Wiki: Word of Faith forum (2)

[J4Jesus]

it would have been a big deal if we had had our own forum separate from the SF/PC. but since that vote was tied we are still a part of the SF/PC, so their mods can come into the forum, but because they don't have the icon or agree with the beliefs they can only post in friendship or to ask a question. and it's the same way for me. i can post in the main forum, but i can only post in friendship or to ask a question in the Pentecostal and Charasmatic forums.

so long as we are tied to them we have to accept their moderation.
I"m not talking about to post. I mean we wanted only WOF Mods to mod our WOF forum. I didn't know it tied. Do you have a link to that? So now does that mean anyone can Mod our forum? :eek:

[God_Owned]

it would have been a big deal if we had had our own forum separate from the SF/PC. but since that vote was tied we are still a part of the SF/PC, so their mods can come into the forum, but because they don't have the icon or agree with the beliefs they can only post in friendship or to ask a question. and it's the same way for me. i can post in the main forum, but i can only post in friendship or to ask a question in the Pentecostal and Charasmatic forums.

so long as we are tied to them we have to accept their moderation.

Which is why I didn't want to be tied to them.

[probinson]

so long as we are tied to them we have to accept their moderation.
This is not exactly correct. The foru.ms rules state that each forum can be autonomous, and that would include the WoF forum.

If the WoF forum only wants WoF mods, it only needs to be voted into the wiki. Then the rest of the mods under SF would simply need to be instructed to not handle WoF matters.

The WoF forum can be completely autonomous right where it is.

[J4Jesus]

This is not exactly correct. The foru.ms rules state that each forum can be autonomous, and that would include the WoF forum.

If the WoF forum only wants WoF mods, it only needs to be voted into the wiki. Then the rest of the mods under SF would simply need to be instructed to not handle WoF matters.

The WoF forum can be completely autonomous right where it is.
Pete
If I would propose that should something be added about if there are no WOF mods or shortage of WOF mods? Or would it be best just like this ? Would that include reports since there are a few in SFP/C that do help us some?

[probinson]

Pete
If I would propose that should something be added about if there are no WOF mods or shortage of WOF mods? Or would it be best just like this ? Would that include reports since there are a few in SFP/C that do help us some?
I'll work on a proposal tomorrow and post it here. Right now, I'm trying to get the wiki updated, which is LOOOOONG overdue.

:swoon:

[probinson]

They said it couldn't be done, but the wiki and sticky are now both updated!

I made no content changes to the sticky, only formatting chages (fonts, spacing, etc.) But I still urge you to look it over and make sure I didn't muck something up accidentally. I also linked all the scriptures to biblegateway, so maybe check those for me too.

Thanks.

[Trish1947]

yes, the procedures outlined in both the congregational and the foru.ms ban protocols would only kick in only after the member had demonstrated that they would not stop the behavior on their own.
o.k. so it will be like it's always been. Say a person received 3 warnings and 3 violations within 3 months for blasphemy, they would be banned for a amount of time. If they received 3 warnings and 3 violations for flaming within 30 days, we might depending on the circumstances, send them a well worded PM, telling them that they are approching a unacceptable level of flaming behavior and are approaching a ban. Then comes a mirade of protest PMs back and forth between the offender, and the Mods, until the person gets a grip, and perhaps a person is open for suggestion for counciling is made. You get another PM, them wanting to know who to contact to protest the warning they received, and why wasn't the other guy they were writing to, didn't get his warning. So another PM. is sent explaining that we cannot tell you any actions that might have been taken, and give them the info if they wanted to file a hearing. Whew! And this is pretty normal, and I just mentioned two kinds of violations. It's too bad it cant be simpler. But sometimes it can't be done simpler when your dealing with people.

[J4Jesus]

They said it couldn't be done, but the wiki and sticky are now both updated!

I made no content changes to the sticky, only formatting chages (fonts, spacing, etc.) But I still urge you to look it over and make sure I didn't muck something up accidentally. I also linked all the scriptures to biblegateway, so maybe check those for me too.

Thanks.

It's really late tonight but I
would be glad to help you in that way tomorrow ;)
After all that now rest up :)

[J4Jesus]

o.k. so it will be like it's always been. Say a person received 3 warnings and 3 violations within 3 months for blasphemy, they would be banned for a amount of time. If they received 3 warnings and 3 violations for flaming within 30 days, we might depending on the circumstances, send them a well worded PM, telling them that they are approching a unacceptable level of flaming behavior and are approaching a ban. Then comes a mirade of protest PMs back and forth between the offender, and the Mods, until the person gets a grip, and perhaps a person is open for suggestion for counciling is made. You get another PM, them wanting to know who to contact to protest the warning they received, and why wasn't the other guy they were writing to, didn't get his warning. So another PM. is sent explaining that we cannot tell you any actions that might have been taken, and give them the info if they wanted to file a hearing. Whew! And this is pretty normal, and I just mentioned two kinds of violations. It's too bad it cant be simpler. But sometimes it can't be done simpler when your dealing with people.

I know :(
But one thing it does show there's grace there or the hammer would have fallen a long time before going through all that.


Really it's to try to get them to stop their wrong behavior of their own accord. I'd think most after a few violations would see they must straighten up or get help

[Trish1947]

I know :(
But one thing it does show there's grace there or the hammer would have fallen a long time before going through all that.


Really it's to try to get them to stop their wrong behavior of their own accord. I'd think most after a few violations would see they must straighten up or get help
I agree. Hopefully in our forum it doesn't go that far. I was modding in the debate area, which could become really out of hand.

[J4Jesus]

I agree. Hopefully in our forum it doesn't go that far. I was modding in the debate area, which could become really out of hand.

I know I"ve been there! :doh:

Well now those there, and everyone can go any place on this site :eek: And if that is their their behavior everyone needs something in place to protect their forum, since the rules changed and can be changing everyday, unless we make some for our forum. And then there is the possiblity of anyone who joins us or the other forums can cause problems just like in churches, they sometimes split over problems :cry:

[J4Jesus]

Pete
I'm finally finished with this . :swoon:
It is taking hours to proofread it against each other plus all link on both. And I thought I was finished in here the other day !! ;) ^_^ I did catch a few things.

They said it couldn't be done, but the wiki and sticky are now both updated!

I made no content changes to the sticky, only formatting chages (fonts, spacing, etc.) But I still urge you to look it over and make sure I didn't muck something up accidentally. I also linked all the scriptures to biblegateway, so maybe check those for me too.

Thanks.

Here are 3 corrections to make on the wiki AND the WOF RULES sticky,
1. the new name
2. the link to biblegateway.com -
does not work; the incorrect address says christainforums on this link which no longer exists.




All Biblical references link to the King James Version of the Bible, provided by biblegateway.com

Additionally, all of Christian Forum's general rules also apply.

Change name to this, but you will need to fix the link yourself:

All Biblical references link to the King James Version of the Bible, provided by biblegateway.com

Additionally, all of Foru.m's general rules also apply.

3. On the Specific beliefs, the first reference is ok but not really correct since it stops in the middle of a thought:

Specific Word of Faith Beliefs


1. We believe whatsoever a man says, not doubting in his heart, but believing that those things which he says shall come to pass, that he shall have whatsoever he says. We believe we therefore need the word of God to transform us by the renewing of our mind and speak those things in faith, that the Word of God says, in submission to God. (Mark 11:22-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2011:22-28&version=9) )

I don't know how to do links so check and make sure it works when you correct it. It should be:

(Mark 11:22-26)

[probinson]

I can't believe you read the whole thing! :D

The above corrections have been made to both the wiki and the sticky.

[J4Jesus]

I can't believe I did either! :swoon:

Oh one thing I did not notice before until I got back on very late did last night is most links are green and less than half blue. I don't think it matter though. And another thing along that line which I don't really care , is some clinks when you click them they dont change another color. Just letting you know. Glad it's done :clap:

[God_Owned]

This is not exactly correct. The foru.ms rules state that each forum can be autonomous, and that would include the WoF forum.

If the WoF forum only wants WoF mods, it only needs to be voted into the wiki. Then the rest of the mods under SF would simply need to be instructed to not handle WoF matters.

The WoF forum can be completely autonomous right where it is.

I suggest that we put i the wiki that we only want WOF Mods in the WOF Forum.

[J4Jesus]

I agree with that IF it would not affect the help we get from others in the spirit filled congregation on reports. They help us alot. There are only three WOF mods and those three would have to take care of every report when and if they get time or it drags on. And we don't have an admin for WOF either
Pete
If I would propose that should something be added about if there are no WOF mods or shortage of WOF mods? Or would it be best just like this ? Would that include reports since there are a few in SFP/C that do really help us ?

[probinson]

I can't believe I did either! :swoon:

Oh one thing I did not notice before until I got back on very late did last night is most links are green and less than half blue. I don't think it matter though. And another thing along that line which I don't really care , is some clinks when you click them they dont change another color. Just letting you know. Glad it's done :clap:
I noticed that too, though I have NO idea why.... It's probably related to the fact that most of the wiki was created before this new green theme.

Ah well. It's pretty minor. :D

[J4Jesus]

I'll work on a proposal tomorrow and post it here. Right now, I'm trying to get the wiki updated, which is LOOOOONG overdue.

:swoon:

Awaiting your proposal about only WOF Mods, :pink: IF it won't conflict with what I stated here ;) :)



I agree with that IF it would not affect the help we get from others in the spirit filled congregation on reports. They help us alot. There are only three WOF mods and those three would have to take care of every report when and if they get time or it drags on. And we don't have an admin for WOF either
Pete
If I would propose that should something be added about if there are no WOF mods or shortage of WOF mods? Or would it be best just like this ? Would that include reports since there are a few in SFP/C that do help us some?
I really would like it to say only WOF Mods but not if it means JAS 4Yeshua and flaglady can not be involved in reports since they are a tremendous help and are fair.

