joshua stone

[RandyPNW]

As interesting as it is answering questions from a person with heretical views, I do believe it was a deliberate distraction away from more edifying subjects. I don't know if he was trying to gather a following among Christians, or sell his books? But I'm glad it ended at this point.

I spent a few years listening to Walter Martin's Bible Answerman radio program in S. CA, and Martin knew how to handle them. He didn't let them take over, but kept things to the point and stuck with it.

I've seen that here, and I'm impressed by it. Thanks for not letting the deception and false Christian posturing continue. Hopefully, the man will have received a testimony from us that will speak to his conscience in the future.

I appreciate the fact that you offered a "Controversial" place on this forum to take his concerns and ideas. Apparently, he did not want to acknowledge that his heretical views were "controversial" at all.

But I don't think any of us were snowed by him. All I wanted from him was his acknowledgement that his views were being "sly" about what constitutes acceptable doctrine in the Church. And he wouldn't do that.

[RandyPNW]

I pray the Lord reaches out to JoshuaStone, and enlightens him not just with the knowledge of God, which he already has, but with the overwelming, indwelling presence of the Lord, who works together with us to make us into an image of Himself.

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving. My wife just served me one of the best meals I've had in a year. Get out the exercise gym!

[Athanasius]

As interesting as it is answering questions from a person with heretical views, I do believe it was a deliberate distraction away from more edifying subjects. I don't know if he was trying to gather a following among Christians, or sell his books? But I'm glad it ended at this point.

At the risk of psychologising his intentions, I'd say that he was interested in:

1. Promoting, then discussing, his... unique... theology
2. Copy/pasting between his forum and ours as a method of bettering his forum's SEO
3. As a further consequence of 2., copy/pasting his posts meant that his theology could be more easily found
4. Possibly being seen as a teacher or someone to follow?

I'm not sure that he showed up in some nefarious scheme to deliberately distract from edifying subjects, but I still find it interesting that he appeared as soon as I banned theMadJW. More interesting that there were the same fixations on the doctrine of the Trinity, God, and the person of Jesus.

I could be paranoid, though. Their IPs don't match, not that this is conclusive evidence of anything.

The book link was something I was going to ask him to remove, but that's moot now. I'm quite tempted to buy the book to see what he actually thinks on the trinity, but if he doesn't think there's a significant difference between God-by-title and God-by-nature then maybe that would be a waste of money.

Well, and he had a few interesting typos, and mentioned that Luther was burned at the stake, so I'm sceptical of his credentials. I don't want to gatekeep what a researcher/academic/minister looks like, but having similar background experience there was something not quite right there.

I've seen that here, and I'm impressed by it. Thanks for not letting the deception and false Christian posturing continue. Hopefully, the man will have received a testimony from us that will speak to his conscience in the future.

That's a good hope indeed!

It's a difficult balance for me to strike. I very much like argument, but that sometimes means that I try to have discussions where really, there aren't any. I think that if Joshua was as interested in discussion as he claims, then he would have approached things differently than he had. It was a bit too easy to frustrate him, which in my experience is a sign of someone who wants to be seen as someone to follow, respect, look up to, etc. Or maybe I'm just really good at getting under the skin of those kinds of people. Well, I definitely am.

Death via sentence-by-sentence analysis.

Ahem, that's just my opinion though.

I appreciate the fact that you offered a "Controversial" place on this forum to take his concerns and ideas. Apparently, he did not want to acknowledge that his heretical views were "controversial" at all.

He very much wanted to play up this aspect of brotherhood/sisterhood and downplay doctrinal/theological differences. I can understand the desire for and attraction to that kind of thinking, but it was incredibly confusing to read that he didn't see any significant difference between God-by-title and God-by-nature.

The posts on punctuation in John 1 are just...confusing. That could have been a good thread if he approached it differently.

But I don't think any of us were snowed by him. All I wanted from him was his acknowledgement that his views were being "sly" about what constitutes acceptable doctrine in the Church. And he wouldn't do that.

Nah, we're all too curmudgeonly.

He was sly though, absolutely. Talking as if we all meant the same thing, when we didn't, is the worst kind of confusion.

Anyway, I don't want to dwell on him, but that's a bit of my thinking, or what I was thinking over the past few days. It was interesting. I like discussing heterodoxy / heresy, but it is what it is.

[Athanasius]

I should also say, thanks for being as attentive and on point as you were.

