battle against gentiles backed by the Roman Empire doesn't mean they're beliefs were worthless.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher Why was the Chrstian church persecuted to begin with ? It was because they were calling upon the name of Jesus- I'm sure we can at least agree on that surley.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 Well the first Roman persecution was because Nero needed a scape goat for the fire of Roma. Further, they were secretive and their beliefs seemed odd from the outside. They called each other brother and sister and kissed each other, they partook of cannibalism (Eating Jesus Flesh and Drinking his Blood), etc... Without a proper introduction, their beliefs made little sense. In all likelihood, the Gospel of Luke was written to clear up these issues for his Patron.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 And no, not because they called on the name of Yeshua. Only the Judeans persecuted them for their beliefs. The Romans were very accepting of various religions, as most polytheistic religions are. Where they drew the line thought was that one's civic duty was to celebrate the Holy Days. It was believed by the Romans that they must be celebrated for the good of the nation, so it was one's patriotic duty to show up to them, even if you didn't believe in the Gods. Orthopraxy > Orthodoxy.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher Yes although there gospel declared it when he accepted the term Son of God. The early church fathers refuted the Ebionites. There is a book called Breaking the Divinci Code, he covers all the things you are talking about "Bock" is his last name. He is a PHD. I appreciate your church history lesson but you need to really understand it from an educated view. check this man's book out. love in Christ.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 Instead, the Ebionites believed he was fully human, born of Joseph and Mary & only adopted to be God’s son at baptism. Why such a belief? Well largely because they only had the Gospel of Mark and a variant form of the book of Matthew which started with his ministry, not his childhood. Further, the Ebionites did not think highly of Paul. They claimed to follow the teachings of James, Jesus’ own brother who became the head of the church in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher with christ having two natures can we see this in scripture yes we can. Christ prayed as a man, ate, slept, but as GOD raised his body from death. Christ was creator, Christ was human. So to answer your question I believe that Jesus was accurately defined in the whole accepted scriptural cannon. I believe he was in the form of a servant hence a man, I believe he preexisted as God. phil 2:5-11. So which do you believe in sir or do you call into question all accepted scripture?
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 what verse says he raised himself from the dead? Where does it say he was "creator"? You can BELIEVE he pre-existed as God, and that BELIEF can alter the way you read the rest of the Bible, but you are then reading a 3 millenia old text in a modern context, completely ignoring the intent and views of the authors of the books, specifically Moses, who was raised Kemetic, worshiping Horus, Osiris, Isis, Ra, and a host of other Gods, before founding the religion dedicated to YHWH.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher but that doesnt mean that it isnt authentic we can find similarities with pagans in many things such as Tummaz being raised from death and say the resurrection is pagan. I am aware of similarities, and as far as reading froma modern context, I do my best to be careful with that. but I dont mind being enlightened so where did you obtain all this information? What are your sources and references perhaps I need to take a look at them. What is your educational level.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 Obtain which information? That Moses was raised Kemetic? Its in Exodus... You think he was raised by Pharoah as a Kemet (Egyptian if you prefer) and didn't worship the Egyptian Gods? And if you weren't reading it from a modern christian perspective, then why do the Hebrew feel that #1 Yeshua doesnt meet the requirements to be Messiah, but that Messiah isn't part God, and then on top of that that Messiah wasn't around at creation. Nothing there points to that unless you want it to.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher You dont accpet scripture as inspired so it isnt your final authority, your a skeptic and the only thing you are really forsure of is skepticism. Like I said I have a source that has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is inspired, there might be small issues but therein lies the gospel saving truth for mankind. That however isnt meant for you but was for me and for me only. Ppl can be biased for sure but you seem to hold yourself in exemption.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 And what is my Bias? My opinions are based off the best facts and best theories available, using historical criteria, and looking at the earliest sources. If the Bible was Divinely inspired there would be NO issues. No contradictions. If there is a contradiction, its not perfect. A Perfect Being cannot create a imperfect creation unless the perfect being is also imperfect, thus not being perfect, thus not being God. Thus God could never forge an imperfect document.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 I give the Gospel of Mark the most creedence. I believe there was a historical man named Yeshua, who was an apocalyptic prophet, who taught a message not that unlike the Essennes, who was betrayed by one of his own who told the Authorities that he called himself the Son of God, even though in his public ministry he never called himself that, at best this was something he only taught to his closest followers. He then was crucified prior to passover to avoid any uprising.