[probinson]

Awaiting your proposal about only WOF Mods, :pink: IF it won't conflict with what I stated here ;) :)


I really would like it to say only WOF Mods but not if it means JAS 4Yeshua and flaglady can not be involved in reports since they are a tremendous help and are fair.
Sorry. I have bigger fish to fry right now, so my "tomorrows" may be, uh, tomorrow... :sorry:

Let me give y'all 2 things to kick around. There are 2 ways we can go about this. We can have our own mods, and those mods will be dedicated to WoF. IOW, they would no longer mod the SF main forum but ONLY the WoF forum.

Option 2 is for the WoF mods to continue to mod in the SF forum, but state in our rules that only WoF mods will handle reports from the WoF forum. This would disqualify those who are NOT WoF from modding in the WoF forum.

I should point out that no matter where the WoF forum is and no matter how many WoF mods there are on staff, the foru.ms staff structure does not permit for ONLY WoF staff up through the chain of command. Supermods and Administrators are generally over more than one area, and therefore there is not an Administrator for each congregational forum, but for each team.

In any event, those are just some things to think about. Let's discuss it some more and see what the WoF membership wants to do.

[pdudgeon]

consider the numbers...

if you want to have only WOF mods working on WOF reports then we would need more mods--one at a bare mininum and two would be better to allow for vacations, sick time, life time, etc. :)

[J4Jesus]

Sorry. I have bigger fish to fry right now, so my "tomorrows" may be, uh, tomorrow...

Let me give y'all 2 things to kick around. There are 2 ways we can go about this. We can have our own mods, and those mods will be dedicated to WoF. IOW, they would no longer mod the SF main forum but ONLY the WoF forum.

Option 2 is for the WoF mods to continue to mod in the SF forum, but state in our rules that only WoF mods will handle reports from the WoF forum. This would disqualify those who are NOT WoF from modding in the WoF forum.

I should point out that no matter where the WoF forum is and no matter how many WoF mods there are on staff, the foru.ms staff structure does not permit for ONLY WoF staff up through the chain of command. Supermods and Administrators are generally over more than one area, and therefore there is not an Administrator for each congregational forum, but for each team.

In any event, those are just some things to think about. Let's discuss it some more and see what the WoF membership wants to do.
Ya'll? :D Are you from the south? ;)
OK thanks. No hurry, so take care of your big fish :)

That sheds a whole different light on it. Now that's the kind of things we need to know that can make a difference, before we do this.

I dont want to do anything that would keep you from Moding is SFP/C. We need you and our Mods there! We are all spirit-filled so part of the forum. I hate think how much MORE of a mess it would be if our mods were not there! Also I'd still want the others to be helping with reports . We really hadn't have much of a problem at all in WOF, so unless we do, maybe then take this up again.

Option 2 would be more work for all of you for reports and since there are only three of you then every report would have to be unanimous or they could not even be settled. :(

It might be better to leave things as is unless a problem arises. I didn't know it would be this involved until I thought about reports the other day.

[pdudgeon]

Tishri and I have been talking back and forth and we came up with an idea...

what about if we changed the name of this forum to WOF Protestant, and created a second forum called WOF Other so that those who don't agree with the wiki or who wish to keep their icons hidden will have another place to meet?

i wanted to get some thoughts in here before opening it up on the forum.

[J4Jesus]

Tishri and I have been talking back and forth and we came up with an idea...

what about if we changed the name of this forum to WOF Protestant, and created a second forum called WOF Other so that those who don't agree with the wiki or who wish to keep their icons hidden will have another place to meet?

i wanted to get some thoughts in here before opening it up on the forum.

:scratch:
I'm not so sure about that. I don't have a peace about that inside right now. It might open a can of worms :sorry:

But as for another group anyone in the SFP/C can start a forum themselves ,and name it what they want. But those from other churches and denominatonal churches who believe a few points that we do, does not make them Word of faith and more correctly would be named Luthern (charismatic), charismatic Episcapol, Methodist (spirit-filled), Pentecostal baptist,) etc etc. and are not Word Of Faith. In the Episcapol congregation they could have a SUB FORUM named Episcapol (charismatic.) That has already been discussed. Or if the majority are not from a certain church then in the SFP/C congregation they would start a subform.

There is a difference in spirit-filled or charismatic churches , pentecostal churches and Word of faith churches. Our Word of faith churches pretty much stick with teaching of certain ministers but the others follow alot who are any spiritfilled person or minister. Some that are independent or nondenomational Spirit filled churches came from a certain background and still HOLD TO many of their doctrines from their former denomination, and that's why some have had disagreement on church doctrine, because there are so many different teaching outside Word of Faith. When these doctrine slowly creep into the church it is causing some confusion lately. They just don't teach the same as the main preachers and teacher we have, and if they did they would join us instead of preaching against us and not have another church that does not agree but agrees somewhat. I hope I explained that sufficiently.

I have to get off I'll expain more later if necessary.:wave:

[pdudgeon]

no problem, J4Jesus, it was just an idea. Pete also is not for it.

[J4Jesus]

no problem, J4Jesus, it was just an idea. Pete also is not for it.

Of course I'm just one person. At this point I'd have to vote No though.
Still whatever the majority think.
Like I said anyone can make any subforum now. I suppose we'd fit in one or the other whether they did that or we just changed our name.

[God_Owned]

Originally Posted by pdudgeon
Tishri and I have been talking back and forth and we came up with an idea...

what about if we changed the name of this forum to WOF Protestant, and created a second forum called WOF Other so that those who don't agree with the wiki or who wish to keep their icons hidden will have another place to meet?

i wanted to get some thoughts in here before opening it up on the forum.

I don't like the name WOF Protestant. How about Rhema WOF instead. It has a nice ring to it, don't you think?:wave:

[Father Rick]

My former associate-- an OC priest... is a Rhema Grad...




Also.. naming one forum "WoF Protestant" and "WoF other" automatically assumes that those in the "other" category are not Protestant...


Meanwhile, you have folks like me, Wigglesworth (who is PNCC), and others that are labelled BOTH Protestant and Catholic simultaneously

[pdudgeon]

not a problem.
like i said it was just an idea put out for trial, it hasn't flown, so no one has to worry about it.:)

[God_Owned]

On second thought, I believe what we need is just two WOF Forums to solve all denominational issues.

The first WOF Forum would be entitled WOF-Forum (Non-Denominational). This is what we already have here in the WOF Forum. This Forum would simply need to be further defined as being solely for non-denominational WOFers who do adhere to this Forums belief statement in its wiki, but does not adhere to denominationally peculiar doctrines, creeds and beliefs which conflict with the Word and/or beliefs as stated in this Forum's wiki.:thumbsup:

The second WOF Forum would be entitled WOF-Forum (Denominational). This Forum would be for all believers who are not non-denominational, whether they are Catholic or Protestant. Denominational WOFers would be defined as believers who do adhere to a number of WOF beliefs, but also adhere to denominationally peculiar doctrines, creeds and beliefs which are not generally held by, or even considered by, non-denominational WOFers who do adhere to the beliefs as stated in this Forum's wiki. :thumbsup:

:wave:

[pdudgeon]

the idea behind WOF-Protestant and WOF-Other was that our curent forum would be WOF Protestant in keeping with our wiki.

However it has been mentioned that there are other WOF out there from other denominations like Catholic/Old Catholic as well as those who follow Kenyon's teachings more than they do Copeland et all, and those who cannot agree to the beliefs in our wiki, or who hold other denominational beliefs. It is that group of members (not just one member) who would be candidates for the WOF-Other forum.

but the discussion of this is accademic. as i said it's already been shot down. (unless of course those members decided that they wanted a forum where they could write their own wiki the way they wanted it.)

[J4Jesus]

the idea behind WOF-Protestant and WOF-Other was that our curent forum would be WOF Protestant in keeping with our wiki.

However it has been mentioned that there are other WOF out there from other denominations like Catholic/Old Catholic as well as those who follow Kenyon's teachings more than they do Copeland et all, and those who cannot agree to the beliefs in our wiki, or who hold other denominational beliefs. It is that group of members (not just one member) who would be candidates for the WOF-Other forum.

but the discussion of this is accademic. as i said it's already been shot down. (unless of course those members decided that they wanted a forum where they could write their own wiki the way they wanted it.)
Right. Its about our posted beliefs. God's Word doesn't change so we can't change them to fit what various churches believe. It's what we have traditionally been taught the same for many years and not changing them

[God_Owned]

the idea behind WOF-Protestant and WOF-Other was that our curent forum would be WOF Protestant in keeping with our wiki.

However it has been mentioned that there are other WOF out there from other denominations like Catholic/Old Catholic as well as those who follow Kenyon's teachings more than they do Copeland et all, and those who cannot agree to the beliefs in our wiki, or who hold other denominational beliefs. It is that group of members (not just one member) who would be candidates for the WOF-Other forum.

but the discussion of this is accademic. as i said it's already been shot down. (unless of course those members decided that they wanted a forum where they could write their own wiki the way they wanted it.)

Pam,

The reason my idea is better than "WOF-Protestant" and "WOF-Other" is that there are many Protestants who hold adhere to some WOF beliefs, but who also adhere to many of their denominational beliefs which would not be consistent with WOF as defined by our wiki.

...I did not make my suggestion for only one person. I made it because my suggestion will solve the problems we have had with Denominational WOFers from all persuasions being the catalyst for disagreement and discord.

David :wave:

[J4Jesus]

Pam,

The reason my idea is better than "WOF-Protestant" and "WOF-Other" is that there are many Protestants who hold adhere to some WOF beliefs, but who also adhere to many of their denominational beliefs which would not be consistent with WOF as defined by our wiki.


That' s what I was saying too that some still hold to some of their beliefs.

...I did not make my suggestion for only one person. I made it because my suggestion will solve the problems we have had with Denominational WOFers from all persuasions being the catalyst for disagreement and discord.

