Brother Michael Sky

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Brother Michael Sky

  1. he claims to be the reincarnation of John ( Jacob ), the brother of Jesus. I don't know if he is self-proclaimed or otherwise, but yes his very own website refers to him as a prophet... I cannot be absolutely sure, Cool, but it DOES APPEAR that scholars and the more famous of ministers avoid him like the plague.... I believe he does make the attempt, but gets very little in the way of responses... He quotes from absolutely EVERYTHING !!! and honestly Cool, I have yet to catch the man in any deception... and you know how hard-headed I am about tracking things down... I am even having a hard
  2. When I read such words as these I am reminded of Edgar Cayce.... Cayce knew many, many things which were seemingly inexplicable. Things which were verified later as becoming true, and some things which were seemingly in error. His accuracy rating gives the serious scholar pause. Was it simply good guesswork, or was there SOMETHING there which the man had access to that the average person does not? IMO, it is not possible to decide, so one must judge a man by his record.... As far as Allan Cronshaw goes, I choose to simply withhold any sort of judgement on the matter, and move on to the other 4
  3. I'd say I know a little about him, Cool........ anything particular you'd like to discuss? The Long Island Mystic
  4. I do not believe that Jesus was the only one who had the Spirit of the Lord as an indwelling host. That is a Gnostic belief as well. So even inspiration which comes from with, comes from God. THAT is the point you seem to be missing. you are mixing up the concepts of triune and trinity... and the explanation of how it DOES indeed deny the trinity, is within the quote you refer to. when we have such debates as these, and we are instructed to "prove all things" (1 Thes 5:21 KJV), as Paul said - than yes, there is a certain difficulty... If we look at Matt 13:25 NAS and consider the Roman Churc
  5. Have you ever sat in on a quaker service Pete? It was a bit unnerving the first time for me, as I didn't know what to expect, but there IS a different feeling when sitting in the silence with a room full of people. It is a powerful experience in my mind... and I can immediately understand why it holds the attraction that it does. There's a quaker meeting house about 20 minutes from my house...
  6. I find inspiration sometimes IN the minutiae.. when my mind is tracking down these dry, dusty things it has a tendency to be open to inspiration.. i find myself taking long, winding pathways to EXACTLY what was troubling me... and there I find comfort.... one way or another... It is seldom that I am completely stumped, because somewhere along the way my understanding is enlarged, and I find a new avenue to consider... but I do recognize that we are all different and take different paths to understanding... and I do truly believe we are greater together, than in our individual parts, which is w
  7. I was trying to point out earlier that it is possible to get an idea of how the usage for the words themselves have evolved throughout the course of looking up one word, you are introduced to similar words, and you begin to see the slight differences in usage... and i personally think it is possible to get a firm grasp of INTENTION when following this chain.... It's just that you have to draw a line somewhere in how much you are willing to post as reference - sometimes awareness is enough - it will cause curiosity which will send another on the same search, so that they might form t
  8. the interjection of the trinity was for exactly this reason... confusion... and to place an intermediary between God and Man... when no such intermediary was intended... Yes, Pete while I am always excited to see a fellow minister has decided to approach me in private - that was not a warm, fuzzy kind of thing....
  9. because the Triune representation of the Godhead is not the same as The Doctrine of the Trinity... which would be the reason for quoting the church elders who DID have a chance to read from those texts... one would think it would be obvious that one needs to keep an open mind about such things however... which is why I would make sure that such references quote the texts which those opinions may be found in.... that seems to be where you are stuck, cool... repeatedly asking the same questions, waiting for me to get tired, so you can assert yours is the winner.... and a less comfortable metho
  10. exactly as it does in any version besides the KJV... and yet you continue to see the Trinity in every version...... which I have explained from my view, while you continue with your repetition.... kind of like seeing the trinity where no genuine references exist.....
  11. there ya go pete... good enough for me... I take it further because the concept appears no where else in the text... In my mind that is definitive.. I feel the need to be assured of the NATURE of the DIVINE... because the use with which Jesus is put to with the concept of the Doctrine of The Trinity... that does not mean I do not see God as being able to show Himself in whatever aspect He chooses... whether it be The Father, The Water, or the Blood.... I simply insist that the WATER does not translate as the concept of The Word as described by The Doctrine of The Trinity... and I believe that
  12. I would say that you are reading a CORRECTED version of the text... ( and you haven't dropped the reference to the Trinity which was inserted - and removed when corrected ) It is the obedience to the son part which is the misunderstanding, and exactly what that means... It is obedience to GOD as DISPLAYED by the son... and yes, we have no argument that the Son was sent by God... ALL are sent by God - who else is there to send a soul anywhere?