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher so much for the virgin birth lol, that is rediculous no mere man could ever accomplish that- the blood had to be pure- sinless, Surley you are educated enough to know this. There view is against Isaiah totally and i KNOW THEY HAD ISAIAH LOL. They would know from Isaiah that Jesus was God lol, come on man. For only God is Savoir. geez, I dont see them missing Isaiah or Zacheriah 2:10-12 God sending God dude to dwell among men or Micah 5:2 Jesus' goings forth from eternity.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 The virgin birth. Who witnessed and testified about that? The gospels of Luke and Matthew were written in the 70s and 80s CE, the average lifespan in that time was 50. Considering Jesus was bron between 6BCE and 6 CE its practically impossible for there to have been any witness to the events, even if a shepherds son had witnessed the birth at age 10, he couldnt account for her being a virgin, and he would have had to be somewhere between 80 and 100 when the Gospels were released.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher This is silly at this point, how do you think it was passed on and recorded. I think we have a God that knows the human condition and preserves truth despite the death of witnesses. This is where faith comes in my friend. I undertsand it is hard to trust and let go and say hey maybe I will just reach out and grab God;s hand and believe he preserves the truth for all generations.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 Faith is believing what you know cannot be true. And besides, the evidence is there that he doesn't preserve truth. And honestly that entire sentence of: "I think we have a God that knows the human condition and preserves truth despite the death of witnesses." is deeply disturbing. Would you trust a Defense Attorney who would go before a judge and jury and say, well the Mob killed all the witnesses i was going to call, but just take my word for what they would have said... NO WAY, JOSE!
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 even if the birth was witnessed, no way to say it was a virgin birth. On the issue of Isaiah, the verse in question uses the word which means young girl and/or virgin girl. It can be translated either way. Now most accounts do say Mary was around 13-15 when she gave birth, so she still qualifies as a young girl. However, as the liklihood of any witness other than Mary having any contact even with the apostles, and Luke wasn't an apostle, and the author of Matthew wasn't either...
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher boy makes us wish we had video cameras for use at that time perhaps we could have gotten for you Mary with her leggs open saying here can you see- Im a virgin that way this young girl could have some soild proof for you. listen, I see that this is hard for you and like i said at some things we have to bend our knee and trust God on. I will say this you have entertained me and gave me a few valid points to pursue study on.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 I really don't see how Mary being a Virgin or not affects who Yeshua was. Who knows, maybe she claimed to be a Virgin, but in Mark, there is no reference to such a thing, and Mark is the oldest Gospel. Paul wrote numerous books before the rest of the Bible was written, and he makes no reference to it... no one mentions it until roughly 80 CE. If we was born of a Virgin, and if his mother probably died between 40-50 CE... then you'd think earlier books would record it if its true, but no
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 It seems more likely that the Q gospel and/or the M and L source saw the verse in isaiah and made up the story to make it seem more legitimate. As far as the ebionites, they had no scripture that stated Yeshua was born of a virgin, his story for them begins with his baptism by John and the voice from Heaven saying, "Thou art My Son -- the Beloved, in whom I did delight." Further, while the Septuagint had been written prior, at the time, the Torah was still the scripture of the Judeans
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher so what if their gospel had it or not, that doesnt prove any contradiction at all,and its uneducated to think as such. So you at least admit that God from heaven states you are my son, so I guess he really was the God's Son since God said and not just Judas, now study ancient semetic languages to see what this term meant. Logically speaking all sons have the same nature as their fathers' do they not and that is what the church is saying- that Jesus had the same nature is all.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 The Ebionites believed at the Baptism is when Yeshua became the son of God. I don't believe any of that personally. But that is what the Ebionites believed. And that passage was written in Greek, not a Semetic Language.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher man you are the most hard headed stubborn man I have ever met in my life- geez, but also very intelligent and I hope that God will one day deal with you on a personal level as he has me- because the reason I know that the bible is truth is that "he told me so". Like I said that i only for me though. May God bless your life and may he honestly show you personally, I do not know why he does this for one and not the other. In the love of Christ.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 So you hear voices in your head? And the answer to your question I suppose is that you are one of the elect, and I am not. You keep on believing what makes you feel good at night, knowing all your dead loved ones you'll see again and all your enemies will suffer for eternity... and I'll go to sleep with the knowledge that life is hard for everybody, we all suffer together in this, we find what joy we can, then we die. The End. Your story makes you feel better about yourself. Enjoy that.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher I will never say that you are not one of the elect, God forbid, I pray that you can come to know Christ and that he settles all your doubts. I never said life isnt hard for everyone me included, I watched my loved ones die, I have heard their last breath- death is ugly, but thru Christ we can beat it if we believe that Jesus is the Son of God=deity and confess him as Our Lord =God and savior. Believe he arose from death and paid the price of our sins mine yours and all.