David :wave:


But all of them may not be from a denomination. Some could be independent churches. So if they did that we could just stay as Word Of Faith. If they wanted the same name maybe they could be
Word of Faith - (Independant)

Independent from what we are.
Charismatic, or any names they want to come up with

[Father Rick]

Why not change the name of the current WoF forum to "WoF- Legalistic" (since it keeps creating new rules/laws that one must adhere to in order to be part) and the other "WoF- Non-Legalistic", since it will allow greater freedom in its determinations/membership/discussions?

Personally, I find it rather ironic (if not hypocritical) that the current WoF forum has the most complicated wiki of any denominational forum I've seen anywhere on CF... all the while, insisting that WoF is about "just the Word".

[God_Owned]

The current wiki is easy to follow for non-denominational WOFers because it just states what we already believe. It is easy to understand what you believe. Conversely, it is very difficult it understand our wiki from a legalistic point of view. Legalistic thinking breeds legalistic reasoning and interpretation of things which only require spiritual understanding. Our wiki is not for the legalistically minded, but for the spiritually minded.

I expect you would be happier in a denominational WOF Forum where you can openly discuss all of you Church's doctrines, creeds and sacraments. Actually you will also have the opportunity to compare notes with RCs, Methodists, Baptists, etc. in a denominational Forum. Another perk would be that you will never see me there.

Having suffered one of your legalistic Old World type heresy hunting inquisitions, I find it ironic (if not hypocritical) that you would complain about other people being legalistic.:wave:

[pdudgeon]

the only reason the name of the forum would be changed is if a second WOF forum were to be created.
if no other forum is created then the name stays the same.

[pdudgeon]

the only legalistic parts of the wiki are contained in the preamble and in section 3. both those sections conform to the allowed restrictions for congregational forums. they were permitted because congregational forums are seen as being 'safe havens' from those who do not share the same beliefs.

[J4Jesus]

the only reason the name of the forum would be changed is if a second WOF forum were to be created.
if no other forum is created then the name stays the same.
Right!

[DavidPresently]

Why, oh why??

David

[J4Jesus]

Hogwash...

*This statement is not about a person or a person's post, but about contamination and my one word statement about what I think, because this contamination is still being allowed even after past incidents and track records of trouble making...

Such a one word statement, or my explanation, violates no rules of this forum. So, to the offended party who reported it...I have no idea why it offended you or what your problem is. So do the scriptural thing, and bring your offense to me in private first. Jesus gave the instructions on how and I recommend following them if you follow Jesus. If you don't follow Jesus, by all means, keep up your current way of dealing with personal offense that has nothing to do with forum rules.

Hi David :D
I think it was a mistake because there were BUNCHES that were reported LONG ago and someone went back to take care of the reports. Unless you got something a long time ago when yoo posted it then I suppose there was no violation for you. :). I think probably the reports were just closed
That was even back before the change I beleive. IT doesn't matter now.Please forget it ok?
It could have been ANYONE, not someone in here.

[DavidPresently]

Hi David :D
I think it was a mistake because there were BUNCHES that were reported LONG ago and someone went back to take care of the reports. Unless you got something a long time ago when yoo posted it then I suppose there was no violation for you. :). I think probably the reports were just closed
That was even back before the change I beleive. IT doesn't matter now.Please forget it ok?
It could have been ANYONE, not someone in here.

Actually, it was just reported. There were no other reports on me, for recent posts - for good reason - I haven't violated any forum rules and don't intend to - ever.

Apparently it was reported by someone who doesn't want me around and who refuses to work the offense against me out in private first.

May love reign here, and not personal offenses, as we take up our crosses and follow Jesus our Lord,

David

[Father Rick]

the only legalistic parts of the wiki are contained in the preamble and in section 3. both those sections conform to the allowed restrictions for congregational forums. they were permitted because congregational forums are seen as being 'safe havens' from those who do not share the same beliefs.
I'm just commenting on the fact that the WoF subforum has as many, if not more, rules than any of the other forum wiki's I saw (I didn't read them all, but most of them)... including the ones that actually had pasted all of the general forum rules into their wiki as well. If you take the general rules out of the other wiki's then the only one close would be Seventh Day Adventists (which have a longstanding reputation for being legalistic in many areas) and their wiki actually includes the rules for their subforums all within it.

I'm not trying to be insulting here in any way... I'm just pointing out the facts of the situation. This one subforum has added more rules/regulations/required beliefs than any other forum I've found so far.

If such knowledge makes members of the forum uncomfortable, then maybe the forum should re-evaluate some priorities.

[God_Owned]

I think the rules of this wiki are excellent and serve the WOFers here well.

[J4Jesus]

All I have to say about that is I understood we have the right to make any of our own rules , or how ever many for our forum if they didn't confict with the site rules, which they don't because I myself consulted with an Admin not in this forum but one involved in the site rules.

And these who agree to them are not uncomfortable with them or they wouldn't be part of WOF here in this forum. They would find another one to join that they agree with more. Thats the way it works and why the statements of faith are posted to find those who are likeminded.

It doesn't matter the name but what the beliefs are. :)

[Father Rick]

All I have to say about that is I understood we have the right to make any of our own rules , or how ever many for our forum if they didn't confict with the site rules, which they don't because I myself consulted with an Admin not in this forum but one involved in the site rules.

And these who agree to them are not uncomfortable with them or they wouldn't be part of WOF here in this forum. They would find another one to join that they agree with more. Thats the way it works and why the statements of faith are posted to find those who are likeminded.

It doesn't matter the name but what the beliefs are. :)
Oh... I agree with you...

I was just pointing out the irony of a group that prides itself on "not being legalistic" and "not being bound by man-made rules" having more rules/requirements than anyone else.

[J4Jesus]

There are few rules, which I am not bound by but can accept if I want or refuse. Most of it is my beliefs, bases on the Word of God, not man's opinion, and I am not bound by them but freely believe them. BTW I've never been " proud" of being legalistic.

Seeing how you keeping repeating this and my wiki count I'd say no we don't agree. But to continue on and on about it does no good anyway. We just disagree,that happens. So it's best to just go on and change the subject, IMO

----
EDIT:
I typed that wrong:
Correction:
'..... BTW I've never been " proud" of not being legalistic. ...."

[Father Rick]

BTW I've never been " proud" of being legalistic.
I think you misread what I said....

I said "prides itself on not being legalistic".

[God_Owned]

There are few rules, which I am not bound by but can accept if I want or refuse. Most of it is my beliefs, bases on the Word of God, not man's opinion, and I am not bound by them but freely believe them. BTW I've never been " proud" of being legalistic.

Seeing how you keeping repeating this and my wiki count I'd say no we don't agree. But to continue on and on about it does no good anyway. We just disagree,that happens. So it's best to just go on and change the subject, IMO

You got that right.:wave:

[pdudgeon]

Father Rick, your arguement sounds like you're trying to enter a trotter in a thoroughbread race.

our wiki is a statement defining our beliefs. however it is not fair to weigh the scope or character of a congregation's beliefs based solely on the number of keystrokes in their wiki.
For instance the Methodists surely have not put all of their Discipline into the wiki, yet their core beliefs are bound and defined by what lies between it's covers.
I would venture to guess that your own Old Catholics have not put all of their beliefs into the relevant wiki, (probably for reasons of copywrite infringement). But i dare say having written them, that you would acknowledge those beliefs even if they are not stated there in the wiki.

Our beliefs are not in the wiki only to affirm what we believe. they also act as a teaching tool for those who are not familiar with what we believe, or who have only heard vicious tales of what we are supposed to believe. And for all those tales there should be an answer readily available and in a place accessable to all before they enter our forum. and that's what the wiki is.

other congregations have solved the same problem of correcting mis-information in various ways; some have FAQ sections, others have multiple separate forums for teaching and answering questions apart from the regular forum.
we have chosen to put our beliefs into the wiki, and allow anyone to enter our forum and be among us to ask their questions. that is a degree of openness that you will not find on all congregational forums.

[DavidPresently]

There is no need to defend. The wiki rules are what they are and the wiki stands as is having been voted in by the majority of participants. If an individual does not agree with the wiki rule set for WoF forum, then they are free to move on. And to my knowledge, anyone can try to get a new forum started if none available match them well enough.

The people who consistently have stirred up trouble here should be dealt with by administration well enough so they cannot freely cause any more trouble. I still don't understand. It is one thing for one of us to make a mistake and need to be corrected so we can repent. It is another thing when people prove themselves over time to be causers of strife and contention among brethren, yet refuse to admit this and repent.

[DavidPresently]

I do propose that we add a belief statement to the wiki, that will specify what we believe concerning the body of the conception, earthly life, and bodily resurrection of Jesus.

For example,

"We believe that Jesus was physically conceived and formed in the flesh in Mary's womb, was born with physical flesh as a child with an earthly mother, was physically killed on the cross, and physically resurrected in body, so that his physical body did not remain in the tomb, but was raised from the dead and glorified."

Without this specification about the body of Jesus and his resurrection, anyone can say they believe our SoF and hold to another view of the body of Jesus being only spiritual and not physical, while side-stepping the "in the flesh" portion of our statement about the Word come among us as Jesus.

[God_Owned]

I am against putting the following into the wiki because it is not based in scripture.

"We believe that Jesus was physically conceived and formed in the flesh in Mary's womb, was born with physical flesh as a child with an earthly mother, was physically killed on the cross, and physically resurrected in body, so that his physical body did not remain in the tomb, but was raised from the dead and glorified."

The Bible does not state Jesus was physically conceived. It says He was conceived of the Holy Ghost.

The Bible does not say that Jesus was born with physical flesh, although He did have tangible flesh.

The Bible does not say that Jesus was physically conceived and formed in the flesh in Mary's womb, was born with physical flesh. The Bible says that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost does not conceive sinful, degenerative physical flesh.

The Bible does not say the Jesus' body was physical, meaning made of degenerate physical matter.