[RandyPNW]

At the risk of psychologising his intentions, I'd say that he was interested in:

1. Promoting, then discussing, his... unique... theology
2. Copy/pasting between his forum and ours as a method of bettering his forum's SEO
3. As a further consequence of 2., copy/pasting his posts meant that his theology could be more easily found
4. Possibly being seen as a teacher or someone to follow?

I'm not sure that he showed up in some nefarious scheme to deliberately distract from edifying subjects, but I still find it interesting that he appeared as soon as I banned theMadJW. More interesting that there were the same fixations on the doctrine of the Trinity, God, and the person of Jesus.

I could be paranoid, though. Their IPs don't match, not that this is conclusive evidence of anything.

The book link was something I was going to ask him to remove, but that's moot now. I'm quite tempted to buy the book to see what he actually thinks on the trinity, but if he doesn't think there's a significant difference between God-by-title and God-by-nature then maybe that would be a waste of money.

Well, and he had a few interesting typos, and mentioned that Luther was burned at the stake, so I'm sceptical of his credentials. I don't want to gatekeep what a researcher/academic/minister looks like, but having similar background experience there was something not quite right there.

Thanks, I did want to hear more of your thoughts on this. There's bound to be a bit of a drought now--I enjoyed all of the reading/exchanges, but his inability to follow the challenges to his thinking was maddening. As you say, he turned it all into something personal.

It's a difficult balance for me to strike. I very much like argument, but that sometimes means that I try to have discussions where really, there aren't any. I think that if Joshua was as interested in discussion as he claims, then he would have approached things differently than he had. It was a bit too easy to frustrate him, which in my experience is a sign of someone who wants to be seen as someone to follow, respect, look up to, etc. Or maybe I'm just really good at getting under the skin of those kinds of people. Well, I definitely am.

Death via sentence-by-sentence analysis.

Ahem, that's just my opinion though.

Your points were spot on, and he may have been surprised how precise they were. I'm not sure I got it all, but I got a lot of it. I wasn't at all trying to just name-call him--I've dealt with this before, where I've just had to throw up my hands and say, "But you're espousing Arianism, or the like! How can you expect me to sign off on that!"

I also thought there was a link between the 1st guy and the 2nd guy--how can you not connect them? Could've been the same person. Could've been a friend. But they did seem connected.

He very much wanted to play up this aspect of brotherhood/sisterhood and downplay doctrinal/theological differences. I can understand the desire for and attraction to that kind of thinking, but it was incredibly confusing to read that he didn't see any significant difference between God-by-title and God-by-nature.

The posts on punctuation in John 1 are just...confusing. That could have been a good thread if he approached it differently.

I didn't actually get the big deal with punctuation until things got along. But I didn't need to get it. Claiming Christ was created is just plain heresy! Obviously, he was trying to do what you said, declare some kind of Arianism/Adoptionism version, and probably in the vein of JW teaching, that Christ was really an angel-God.

Thanks again!

[Athanasius]

Thanks, I did want to hear more of your thoughts on this. There's bound to be a bit of a drought now--I enjoyed all of the reading/exchanges, but his inability to follow the challenges to his thinking was maddening. As you say, he turned it all into something personal.

Controversy drives discussion.

Your points were spot on, and he may have been surprised how precise they were. I'm not sure I got it all, but I got a lot of it. I wasn't at all trying to just name-call him--I've dealt with this before, where I've just had to throw up my hands and say, "But you're espousing Arianism, or the like! How can you expect me to sign off on that!"

Oh yeah, no, I got that. I think, seeing the tone of his own forum, the reaction he received from you and RK, as direct as it was, was unexpected. The tone where he lives is very much that, 'oh hey brother', 'good thoughts brother', 'interesting brother, I was thinking...' That kind of superficial politeness that eventually gets sickening.

I personally wouldn't go for the "yo that's heresy" line, but maybe I'm just too nice!

I didn't actually get the big deal with punctuation until things got along. But I didn't need to get it. Claiming Christ was created is just plain heresy! Obviously, he was trying to do what you said, declare some kind of Arianism/Adoptionism version, and probably in the vein of JW teaching, that Christ was really an angel-God.

Yeah, well, he was claiming that Jesus was created. Chrysostom summarises the historical argument fairly well https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240105.htm.

With the view he was attempting to put forward, we end up in this weird situation where God creates Jesus before God creates humanity, then Jesus creates everything including humanity... and himself? Then God is cool with declaring Jesus praiseworthy despite Jesus being a created man, because God, for whatever reason, coronates Jesus as a god, who is different from God-God, yet as a created 'god' is still worthy of praise?

Very much in the vein of JW thinking and the sort of thing Chrysostom was writing against.