42cody1 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher My point about my experience was that God deals with ppl differently.That is my tesimony and Im proud of it and not ashamed. it was for me and me alone. please do not place words in my mouth like Paul i wish myself accursed from christ if it meant that all my enemies and christ would come to a saving knowledge. I would rather want to be in hell if it meant that all other souls would come to christ. so dont speak for my heart becaus you only reveal how tanted your has become.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 Then there were the Marcionites who were of the opposite view. He said that the God of the Old Testament is nothing like the God of Jesus and Paul, therefore they were seperate Gods and he developed his teachings and his Christianity off of Paul's writings. Rather than refusing to acknowledge Jesus’ divinity, they emphasized it too much, stressing that Jesus was so much God, he was not really human.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 Marcion taught that the God of Jesus is a God of mercy and love. Jesus came to save people from the just wrath of the Old Testament God who created this world.Jesus himself could obviously not belong to the creator God or to the material world that he created: Marcion’s conclusion was that Jesus was not actually born into this world or part of it. He was not a flesh-and-blood human but a phantasm.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 Scholars have called this view docetism, from the Greek word dokeo for “to seem, to appear.” The Jewish God required a death penalty for those who sinned; given that Jesus died for others, the Jewish God was compelled to accept his sacrifice for the sake of others (even though it was a deception, because Jesus did not have a real body)
Marcion was the first Christian to put together a canon of Christian texts. It contained eleven books... the Old Testament was obviously excluded.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 In Marcion's canon he included: ten of Paul’s letters (all that are now found in the New Testament, except 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) and a gospel very much like our Luke.
Then there were the Gnostics, who believed there was the physical world which was evil and the spiritual world that was Good and that they were at odds. They believed parts of God are in humans which gives them the divine spark. They believed Jesus came to impart knowledge on how to free the spark inside of us.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 Many gnostics believed that The Old Testament could not have been inspired by the one true God because it is not perfect. It has, for instance, commands that are not appropriate to God (such as, when God tells the Israelites to murder the Canaanites). Further, Jesus had to “fulfill” some of the laws of the Old Testament (so that they were imperfect before). But the Old Testament could not have been inspired by the Devil either because it contains laws that are just and good.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 Some Christians believed that eternal life was to be a spiritual, disembodied existence. For them, Jesus did not have a real body when he was raised (he could walk through doors & the like), and Christians, too, were “spiritually” raised. Some insisted that this spiritual resurrection had already happened to Christians (for ex, 2 Tim. 2:18). Other Christians insisted that just as Jesus had been raised in the flesh, so, too, the future res would be a physical one (for ex, 1 Cor. 15).
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 Many of the older christian groups and texts also preached celibacy for life for believers, this is found on the lips of Paul and St Thomas in numerous places. This believe was picked up by the Montanites who preached celibacy to death as a way to keep your body pure, and told couples to marry God instead of one another. They also believed in asceticism and speaking in tongues. The survived the Pagan persecutions strong, but were wiped out by the Church & Justinian & labeled heretics.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 then there are the Arians, one of the strongest Christianities of the pre-catholic period, they denied the fully deity of Yeshua. The viewed God the father as the only God, and Yeshua as the only Lord.
So why the history lesson on the early Christianities? I'll tell you why... why did the current belief system set root? Where did the notion of the trinity come from?
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 Where did the notion of the dead going to Heaven or Hell come from (Revelations says the Righteous go to the New Earth & the wicked die a second death in the lake of burning sulpher... Nothing about going to heaven or hell)? From councils compromising. Not from scripture. How do you reconcile one group that wants him to be a phantasm, another that wants him to be human, one that wants him to be God himself, another just a demi-god, one a jew, another the destroyer of judaism...