Jesus body was made a man, with tangible flesh, possessing a soul and a spirit, He was made of spiritual matter which had substance, was tangible, occupies space and posses matter. Whether you accept this explanation or not, it is certain that a body made of degenerative physical matter, and all physical matter is degenerative, can not do the supernatural things that Jesus' body did terms of walking through walls/doors, becoming invisible, etc. Jesus never swapped out bodies. He was able to do these supernatural acts because His body in now made of the same sinless spiritual matter it was before He was conceived of the Holy Ghost, when He was conceived of the Holy Ghost and after He was conceived of the Holy Ghost.

Further, Copeland who is a WOF teacher has spoken to this on several occasion and expressed many of the points I have expressed here in much the same vane, meaning in so many words.

No matter which side you are on, this is an interesting topic of discussion which DP is trying to eliminate from the WOF Forum.

I have defended this position in a report made on me. IMHO, this is just another transparent attempt to use the WOF wiki rules to single me out for what I believe in hopes of getting me booted from CF.

Isn't interesting how this subject has arisen again with the appearance of Rick and DP.

Secondly, I though we were done updating the wiki for at least a year?

:wave:

[probinson]

Oh... I agree with you...

I was just pointing out the irony of a group that prides itself on "not being legalistic" and "not being bound by man-made rules" having more rules/requirements than anyone else.
I'd venture to say that our Wiki also has references to FAR more scripture than any of the other wikis out there.

So unless you conisder using scripture "legalistic", your claim that we have "more rules/requirements than anyone else" is totally false.

[pdudgeon]

i don't think that we will be able to adequately explain in a wiki all the various factors that shaped how Jesus took visable form and lived on this earth any more than we could explain exactly what happened when he performed any of the miracles. Nor do i think we are called to explain it.
We are called to believe it, that He was Emanuel--God among us--to the level that God gives us understanding.

so for one it is enough that Jesus came. for another it is enough that he came in physical form. and for yet another it is enough that he came in a form untouched by sin, the spotless Lamb of God, yet still resembled us in outward form. what do all these three have in common? they recognize that He came, they recognize why He came, and they know who they are in Him.
And that was why we used the references in John 1.

[God_Owned]

i don't think that we will be able to adequately explain in a wiki all the various factors that shaped how Jesus took visable form and lived on this earth any more than we could explain exactly what happened when he performed any of the miracles. Nor do i think we are called to explain it.
We are called to believe it, that He was Emanuel--God among us--to the level that God gives us understanding.

so for one it is enough that Jesus came. for another it is enough that he came in physical form. and for yet another it is enough that he came in a form untouched by sin, the spotless Lamb of God, yet still resembled us in outward form. what do all these three have in common? they recognize that He came, they recognize why He came, and they know who they are in Him.
And that was why we used the references in John 1.

Well said Pam!:wave: :thumbsup: :amen:

[J4Jesus]

I think you misread what I said....

I said "prides itself on not being legalistic".
Thank you so much for confirming your feelings on this.
I didn't read it wrong.
I TYPED my reply wrong


I was just pointing out the irony of a group that prides itself on "not being legalistic" and "not being bound by man-made rules" having more rules/requirements than anyone else.
Correction:

----
BTW I've never been " proud" of not being legalistic.
Now its wrong on everyone's quote

[J4Jesus]

DavidP
We already have a statement that is almost like you mention. Everyone who is a Chirstian knows what we means because its basic Christianity.
If we change that then when someone comes and is critcal of another statement we would have to change that, then another, and where would it stop? Do it all over again? Those who are critical of our beliefs will say and belieive what they want and we can't change that even if we put the whole Bible on here :doh:

[J4Jesus]

All this just reminds me of what unbelivers say:
Only Christains kill their wounded :(

[God_Owned]

DavidP
We already have a statement that is almost like you mention. Everyone who is a Chirstian knows what we means because its basic Christianity.
If we change that then when someone comes and is critcal of another statement we would have to change that, then another, and where would it stop? Do it all over again? Those who are critical of our beliefs will say and belieive what they want and we can't change that even if we put the whole Bible on here :doh:

This is true. :thumbsup: :wave:

[God_Owned]

All this just reminds me of what unbelivers say:
Only Christains kill their wounded :(

Presuming it is Christians who are actually doing the killing and not ravening wolves in sheep's clothing, :idea:

[J4Jesus]

Presuming it is Christians who are actually doing the killing and not ravening wolves in sheep's clothing, :idea:
Sorry. Bad choice of words again :doh:
I should have phrased that-
" ..what unbelievers think.."

[DavidPresently]

J4Jesus and Pam,

Well, it is necessary as there is a person here believing false doctrine and clearly stating that Jesus only had spirit and not physical body, and of course, this person in the past has claimed he is true WoF and others aren't, including Balance, a mod here and WoF preacher he accused of not being WoF because Balance said he has learned from trials (suffering).

Unless we have a SoF that specifies that we (Christians and WoF) believe and have always believed since the church began that Jesus took on flesh like we have, coming through the experience we have, including being tempted by the flesh in every manner we are, then God_Owned and others with the other belief can come in promoting and teaching it to others - and when challenged as his was recently, the mods will find there is a loophole he's getting through because our statement thus far only says "flesh" and God_Owned gets around that by stating it was spiritual flesh, not physical, whatever spiritual flesh is.

[Balance]

J4Jesus and Pam,

Well, it is necessary as there is a person here believing false doctrine and clearly stating that Jesus only had spirit and not physical body, and of course, this person in the past has claimed he is true WoF and others aren't, including Balance, a mod here and WoF preacher he accused of not being WoF because Balance said he has learned from trials (suffering).


That made me laugh -

By those standards - Kenneth Hagin was not Word of Faith.

hee hee hee - I guess I'm in good company.

[DavidPresently]

I am against putting the following into the wiki because it is not based in scripture.



The Bible does not state Jesus was physically conceived. It says He was conceived of the Holy Ghost.

The Bible does not say that Jesus was born with physical flesh, although He did have tangible flesh.

The Bible does not say that Jesus was physically conceived and formed in the flesh in Mary's womb, was born with physical flesh. The Bible says that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost does not conceive sinful, degenerative physical flesh.

The Bible does not say the Jesus' body was physical, meaning made of degenerate physical matter.

Jesus body was made a man, with tangible flesh, possessing a soul and a spirit, He was made of spiritual matter which had substance, was tangible, occupies space and posses matter. Whether you accept this explanation or not, it is certain that a body made of degenerative physical matter, and all physical matter is degenerative, can not do the supernatural things that Jesus' body did terms of walking through walls/doors, becoming invisible, etc. Jesus never swapped out bodies. He was able to do these supernatural acts because His body in now made of the same sinless spiritual matter it was before He was conceived of the Holy Ghost, when He was conceived of the Holy Ghost and after He was conceived of the Holy Ghost.

Further, Copeland who is a WOF teacher has spoken to this on several occasion and expressed many of the points I have expressed here in much the same vane, meaning in so many words.

No matter which side you are on, this is an interesting topic of discussion which DP is trying to eliminate from the WOF Forum.

I have defended this position in a report made on me. IMHO, this is just another transparent attempt to use the WOF wiki rules to single me out for what I believe in hopes of getting me booted from CF.

Isn't interesting how this subject has arisen again with the appearance of Rick and DP.

Secondly, I though we were done updating the wiki for at least a year?

:wave:





I'll be happy to debate you on this issue if we can stick to the facts, be unemotional, unoffended, rational, and not make personal attacks or accusations. I commit to such, and hope you will and can intelligently debate this with me so we can see what holds up to Scripture.

You said the Bible does not state that Jesus was physically conceived. That is grossly incorrect.

Scripture does state that Jesus came in the flesh, and it does not state "spirit" but the Greek word used is "sarx" and means a physical flesh. It is the same word used for our flesh. Scripture clearly states that Jesus took on the same flesh we have, though he was without sin, being tempted in it, but not giving in to that temptation. I'll quote the references at the end.

Yes, Jesus was conceived of by the Holy Spirit, but in Mary's womb. This was not the spiritual being of Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit, unless you believe that Jesus did not pre-exist this event, which would mean you aren't WoF or Christian by the definitions on this forum you agreed to. This rather was the physical conception of Jesus in the physical womb of Mary. Scripture is clear that this conception had to do with what natural (physical) lineage Messiah was born through - that of the house of David of the tribe of Judah of Israel.

If you take that away, you don't have the fulfillment of Messianic prophesy and Jesus is false and the Jews who don't believe are right.

That is, Jesus had to be born in flesh like King David had, to be his true descendant as prophesy states and as the covenant with David and God promised.

1Jn 4:2-3 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: (3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Flesh = sarx =
G4561
σάρξ
sarx
sarx
Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such): - carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).

This is the same word used for our flesh, not a different one.

Heb 4:15 For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

If he did not come in the same type of flesh we have, that verse is false - as he could not have felt our weakness in this flesh and been tempted by it.

Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Mat 9:27 And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou son of David, have mercy on us.

There are many more but for length sake, I'll leave it at that for now - as these are more than enough to show that Jesus came in the flesh, physical flesh, the same type of flesh body we have, not some quasi-flesh body or spirit body.

Please show where Scripture says he had a spirit body and not a flesh (sarx, physical) body. Please show that the word used for Jesus' flesh in the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, is different than the word used for our flesh, to substantiate your claim that his flesh was a different sort, though still tangible. Please explain how a spirit only Jesus can fulfill prophecy and be the Hebrew Messiah, Son of David, Son of Abraham.

Also, please show from Scripture where the physical flesh is by default corrupt so that you say Jesus could not have had it. Every Christian theologian or preacher I've ever know believes that the reason Jesus did not inherit the curse of sin was that he did not have a natural father, which is where the inheritance comes from, but he only had a natural mother. However, he still had flesh like we do - which is physical matter.

For the sake of this debate, let us simply agree to use English as we are both native English speakers, but for scriptural purposes refer to Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic word definitions, such as with sarx.