  13. Dan, you have a very typical fundamentalist viewpoint. And by fundamentalist, I am referring to a mindset. As Mr. Cronshaw stated : why not use the definition I clearly intended to use? If Paul was indeed a believer in the Doctrine of the Trinity - Why do his letters speak against such a misunderstanding? and speak so clearly...? very clearly indeed.... Once again, why not use the definition which fits the context? note that there becomes a political connotation..... and as far as it being an " either - or " situation.... that idea shows a misunderstanding of the Nature of the Messag
  14. The problem here is not on my end Cool.... I understand perfectly well that you see references to the trinity in that passage.... what I am repeatedly trying to get across to YOU, is that I do not believe they exist..... there is a basic difference between our beliefs.... and it breaks down to Jesus' role in things.... you see him as God incarnate ( am I correct? ) and I see him as a MAN who, through living the correct way, was graced by our Creator's Conscious Personal Presence - from an INDWELLING source.... I believe that Jesus shared with us that ALL are capable of what he accomplished....
  15. I think that along with the other references to the trinity which were dispersed throughout the entire text, it allows for a misunderstanding... due to the wording of the verse... The only verse in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" Word (wɜːd) — n 1. Christianity the 2nd person of the Trinity [translation of Greek logos, as in John 1:1] that SHOULD show you that the trinity was NEVER in 5:1-11
  16. the violence against the early believers started with the stoning of Stephen, who was arguing against the Hellenist's, and their belief in Jesus.... and Paul's campaign ended in 35 a.d. - The fighting was between Jews and early Christians... it wasn't until 64 a.d. that Nero began the persecutions - those who were handy and clogging up Rome... and neither him,Domitian, in 95.D.,or Diocletian in 303 cared what gospels were being read.... a Christian was a Christian was a Christian... and in 95 it was against anyone who refused to honor the emperor cult... in 303 it was specifically about Chri
  17. that cannot be supported, but IMO, it can be supported the other way around... and I think you misunderstand Gnosticism - for Paul was a gnostic as his letters clearly show... that, is a ridiculously uneducated my opinion.... it comes straight from the issues we are talking about... misunderstandings and misdirection... and possibly a misunderstanding of the usage of paganism... at a time when it was illegal to possess the texts? when texts were gathered up and burned in big piles? they were important enough to gather up and hide away for a couple thousand years, were they no
  18. it is a common misconception and misunderstanding of 1 John 5:14-15, IMO..... again a misconception brought about by the erroneous idea introduced by the doctrine of the trinity... We are to ACT in sync with God's will, and Jesus is assuring us that anything asked for within the scope of God's will is assured to be granted.... it was not meant as a " magic formula" to get what one wants irregardless of why they want it... I don't see a mention to Jesus - I see the Holy Spirit mentioned there... 1 John 14:23 " Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them,
  19. because it adds a reference to the trinity that wasn't within the original intent of the verse.... which can only be shown by examining other verses as well... it must be considered that the theme of The Trinity was inserted in various measures throughout the gospels... which only shows the effectiveness of the two methods, IMO It changes the focus of our responsibility to The Lord... it takes the responsibility to walk LIKE Jesus, to simply asking him to let us off the hook...and assuring us that's is good enough... personally, IMO, I believe I have... and counting letters and words has ne
  20. How's it hangin', Fawzo me mate?

  21. If we accept the idea that the trinity was introduced into the text ( if only for a moment ) - where would your arguments against Spong stand? If our instruction was truly to " be taught directly by the indwelling Word " - then it would be a little more difficult to disparage his words, would it not? - and our recourse would be to " take it to the Lord " ...deep inside ourselves, for clarity..... but we have not been taught to establish and practice this connection...... and it is, IMO, a severe detriment to the average Christian.... If the Average "biblical illiterate" were taught to establis
  22. The way I see it is that since there is a question, we must look in other places for verification or denial... the Author goes on to say: so there is reason for doubt.... a large reason for doubt... and raises the question of other in 1 timothy 3:16 and Matthew 29:19 What we need to do, IMO, is acquire a comprehensive view, looking for THEMES which do not jibe.... and being wary of those themes... and as the author states: one of the things I find so frustrating is the lack of sources left for us, due to the destruction committed by the early church. We're left trying to fin
  23. i guess that means you have something to look forward to... as the Bible Hebraica Quinta ( with the recently released qumran material ) is due in 2015... guess that answers another of your questions from above.... ok, i'm off to meditate... this doesn't seem to be going anywhere...