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 and another important factor was the backing of the Roman Emperors starting with Constantine. When Constantine was born there were multiple forms of Christianity existing. When he died, Arianism was barely alive and what now would be Orthodox believe was the majority. Constantines mother was a member of a Proto-Orthodox Church, the Church of Roma, which held a compromised view, that made Jesus both man and God. Despite reason. Made the trinity one god. Despite reason. Etc.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 And they had the perfect explanation fro making no sense. Its the ways of God, man is too stupid to understand how that works. How God is one, yet he is somehow 3 persons. You sure as hell won't find a verse in the Bible that explains the Trinity, because it wasn't a believe that existed before the 3rd century, much like the notion of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture didn't exist until the 19th century in Ireland, when a girl had "visions" and a priest broke with the church over it.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 So you say TWI leads people into denying the deity of the anointed one. You say only the Yeshua of Scriptures will do. Which Scriptures though? The current canon? The one that was first suggested over 300 years after Yeshua's death? The Ebionites used their scriptures to understand Yeshua and had a different image of him than you probably do because of the other books they lacked. What makes you sure your books are the proper ones?
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 Then there is the issue of authorship. Mark was written by a companion of Paul and then later Peter, who recorded the stories Peter told during sermons regarding his experiences with Yeshua, then after Peter's death, he organized the stories in a chronological order and released his book. The Gospel of Matthew used Mark, the Q Gospel and the M source to write his book about a decade later in the 70s or 80s CE, Luke wrote his based on Mark, Q, and the L Source around the same time.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@42cody1 The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous and could have been written by anybody. Its only called Matthew because it calls the Apostle Levi by the name Matthew for some reason. Perhaps confusion over the post-Pentecost apostle Mathias who replaced Judas as a member of the 12. Maybe not. Luke was a companion of Paul's. the Gospel of John was written by one of John's disciples. Paul barely ever mentions anything about his life or ministry, despite the fact he wrote the earliest in the 40s-60s.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher I believe in the Jesus of Timothy that declares that Jesus the man stands as mediator. I believe in the creative Jesus that laid the foundations of heaven and earth in Hebrews 1:10-12. I believe in the Jesus of 2 Peter 1:1 that he was both God and savior, I believe in the Jesus of Jude that calls Christ our only owner and Lord. I believe in the Jesus who died as manand was raised and said his identity was the First and Last. I believe in the Jesus from Genesis to Revelation.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 Mark paints him as more or less an Apocalyptic Prophet who believed the world was ending soon and the Kingdom of God was at hand. Matthew and Luke paint him as a miracle and blessing from God. John paints him as God in the Flesh. Mark and the Synoptics say Jesus died on 15 Nisan while John says it was on 14 Nisan. Why? because John is trying to paint the picture of Jesus as Passover lamb, while the other 3 were trying to report more or less the facts. They'd have no reason to mess it up
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher I think we would all have to agree that all the gospels pointo Christ humanity and Deity, Marks gospel would not contradict Johns on the nature of Christ both call him the Son of GOD. Right? The terms means deity- Matthew also calls him Emanuel with us is The God. Your points are very scattered and not fully defining of what terms mean and Luke likewise. You cant bring one point out of each and say this is what look is about that is not very good reasoning.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 So which Jesus do you believe in from scriptures? The one who preached in Mark that those around him would see the end of the world in their own lifetimes, or Matthew and Luke who rephrase extreme phrases to make more sense when its 40-50 years later and most of that generation is dead. Or the Jesus of John who is God himself? There was never any clear answer on if he was the messiah or if he was God (different, unrelated issues in terms of Judaism). So which Jesus are you referring to?
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher I believe in the Jesus of Mark, which calls Christ the Son of God, The early church knew this meant equality. I believe in the Jesus of John which was worshipped as God and also called Christ the Son of God. I believe in the Jesus of Matthew which says he is Emanuel= with usis the God. I believe in the Jesus of the 4 gospels which declare his full humanity. I believe in the Jesus of the book of Acts that declares him as Lord=yahweh.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 And on more of a philosophical level. You say souls are at stake. What even makes you believe that there is such a thing as a Soul. Can you see it, touch it, feel it... where is it in the body? Where does it attach or transmit into your body? How does it communicate with your body? Why do you even think one exists? I see no logical explanation why anyone would assume such a thing exists. We're told they exist as children. Just something to think about... if souls are at stake and all...