Physical, the English word means (and this is what I mean when I use it): 2 a : having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature <everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance -- Thomas De Quincey> b : of or relating to material things <labor, in the physical world, is...employed in putting objects in motion -- J. S. Mill>
3 a : of or relating to the body <physical abuse> b (1) : concerned or preoccupied with the body and its needs :

Facts we can get from Scripture that show Jesus had physical needs because he had a physical body: 1. he had to eat and fasting made him weak (Matt 4:2). 2. he slept (Matt 8:24) 3. He could be physically beaten and injured (the accounts of his being beaten and crucified) and bled from physical wounds

Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

[God_Owned]

That made me laugh -

By those standards - Kenneth Hagin was not Word of Faith.

hee hee hee - I guess I'm in good company.



Since you seem to accept DPs misstating what I have said about ou, then maybe you can point out where I said you aren't a true WOFer because you learned someting from suffering. :confused:

[DavidPresently]

Since you seem to accept DPs misstating what I have said about ou, then maybe you can point out where I said you aren't a true WOFer because you learned someting from suffering. :confused:



Originally Posted by Balance http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=37826016#post37826016)
Personally, I have learned a whole lot from times of suffering.

I learned:
God can be trusted all the time.
God is my deliverer all the time.
I am more than an overcomer, no matter what.
The Word works, and His promises are true.How can you know the taste of victory without experiencing a battle?



Two points.

You don't seem to understand what Tina is saying and what you are saying is not a WOF Teaching and this is the WOF Forum. There it is. You said that what Balance was saying, which is right on Scripturally and is quoted in full above, is not WoF teaching, and you reminded him he was in the WoF forum. In other words, you weren't seeing him as truly WoF and shouldn't be posting in the forum.

Now, please state how I was misrepresenting what you said? Balance and I seem to have remembered and been on the same page, which lines up with what was actually said quoted above...

The actual posting can be found in the what have you learned from suffering thread, page 2.

[God_Owned]

Here we go again...

Well, it is necessary as there is a person here believing false doctrine and clearly stating that Jesus only had spirit and not physical body, and of course,

This is a complete oversimplification and misrepresentation of what GodOwned said.

Again with the accusation: "...believing false doctrine..."

How would DP know if my doctrine is false since he has yet to indicate he even understands what my doctrine is base on his misconceptions of my doctrine.


this person in the past has claimed he is true WoF and others aren't, including Balance, a mod here and WoF preacher he accused of not being WoF because Balance said he has learned from trials (suffering).



What I said is I am an unadulterated WOF looking for the next revelation of God. Please point out the post where I said that Balance isn't a true WOFer because he has learned something from suffering.

Unless we have a SoF that specifies that we (Christians and WoF) believe and have always believed since the church began

Neither do all WOFers or all Christians believe the above quote. Is is interesting how DP seems to believe he is qualified to speak for all Christians.

that Jesus took on flesh like we have, coming through the experience we have,

Where does the Bible say Jesus came through the experience we did?

Was Jesus born in sin?
Was Jesus born sold under sin?

including being tempted by the flesh in every manner we are,

Adam was tempted before he sinned and before his flesh became sinful/physical/degenerative in nature.

There is nothing in the Bible to support that Jesus had to be made of temporal, sinful/degenerative/physical matter to be tempted as we are tempted. Please note that Hebrews 4:15 he was tempted as we are, yet without sin. Jesus was without sin before and after He was tempted. Our flesh is sold under sin before and after we are tempter and whether or not we yield to sin or don't yield to sin.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

The word "tempted" tranlated by Strong's.
Peirazo (pi-rad'-zo);
Word Origin: Greek, Verb, Strong #: 3985

to try whether a thing can be done
to attempt, endeavour
to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself
in a good sense
in a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments
to try or test one's faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin
to solicit to sin, to tempt 1c
of the temptations of the devil
after the OT usage
of God: to inflict evils upon one in order to prove his character and the steadfastness of his faith
men are said to tempt God by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted
by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were to give proof of his perfections.


then God_Owned and others with the other belief can come in promoting and teaching it to others - and when challenged as his was recently, the mods will find there is a loophole he's getting through because our statement thus far only says "flesh" and God_Owned gets around that by stating it was spiritual flesh, not physical, whatever spiritual flesh is.

The Mods didn't find there is a loophole. They found NV. Spiritual flesh would be flesh made of spiritual matter, you know like Jesus has. There is no sinful/degenerative/physical flesh in Heaven.

Again, I took no loop holes. I proffered my opinion and supported it with the Word, which is what a WOFer does. The Bible says "flesh" - not physical flesh.

I can't help it if DP doesn't understand the concept of spiritual matter and physical matter, meaning the nature of all matter before Adam sinned and the effect Adam's sin had on the nature of all matter under his dominion. Copeland understands this concept and the disciples understood it once Jesus came into a locked room without benefit of coming through the closed door and showed them that he had tangible flesh that could touched by mortal hands. ...and God understands it.

The wiki does say we accept the Word as final authority and I have well supported my position in the Word which is what WOFers do. I have not violated any rules.

To me, this is just another transparent attempt by DP to change the wiki to suit him and probably Rick in order to have me removed.

I quote froom DPs post 799 "There is no need to defend. The wiki rules are what they are and the wiki stands as is having been voted in by the majority of participants. If an individual does not agree with the wiki rule set for WoF forum, then they are free to move on."

So I guess we don't need to defend the rules and according to DP if doesn't like them as they are he is free to move on.

Like I said, this is an interesting subject of discussion, not justification for to change the rules in order to conduct an inquisition. It seems that DP is the one being a bit leagalistic here, but I will let others judge.

I will say it again, I believe Jesus was a man who possessed a spirit and a soul sheathed in a body of flesh. This is what the Bible says. :wave:

[God_Owned]

Originally Posted by Balance http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=37826016#post37826016)
Personally, I have learned a whole lot from times of suffering.

I learned:

God can be trusted all the time.
God is my deliverer all the time.
I am more than an overcomer, no matter what.
The Word works, and His promises are true.How can you know the taste of victory without experiencing a battle?


Again with the accusation. What I said was in the context of a larger conversation Balance was having with Tina. I said then and say now that is not a WOF teaching that have to suffer to learn or suffering is the best way to learn. It is perfectly OK with me if Balance has learned a whole lot form suffering because I been there and one that. A person would have to read the thread to get the correct context of this.

I did not say Balance was not a true WOFer because he believes he has learned a lot through suffering.

I wonder why DP thinks I answer to him as if he were my judge?:confused:

[God_Owned]

I have no interest in debating DP here because it isn't the place for it.

I will not debate DP anywhere else because I view it as a gross waste of my time considering his demonstrated prosecutorial attitude towards me and because I have already answered all pertinent points regarding the subject he wishes to debate during the inquisition which I went through as a result of being reported for having beliefs inconsistent with the Bible, the WOF wiki, the Nicene creed and Apostles creed. All of these accusations were properly debunked and it was ruled by three Mods that my beliefs did not constitute any sort of violation.

Gee, I wonder what accusations are just arond the corner now?:confused: ^_^

[God_Owned]

Can we now talk about someting productive, that is if the inquisition has now ended?:wave: ^_^

[DavidPresently]

Here we go again...



This is a complete oversimplification and misrepresentation of what GodOwned said.

Again with the accusation: "...believing false doctrine..."

How would DP know if my doctrine is false since he has yet to indicate he even understands what my doctrine is base on his misconceptions of my doctrine.

1. It isn't an accusation, it is an opinion, which I'm entitled to have.
2. I don't know your doctrine is false. I have the opinion that your doctrine on this issue is false.
3. That is what a debate is - we have two different opinions and are each trying to back ours up.




What I said is I am an unadulterated WOF looking for the next revelation of God. Please point out the post where I said that Balance isn't a true WOFer because he has learned something from suffering.I already quoted from where you treated Balance as a non-WoFer because you disagreed about his stance on suffering, which is also my stance.

Neither do all WOFers or all Christians believe the above quote. Is is interesting how DP seems to believe he is qualified to speak for all Christians. Again, this is for debate purposes. No need to be sarcastic or make personal remarks like that. You are entitled to believe I'm wrong about my statements, and I'm entitled to believe you are wrong.


Where does the Bible say Jesus came through the experience we did?

Was Jesus born in sin?
Was Jesus born sold under sin?

I quoted from Hebrews in my last post - refer back to that. It clearly states that he suffered our weakness and temptations just as we do. Here is another place that shows he took off his former greatness and came in our likeness.

Php 2:5-8 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: (6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

He isn't an illusionist - that is the serpent. He didn't just APPEAR like us as you seem to suggest - but actually took on our substance (flesh - sarx) of this physical existence.

In answer to your last two questions there - no and no. He did not inherit sin from an earthly father as he didn't have one. He was born miraculously via the Holy Spirit interacting with the seed of the woman as prophesied. You need to understand the OT Torah to understand that sin is inherited through the father, as is everything else inherited through the father, lawfully. Sin curse had no legal right to Jesus as he had no earthly father.

Adam was tempted before he sinned and before his flesh became sinful/physical/degenerative in nature.Adam's flesh was physical before it became corrupted. I can show this with Scripture. Please show from Scripture where you get that physical flesh is by default corrupt, so that the first Adam and last couldn't be physical unless they were sinful/corrupt.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This is before Adam sinned. He was created a living soul from the dust of the ground, the hard, physical, solid ground. Not some ethereal spiritual substance.



There is nothing in the Bible to support that Jesus had to be made of temporal, sinful/degenerative/physical matter to be tempted as we are tempted. Please note that Hebrews 4:15 he was tempted as we are, yet without sin. Jesus was without sin before and after He was tempted. Our flesh is sold under sin before and after we are tempter and whether or not we yield to sin or don't yield to sin.

I didn't say he was corrupt/sinful, etc. You are the one making "physical" mean something else than the simple English definition. You say physical means degenerate and corrupt. I've never heard of that or seen that definition of this English word, ever. From what I can tell, you've simply made that up yourself or gotten it from someone else who made it up.

The Bible says "flesh" - not physical flesh. Right, so please show where the Word ever states a different word for the flesh of Jesus verses the flesh of sinful men.

I can't help it if DP doesn't understand the concept of spiritual matter and physical matter, meaning the nature of all matter before Adam sinned and the effect Adam's sin had on the nature of all matter under his dominion. Copeland understands this concept and the disciples understood it once Jesus came into a locked room without benefit of coming through the closed door and showed them that he had tangible flesh that could touched by mortal hands. ...and God understands it.No need to make personal attacks on my intelligence. Stick to the facts and have a proper debate. I do understand the concept of spiritual body and believe in spiritual bodies. I even believe Jesus had a spiritual body before his incarnation in flesh. However, I separate spiritual bodies from natural flesh, and Jesus had natural flesh once he was conceived in the womb of Mary. You disagree and I'm saying you are wrong.

Concerning "matter", no where in Scripture does it ever say that the type of matter of the universe changed from spiritual to physical because man sinned. It isn't I can't understand what you say, it is that I think it is false and not based on Scripture. If I'm wrong, and it is based on Scripture, simply show where Scripture says all matter changed from spiritual matter to physical matter. Matter by definition is physical - always.

From Webster's Dictionary: the substance of which a physical object is composed b : material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons, that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy c : a material substance of a particular kind or for a particular purpose <vegetable matter> d (1) : material (as feces or urine) discharged from the living body (2) : material discharged by suppuration

The wiki does say we accept the Word as final authority and I have well supported my position in the Word which is what WOFers do. I have not violated any rules. I didn't say you have violated any rules. I called it a loophole that you haven't though, as your belief in a non-physical body only of Jesus is unorthodox, going against the normal Christian and WoF belief, and against the Scriptural accounts that say he did have flesh just like us, of material, as "matter" and "physical" are defined as English words - your new definitions aside.

To me, this is just another transparent attempt by DP to change the wiki to suit him and probably Rick in order to have me removed. Do you really think it is all about you? That seems to me to be egotistical. You are the one that thinks I'm against you. And concerning working with Rick against you, yeah right. I'm as disappointed in FR as with you, and I wouldn't take either of your sides, unless you are agreeing with Scripture as I know it on the subject.

I quote froom DPs post 799 "There is no need to defend. The wiki rules are what they are and the wiki stands as is having been voted in by the majority of participants. If an individual does not agree with the wiki rule set for WoF forum, then they are free to move on."

So I guess we don't need to defend the rules and according to DP if doesn't like them as they are he is free to move on.

That has nothing to do with adding on more specifics. That was my response to what I perceive to be a ridiculous argument by FR that the WoF forum is too "legalistic." If I had a problem with what is currently voted in, I would move on. I don't. But, we are free to add to it by a majority vote still. Or take away for that matter if the majority wanted to.


Like I said, this is an interesting subject of discussion, not justification for to change the rules in order to conduct an inquisition. It seems that DP is the one being a bit leagalistic here, but I will let others judge.

I will say it again, I believe Jesus was a man who possessed a spirit and a soul sheathed in a body of flesh. This is what the Bible says. :wave: I'm just disagreeing with you God_Owned. It does seem you have trouble with people disagreeing with you for whatever reason - but I hope you get past that and all the suspicion.

As for your last statement, I agree that he had flesh with you, until you deviate to defining his flesh type as different from our flesh type. Ours as physical and his as spiritual, which you have done. That is what we are debating here, now. Stick to that and show how your definition is in Scripture.

Thank you,

David

[God_Owned]

This is the question!:confused:

Again with the accusations::sigh:

1. No need to be sarcastic or make personal remarks like that.

2. No need to make personal attacks on my intelligence.


3. Do you really think it is all about you? That seems to me to be egotistical. You are the one that thinks I'm against you.

4. It does seem you have trouble with people disagreeing with you for whatever reason - but I hope you get past that and all the suspicion.

I think I will be DP free!:thumbsup: ..which means DP will be debating by himself from now on as far as I am concerned.:idea:

I do agree with DP's statement, "There is no need to defend. The wiki rules are what they are and the wiki stands as is having been voted in by the majority of participants. If an individual does not agree with the wiki rule set for WoF forum, then they are free to move on." :thumbsup:

^_^

[God_Owned]

I know that Crefllo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, T.L. Osborn, Jerry Sevelle, Jesse Duplantis, Oral Roberts, along with every major WOF Teacher/preacher I know, believes in a pre-tribulation Rapture of the Church. :thumbsup:

Does anyone know of any prominent WOF teachers who believe in the post-tribulation Rapture of the Church? :confused:

Do you think that we should change the rules to reflect that you must believe in the pre-tribulation rapture of the Church in order to get rid of those people who believe in the post-tribulation Rapture of the Church? :confused:

Just joking guys! ^_^ ^_^ ^_^

I couldn't resist because I just noticed that there is at least one among us who believes in the post-tribulation of the Church. :scratch:

I guess it is a good thing for him that we wisely provided for some variance in beliefs in our rules. :thumbsup:

[DavidPresently]

This is the question!

Again with the accusations:

1. No need to be sarcastic or make personal remarks like that.

2. No need to make personal attacks on my intelligence.


3. Do you really think it is all about you? That seems to me to be egotistical. You are the one that thinks I'm against you.

4. It does seem you have trouble with people disagreeing with you for whatever reason - but I hope you get past that and all the suspicion.

I think I will be DP free! ..which means DP will be debating by himself from now on as far as I am concerned.

I do agree with DP's statement, "There is no need to defend. The wiki rules are what they are and the wiki stands as is having been voted in by the majority of participants. If an individual does not agree with the wiki rule set for WoF forum, then they are free to move on."



Those weren't accusations. They are statements of my perception about your actual actions. Is it just me, or are you overly sensitive, especially to someone firmly disagreeing with you and challenging your beliefs?

Again, that is just me stating an opinion based on my perception. No accusations of you to be put up for judgment have been made by me recently. You have been the one reporting every post I make that mentions you with your idea of "accusations" which you reported as "flaming."

I guess you still are unable to handle factual talk with firm disagreement with me where I challenge you. So put me back on ignore.

David

[DavidPresently]

I know that Crefllo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, T.L. Osborn, Jerry Sevelle, Jesse Duplantis, Oral Roberts, along with every major WOF Teacher/preacher I know, believes in a pre-tribulation Rapture of the Church.

Does anyone know of any prominent WOF teachers who believe in the post-tribulation Rapture of the Church?

Do you think that we should change the rules to reflect that you must believe in the pre-tribulation rapture of the Church in order to get rid of those people who believe in the post-tribulation Rapture of the Church?

Just joking guys!

I couldn't resist because I just noticed that there is at least one among us who believes in the post-tribulation of the Church.

I guess it is a good thing for him that we wisely provided for some variance in beliefs in our rules.


G_O, I'm fine with people disagreeing with me on any issue and even strongly challenging my beliefs, such as what I believe concerning the church and the "rapture."

I've explained in another thread on here that I'm not fully post-trib, but I chose that to check off as it is closest. As I explained elsewhere, I actually believe in a pre-trib catching up, but do not believe it is where Christians will leave the body suddenly and be carried off to heaven. Rather, I believe what I see in Scripture, which is that we are caught up in protection and walking in our authority as overcomers, and "a thousand will fall at my side, and ten thousand at my right hand, but the plague shall not come night unto me," type living, as the world falls left and right around us while we remain unharmed. We will be left here, as the overcomers, as the witnesses as mentioned in Scripture, to witness the truth of the Gospel of the Kingdom. Our witness will be not only in word, but in those great deeds that prove our authority and protection. The truly hard of heart will still not listen - but God is just and gracious in giving them a chance to see such contrast backing up the truth of the Gospel.

The second catching up is literal and with the body, and is when we'll be changed and brought up to meet our Lord in the air, and then taken over to set foot on the mount with him, as he begins his earthly reign over the nations who are by then defeated and put under his feet, with the god of this world defeated.

So, I believe there are two types of catching ups (raptures); one before, one after, the great tribulation. It probably helps to have a Hebrew perspective on this subject. But, whatever the case, I'm open to having my belief on this issue challenged firmly and people asking hard questions and making strong disagreement. And I'm able to show why I believe what I believe from what I see in Scripture.

But, comparing rapture issues, which is a far side topic and not an essential doctrine, with the conception, life on earth, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, is nonsense. The latter issue is a major doctrinal issue that is even tied with how we know who is being influenced by the wrong spirit and who is following the way of Truth via the Holy Spirit.

As it is written, any influence that tells us that Jesus Christ did not come in SARX (physical flesh like we have) is antichrist. So, we shouldn't listen to that influence, even if it has gotten the likes of Copeland to listen to its false doctrine that chisels away at the true coming of Messiah in flesh as the son of David and Abraham. I'm not saying Copeland has - I don't know that - I mention that because God_Owned used his name to validate this belief in one of his recent posts. I highly doubt Copeland denies that Jesus came in the same type of flesh (material) we have.

[pdudgeon]

you know what? it sounds to me like both of you need to accept that your views on this flesh of Jesus, divergent as they are, are within the scope of the existing wiki.

that being the case there is no need to change the wiki concerning this at the present time.

[pdudgeon]

and as far as the rapture goes, we knew when writing the wiki that there were divergent views on the timing of the rapture itself within the WOF community here.

the important part is that we are agreed that there will BE a rapture.