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher I also believe in the Jesus of Isaiah that delcares him as the everlasting father. I believe in the Jesus of Isaiah which declares that John the baptist prepared the way of Yahweh God. Isaiah 40:3, I believe in the Jesus of Romans that declares that for one to be save then he has to call Jesus his Lord, and the passage is taken from Joel 2:32 referring to God but placed on Jesus which would be blasphemy. I believe in the Jesus of Micah 5:2 messiah is from the days of eternity.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 This isn't correct. Paul teaches that Jesus Christ was the son of God and that his father was God. This is what the Way teaches, so this scripture isn't being ignored or trampled on or misquoted. Your point is vague at best.
pogy1man 1 year ago
Comment removed
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 The way international is well explained by a real doctor. It covers history of the church by a qualified man and ministry. "about the way international" a website for people just like yourselves and answers given to them by qualified men. It as well exposes Victor Paul Weirwille for the dishonest man that he is with his foundational books and his exegesis of church history.
42cody1 1 year ago
Comment removed
42cody1 1 year ago
@pogy1man E.W Bullinger "Figure of Speech" used by the Way international defines the term Son of God as DEITY, AS IN THAT JESUS IS GOD. They wont tell you that one though. go check it out my friend. Check out the website "About the Way International" it will answer all your questions sir. I dont have a problem with Jesus being the Son of God because I know its meaning= God. Son of Man = human. He was human and divine. Your statement you made is vague when you correctly define the term sir.
42cody1 1 year ago
@42cody1 Did you know that Paul only mentions anything about Yeshua's life twice in all of his writings? No mention of the virgin birth, or any of his great teachings... in fact Paul in some instances taught contrary to what is recorded in the Gospels, if he hadn't founded half of the church's that later would be the crux of the orthodox church, his works wouldn't even be in the Canon. You discredit the influence of politics. You fail to see the pressure and consequences that Roma pushed on them
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you are an idiot...
drumbum4513 1 year ago
@drumbum4513 care to elaborate? I mean if I am an idiot, I'd at least like to know why.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@RomanPhilosopher
i wouldn't call you an idiot. just because one is naive, like yourself, does not mean you are incapable of learning. your video just parrots what fundamentalists say about anything that is outside of your well known large churches. were there people in the way who abused their power? although i don't know of any personally, there must have been. power doesn't corrupt everyone, but it will corrupt some. as others have said, the way has no more guilt than any other church.
aliashumanist4 1 year ago
@aliashumanist4 While I admittedly was raised in a fundamentalist household. My beliefs are nowhere near that of them, and if I were religious and Christian, I'd be a Messianic Judean before I'd be Baptist or a member of the Way. The Ebionites were the closest to being true in my opinion. I have no issue with the anti-trinitarian views of the Way and its splinter groups. My issue was with the manipulation used to entice members. Its as bad as playing sappy music during an invitation.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
@aliashumanist4 Also. Power corrupts absolutely. Care to name people with power who did not corrupt? Chances are they were just better liars and better at covering their tracks than others.
And the Catholics have the most guilt. I don't think the Way has authorized a war where a ship load of children were sent to fight and instead they ended up all enslaved. I don't think the Way has shoved snakes up Judeans sphincters then seered it with a hot poker if they wouldn't convert.
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
The Way splinter group I'm in contact with is much cooler than the one described here. They are big into the whole once-saved always-saved doctrine, so they're extremely chill with what you do as it isn't supposed to matter. The pastor at one of the big meetings used the F-word in a sermon, and apparently, the group does not believe in hell as well. Some of these The Way splinter groups sound very corrupt, though, but there are some good ones.
AuldLangSyne1000 1 year ago
@AuldLangSyne1000 what do you mean what you do isn't supposed to matter? I mean, there were sects of early christianity, even traces of it in Paul which indicate early christians weren't even supposed to have sex, that they're bodies were to remain pure until death. It seems like your group has escaped from this ideal to the extreme opposite. And of course you'd think its cool. Christianity is already a easy religion, this group just made it even easier to belief by making it retarded. Have fun
RomanPhilosopher 1 year ago
I mean you should be a good person as it's the right thing to do. I wouldn't mind being celibate either if that's what's best. What attracted me was that this Way splinter group held many of the beliefs I already held on my own. I think they're onto something very true that other Christians don't see. People can be verily easily lead astray even if they have good ideas, and you seemed to met people who were either corrupted, ignorant, or overzealous. Whatever makes people happy, though.
AuldLangSyne1000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
By the way, you were totally right. I got screwed by that no good cult! Now, I want satisfaction in the war of ideas against them! Gaah!
AuldLangSyne1000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
By the way, you were totally right. I got screwed by that no good cult!
AuldLangSyne1000 7 months ago