[Father Rick]

As it is written, any influence that tells us that Jesus Christ did not come in SARX (physical flesh like we have) is antichrist. So, we shouldn't listen to that influence, even if it has gotten the likes of Copeland to listen to its false doctrine that chisels away at the true coming of Messiah in flesh as the son of David and Abraham. I'm not saying Copeland has - I don't know that - I mention that because God_Owned used his name to validate this belief in one of his recent posts. I highly doubt Copeland denies that Jesus came in the same type of flesh (material) we have.


you know what? it sounds to me like both of you need to accept that your views on this flesh of Jesus, divergent as they are, are within the scope of the existing wiki.

that being the case there is no need to change the wiki concerning this at the present time.


Since issues of Christology are CORE beliefs of Christianity... you would think that WoFers would want it clear that they hold to a scriptural view-- not one based on "someone's revelation".

[pdudgeon]

Since issues of Christology are CORE beliefs of Christianity... you would think that WoFers would want it clear that they hold to a scriptural view-- not one based on "someone's revelation".


even though it may not have been your intention when you wrote this----------we agree that WOF bases itself on the scripture, which is why it's in our wiki.

but history has also proven that the same passage of scripture will be interpreted differently by different men.

now we interpret imperfectly, but the scripture itself as it was given is perfect, and is able to teach and correct.

you are arguing a point that has already been settled.

[God_Owned]

and as far as the rapture goes, we knew when writing the wiki that there were divergent views on the timing of the rapture itself within the WOF community here.

the important part is that we are agreed that there will BE a rapture.

Exactly my point. :wave:

[God_Owned]

even though it may not have been your intention when you wrote this----------we agree that WOF bases itself on the scripture, which is why it's in our wiki.

but history has also proven that the same passage of scripture will be interpreted differently by different men.

now we interpret imperfectly, but the scripture itself as it was given is perfect, and is able to teach and correct.

you are arguing a point that has already been settled.

Thank you!!!!!!!!! :thumbsup: :wave:

[Father Rick]

even though it may not have been your intention when you wrote this----------we agree that WOF bases itself on the scripture, which is why it's in our wiki.

but history has also proven that the same passage of scripture will be interpreted differently by different men.

now we interpret imperfectly, but the scripture itself as it was given is perfect, and is able to teach and correct.

you are arguing a point that has already been settled.
Unfortunately, only parts of this are true.

I do fully agree that WoF beliefs are based on scripture.

I also fully agree that there are at times different interpretations of certain passages of scripture.

I also fully agree that the scripture as it was given is perfect and is able to teach and correct.

As to the point being settled, however...

The problem lies when those who claim to be WoF refuse to acknowledge what is actually in the original text of scripture, preferring instead to use specific translations in an attempt to redefine words contained in the original in order to force it to fit a specific theology.

The words mean what they mean. No one has the right to redefine what the words mean. However some are attempting to do just that.

When a word has a specific definition... has always had that definition... and has always been understood to have a specific meaning, we can't just say "well, so and so had a revelation-- so the word actually means something different"... at least we can't do that and still claim to be true to the Word.

[God_Owned]

Whew, am I blessed because I do believe that Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

The word flesh (sarx) being translated/defined as it is used in Romans 8:3 by Strong's item 3 below.

Sarx (sarx);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Feminine, Strong #: 4561


flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
the body
the body of a man
used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship
born of natural generation
the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature"
without any suggestion of depravity
the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin
the physical nature of man as subject to suffering
a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast
the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God Whew again! The word likeness (Homoioma) being translated/defined as it is used in Romans 8:3 by Strong's below. Pay particular attention to the word almost in the following definition.

Homoioma (hom-oy'-o-mah);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Neuter, Strong #: 3667


that which has been made after the likeness of something
a figure, image, likeness, representation
likeness i.e. resemblance, such as amounts almost to equality or identity Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

I am so glad to know that Jesus did come in likeness of sinful flesh (sarx). His flesh was in the likeness of our flesh, it just wasn't made of sinful, degenerative, physical-matter. It was and is made of the same sinless spiritual-matter that His Father God is made of. ...Matter being defined as having mass and occupying space.

You know those guys who developed the Nicene Creed sure knew their stuff in this area. They knew Jesus was made of the same sinless substance as the Father. In other words they knew Jesus, including His flesh, was made of the same spiritual-matter as was His Father God.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation.

The knowledge of the nature of Jesus' flesh, and the knowledge that I will be Raptured prior to the great tribulation, just gives me goosebumps. :clap: :clap: :wave: :thumbsup:

^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^

[God_Owned]

It is so odd to find people who don't believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, but who do believe that lexicon, concordances, etc. are inerrant and/or their interpretation of these study helps is inerrant. :confused: ...but as it turns out, this is not an issue for me concerning my beliefs as I have demonstrated. :clap:

I sure am glad that I don't have to be a scalar in the Greek, Hebrew and Latin languages to be WOF, but I do like Strong's and Young's concordances most of the time. :thumbsup: ...but I have found a couple of errors in them.:idea:

Maybe someday God will appoint someone to write a inerrant standardized list of definitions for all words in the Bible. ...you know where each word will only have a very narrow singular definition for those Christians who can't hear what the Spirit is saying when they are studying the Word. :(

[Father Rick]

As you state... you are not a Greek scholar...

The Greek language is a much more specific (or if you prefer "narrow") language than English, and it does not allow some of the variances of interpretation that are allowed in English. In greek, (like in many languages) nouns are assigned a gender (masculine or feminine) by the language itself, for instance. The greek language also puts a clear distinction between those things that are physical and non-physical.

In Greek, the word "sarx" is a word that refers ONLY to physical flesh. It does not, nor can it, mean something that is "spiritual" but not "physical".

God chose that the scriptures be written in Greek. In his sovereignty, he could have orchestrated human history in such a way that any language he wanted to could have been used-- but God chose to do things this way.

God chose for the greek word "sarx" to be used in the actual writing of scripture... not the english word "flesh". God chose for it to be a word that has a very specific ("narrow" if you will) meaning.


You attempt to manipulate the English definition of the word, by citing the one subpoint of meaning. However, it is clear that you don't realize that in Greek, it is not like English (where there are multiple choices of meaning with a specific word and you get to pick and choose the one you feel is most suited to your interpretation) but that the word, due to it's specificity is actually communicating ALL of those listed simultaneously. It's not one word with multiple choices of meaning... but one word that communicates a specific meaning, and due to the comparative vagueness of English we have to give multiple layers of meaning within in a lexicon to understand the full implications of the word.

With Greek... it frequently is "all or nothing". The language does not allow for a lot of "gray areas", like English does. And it is my personal opinion that God chose to have the New Testament written in Greek for exactly that reason-- so that there would be no misunderstanding of EXACTLY what He meant.

[God_Owned]

So let me see if I understand Rick and DP' position on stating my beliefs in the WOF Forum. To state my beliefs in the WOF Forum I must::confused:

1) Be a Greek Scholar to hear what the Spirit is saying.:(

2) Accept that Greek scolars, Rick and DP as inerrant.:(

3) Check in with a Greek scholar or Rick and/or DP to make sue I have it right.:(

4) Accept Rick's and DP's understanding of the inner workings of languages and give the same creedence as they do to the inerrancy of Greek scolars.:(

5) Accept Rick's and/or DP's understanding of the Word as inerrant.:(

6) Continue to suffer personal attacks by Rick and/or DP.:(

Gee, I guess I might as well just become a Catholic so I can just obstain from reading the Word all together and just let the priest tell me what it means. ..but then I would belong in one of the Catholic Forums and being an honorable person I would be compelled to go where I belong.:(

By the Holy Ghost, I think I 've got it! Maybe I can just hold the Word as final authority and abide by the WOF Forum wiki rules as they are currently stated in the WOF Forum wiki in order to post in the WOF Forum. :clap:


^_^

[J4Jesus]

I thought the wiki was to make the statement of faith and rules for our forum. They are finished and posted as of last week. I didn't think this was the debate forum. There is one, by the way.

[Father Rick]

No... you just have to accept that a word means what it actually says, instead of attempting to redefine it because someone claims to have a "revelation".

In other words, you have to stick to what is actually in the Word.

[Father Rick]

Wiki is a continous process... and may be tweaked/revised at any time...

[J4Jesus]

Wiki is a continous process... and may be tweaked/revised at any time...

So are you saying you are going to continue to debate this here until we give in and change it?

[God_Owned]

J4Jesus, you have it right. Rick just wants to wear everyone down until they give in to him because he apparently can't take it when WOFers don't agree with him. You are also right, the wiki was finalized and we don't have to let Rick tweak anything.:thumbsup:

I also think what Rick means is that you just have to accept that a word means what he actually says it means, defining it in a way he can't understand or accept. :idea:

Rick may not be familiar with revelations from God or understand that language was a creation of God not of Rick or who Rick considers to be exerts on the subject. :idea:

In other words, I think Rick wants us to stick to what Rick thinks the Word actually means. :idea:

I do find it a bit humorous that he is ignoring what the Nicene creed has to say on the subject, considering what a flap he raised about adhering to the Nicene Creed before. :confused: ^_^

I think this is why the dark ages remained the dark ages for so long. :idea:

To many self appointed intellectuals, too many heresy hunters and too many inquisitions. :mad:

...and not enough people with real day jobs!^_^

[J4Jesus]

Well we all had to come to some kind of consensus first so thats all I can see we can do.

[Father Rick]

Well...

Let's see how Kenneth Copeland defines this.

First, does Copeland believe that Jesus had a physical (not just spiritual body)?


"Just as Adam died spiritually, Jesus died spiritually. The spiritual death He suffered caused His physical body to die.... When Jesus accepted the sin nature of Satan into His Spirit He cried 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' He was separated from God... He was ushered into the bowels of hell" (Kenneth Copeland, Classic Redemption, p. 13;).
So... Kenneth Copeland makes it clear that he believes that Jesus had a physical body, which died as a result of His seperation from God (aka "spiritual death").

Is this a slip of the tongue?
“Because his physical death was not enough for the payment of sins there was a another way for sins payment. Jesus put Himself into the hands of Satan when He went to that cross, and took that same nature that Adam did [when he sinned].” (Kenneth Copeland, The Incarnation (Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1985, audiotape #01-0402) side 1.)
Once again, Copeland speaks of Jesus' physical death... stating that the physical death by itself was not sufficient.


"The death of Jesus Christ was not a physical death alone. If it had been a physical death, Abel would have paid the price for mankind. He was the first man that died because of honoring God and His Word. If it had been a physical death only, it wouldn't have worked! And if He hadn't died spiritually, that body never would have died." (What Happened From the Cross to the Throne, Tape #00-0303)
And yet again, Copeland re-iterates the same point. Copeland repeated states that Jesus had a physical body, that died a physical death.

Well... what about the word "flesh"? How does Kenneth Copeland define that word?


Copeland: "We need to know some more about the Bible folks, we've been fooled. Amen. So I want to show you something here from the eighth chapter of Romans that'll help you know what the Bible's talking about. We know from the gospel of John it says 'in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God', amen. We know that the Bible tells us in first John, that the Spirit of God and the word of God totally and completely agree, so for study purposes and illustration purposes here in this eighth chapter of Romans let's substitute the word 'word' w, o, r, d, the word of God for the word 'spirit'. Biblically the Bible says we can do that because they agree.
'In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, the word was God, the word became flesh and dwelt among men', see. All right. Everywhere it says 'flesh' it is talking about anything that operates, lives in, is perceptible to the five physical sense gates. Anything that enters into the mind of man through the five physical sense gates is referred to as being in the natural, or being in the carnal, which means the same thing, that comes from the word carnivorous, which just simply means meat. So it comes through the five physical sense gates.
Alright, now lets read that like that. We're going to call it, every time it says flesh we're gonna say 'five senses' or 'five physical senses'. Verse one again, 'there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the five senses but after the word. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the senses, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the sense realm that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the sense realm but after the word of God, for they that are after the senses do mind the things of the sense realm but they that are after the word, the things of the word realm."
So... Copeland also defines "flesh" as that which is in the physical realm.


So much for Copeland teaching that Jesus did not have a physical body.

[J4Jesus]

There is nothing in our wiki or Word of Faith forum rules that goes against that and besides we gave scripture references not what a person says.

[pdudgeon]

agreed. the way this wiki works (i cannot answer for other wiki's) is that a proposed belief (which is what you are talking about) is offered for inclusion in the wiki, and is put up for a vote.

So Father Rick do you have a proposal ready, complete with scriptural references to substantiate it?

[Father Rick]

agreed. the way this wiki works (i cannot answer for other wiki's) is that a proposed belief (which is what you are talking about) is offered for inclusion in the wiki, and is put up for a vote.

So Father Rick do you have a proposal ready, complete with scriptural references to substantiate it?
I did start a public poll to draw attention to the issue and to help determine which way to go from there... the results of which were quite clear... until staff decided to interfere with the wiki process (as you are quite aware)... and the closure of such is currently under appeal...

[probinson]

Not a single other issue throughout the "wiki process" was handled via a poll in the WoF forum. Every single point ratified in the wiki was done via a proposal in the wiki discussion itself.

If you're going to accuse people of "interfering with the wiki process", it would behoove you to actually know and understand how our wiki process works...

[Father Rick]

Not a single other issue throughout the "wiki process" was handled via a poll in the WoF forum. Every single point ratified in the wiki was done via a proposal in the wiki discussion itself.

If you're going to accuse people of "interfering with the wiki process", it would behoove you to actually know and understand how our wiki process works...
Well... there is no "definition of the wiki process" within your wiki...

Different forums around the board have handled their wiki in different ways. It's not a matter of only one specific way being THE way to go about the process. The general idea is to determine the stance of the forum as a whole on an issue, then consolidate that into the wiki. Starting a poll on a subject is definitely one way of determining a forum's stance.

[probinson]

Well... there is no "definition of the wiki process" within your wiki...

That being the case, if you can't even define what the "wiki process" is, one has to wonder how you can make the claim that the staff is interfering with this mysterious, undefined process...

[Father Rick]

That being the case, if you can't even define what the "wiki process" is, one has to wonder how you can make the claim that the staff is interfering with this mysterious, undefined process...
Well.. when one is actually in a wiki, discussing the fact that one is fact finding to determine where a forum stands, etc. then it's pretty clearly part of the process.

[probinson]

So in what way did staff interfere with the "process"? I'm curious, because I've seen ample, uncensored discussion of this issue in the wiki discussion (aka, the "wiki process"), and to my knowledge and recollection, no posts have been edited or deleted...

Since you can't definitively say what the wiki process even is, it might be difficult to make the case that a poll, FAR away from the wiki, had anything to do with the established "wiki process", especially since no other wiki items have been handled via a poll in this forum.

As to other forums "wiki processes", that is completely, totally, 100% irrelevant. Each forum is permitted autonomy in creating their processes, so what another forum does is not germane in the least.

[Father Rick]

So in what way did staff interfere with the "process"? I'm curious, because I've seen ample, uncensored discussion of this issue in the wiki discussion (aka, the "wiki process"), and to my knowledge and recollection, no posts have been edited or deleted...

Since you can't definitively say what the wiki process even is, it might be difficult to make the case that a poll, FAR away from the wiki, had anything to do with the established "wiki process", especially since no other wiki items have been handled via a poll in this forum.

As to other forums "wiki processes", that is completely, totally, 100% irrelevant. Each forum is permitted autonomy in creating their processes, so what another forum does is not germane in the least.
While this discussion is actually better held in the appeal thread...

You must remember that the WoF wiki is not the ONLY wiki that affects WoF. I was actually in a discussion in one of the forum-wide wiki's regarding the location of Nicene Creed and Non-Nicene Creed congregations... and what beliefs would classify a forum one way or the other.

Some wiki'ers are saying there should be no distinction between the two at all (which would bring Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. in with the other congregations). Others feel there should be... then you have the issues of non-Trinitarian Messianics as well as "Oneness" Pentecostals who find themselves categorized in Non-Nicene.

Since the determination was made by this forum's staff that the wiki of this forum currently allows members to hold/teach the the view that Jesus did not have a physical body (a theological stance that the Nicene Creed was actually written to help counter) then the discussions at hand were extremely relevant to other forum wiki's and could eventually have a direct bearing on this WoF forum. Add to this the repeated suggestion of a 2nd WoF forum... then where that forum would be placed (Nicene or Non-Nicene) would also be determined, in part, by the theological stance determined by those who may be part of it.

[Balance]

A use of the ignore function would be a great peacemaker at this point.

[probinson]

A use of the ignore function would be a great peacemaker at this point.
Right you are! And since I don't have the ability to "ignore", I'll switch the ignore button on in my brain....

For now... ;)

[pdudgeon]

Father Rick, you have been clearly told how the wiki process works in this wiki.
I'm going to assume that you would not visit another OC on Sunday, stand in the congregation and proceed to tell them they should change their service to suit you.

that is what you are doing here.

now if you have a proposal for inclusion in our wiki you are welcome to write it out, including scripture references, and present it here in the discussion thread, just like everyone else has done.

[God_Owned]

Well...

Let's see how Kenneth Copeland defines this.

First, does Copeland believe that Jesus had a physical (not just spiritual body)?

So... Kenneth Copeland makes it clear that he believes that Jesus had a physical body, which died as a result of His seperation from God (aka "spiritual death").

Is this a slip of the tongue?Once again, Copeland speaks of Jesus' physical death... stating that the physical death by itself was not sufficient.

And yet again, Copeland re-iterates the same point. Copeland repeated states that Jesus had a physical body, that died a physical death.

Well... what about the word "flesh"? How does Kenneth Copeland define that word?

So... Copeland also defines "flesh" as that which is in the physical realm.


You just keep trying Rick, but you won't pick me off padna.

I didn't quote Copeland. I said he has spoken to the things I believe and what he has most recently said has supported my beliefs.

So to take a look at one of the quote you have so diligently provided:

"Everywhere it says 'flesh' it is talking about anything that operates, lives in, is perceptible to the five physical sense gates."

Jesus' flesh was perceptible to the five physical senses after he was crucified, but his flesh certainly wasn't natural or carnal. It was sin free and eternal spiritual matter which could pass through the physical matter of this temporal world.

I know of several instances where Kenneth has said things and then and then latter modified or changed.

The last time he was talking about it he was searching for a better word that physical when referring to the substance of Jesus flesh, a phrase which I have thoughtfully provided - spiritual-matter.

By the way, since you don't like Copeland, who is your favorite WOF teacher.

Also, do you believe that a person can be born again at six months of age by simply being baptized in water in an OC Church?

Do you believe in the Catholic Catechism?

You just keep rowing upstream.^_^

[J4Jesus]

Well if this is going to be another one of those long debating and arguing situations, I guess you can do it without me. I don't have time for this.

There are more important things and I have already put my life on hold for 3 months now, but no more. I gladly did this to help the forum in a time when this process was necessary. Even though we started with the Rhema statements, to come to a consensus I did try to help revise several parts and made many of the proposals. Although I was instrumental in the process, which made my wiki count almost 300, it appears that was all for nothing and 'not right'. But I won't waste anymore time but get on with my life where I can be more fruitful . I'll bow out and someone else can take care of this. I cant be of any benefit, where my contributions seem to be considered so incorrect.
So carry on-------

[God_Owned]

Well if this is going to be another one of those long debating and arguing situations, I guess you can do it out without me. I don't have time for this.

There are more important things and I have already put my life on hold for 3 months now, but no more. I gladly did this to help the forum in a time when this process was necessary. Even though we started with the Rhema statements, to come to a consensus I did try to help revise several parts and made many of the proposals. Although I was instrumental in the process, which made my wiki count almost 300, it appears that was all for nothing and 'not right'. But I won't waste anymore time but get on with my life . I'll bow out and someone else can take care of this. I cant be of any benefit, where my contributions seem to be considered so incorrect.
So carry on-------