[RandyPNW]

Controversy drives discussion.

Indeed!

Oh yeah, no, I got that. I think, seeing the tone of his own forum, the reaction he received from you and RK, as direct as it was, was unexpected. The tone where he lives is very much that, 'oh hey brother', 'good thoughts brother', 'interesting brother, I was thinking...' That kind of superficial politeness that eventually gets sickening.

I personally wouldn't go for the "yo that's heresy" line, but maybe I'm just too nice!

Well, darn it, I'm nice too! I did think, at first, you and RK were going to be snowed by this guy, with all of its rational discussion and brotherhood angle. But I did notice that neither of you gave up on your argument, and conceded nothing. You were just being friendly, and I do think that serves you well, showing that kind of patience and restraint.

Yes, I admit--I'm too direct sometimes. God rebukes me sometimes, but some of it is just in my nature. I get tired of beating around the bush.

At the same time, my interest is not in driving people away who have honest inquiries. We have to have an answer for "everyone that asks, a reason for the hope that lies within us." Walter Martin constantly quoted that.

With the view he was attempting to put forward, we end up in this weird situation where God creates Jesus before God creates humanity, then Jesus creates everything including humanity... and himself? Then God is cool with declaring Jesus praiseworthy despite Jesus being a created man, because God, for whatever reason, coronates Jesus as a god, who is different from God-God, yet as a created 'god' is still worthy of praise?

Very much in the vein of JW thinking and the sort of thing Chrysostom was writing against.

Yea, I think that's related to Arian-type of heresy, as well as a more distantly-related form of Adoptionism. The idea that his "title" establishes his deity seems like Adoptionism. A limited god created before the universe sounds like Arianism.

It boils down to JW, yea. Jesus was an angel-god. I have to tell it like it is!

[RabbiKnife]

It’s been a while since anyone snowed me with sweet talk and smooth lies.  That stuff smells more than the Mission District in San Francisco

[IMINXTC]

It’s been a while since anyone snowed me with sweet talk and smooth lies.  That stuff smells more than the Mission District in San Francisco

Ouch!

[Athanasius]

Well, darn it, I'm nice too! I did think, at first, you and RK were going to be snowed by this guy, with all of its rational discussion and brotherhood angle...

Dude the quickest way to raise the alarm bells is to call me 'brother' from the start.

I can't think of the last time someone snowed me... maybe Ravi Zacharias, back when I was a teenager? I didn't mind James MacDonald either, but look how he turned out. A lot of the names from back then, what a disgrace. I plead the ignorance of youth.

These days, if you can get past my irl death stare, odd aesthetic... ASD induced awkwardness... I'm quite friendly. As you note. I am also, however, utterly serious about theology, doctrine, and won't hesitate to go full bore at it. That's not always a good thing. I can also be incredibly annoying with the sentence analysis and uh, trying to figure out who I'm talking to (partly because of the ASD).

Yea, I think that's related to Arian-type of heresy, as well as a more distantly-related form of Adoptionism. The idea that his "title" establishes his deity seems like Adoptionism. A limited god created before the universe sounds like Arianism.

Actually, like Arius, Joshua's view much risks polytheism vis-a-vis this idea of a God-by-coronation who is praiseworthy. I think we only hinted at that (unless I missed a post)? The view provides us with at least two divine beings: God as necessary, eternal, etc., being, and Jesus, who was created/generated before all else. Presumably, the Spirit would also be divine? So a potential triad of God + gods rather than a Triune Godhead? Or maybe a duplicity of God/gods with the usual JW depersonalization of the Spirit?

Probably, Arianism (which is a form of adoptionism) is a better fit than Adoptionism proper, but anyway.

[RandyPNW]

Well, darn it, I'm nice too! I did think, at first, you and RK were going to be snowed by this guy, with all of its rational discussion and brotherhood angle...

Dude the quickest way to raise the alarm bells is to call me 'brother' from the start.

I can't think of the last time someone snowed me... maybe Ravi Zacharias, back when I was a teenager? I didn't mind James MacDonald either, but look how he turned out. A lot of the names from back then, what a disgrace. I plead the ignorance of youth.

These days, if you can get past my irl death stare, odd aesthetic... ASD induced awkwardness... I'm quite friendly. As you note. I am also, however, utterly serious about theology, doctrine, and won't hesitate to go full bore at it. That's not always a good thing. I can also be incredibly annoying with the sentence analysis and uh, trying to figure out who I'm talking to (partly because of the ASD).

Yea, I think that's related to Arian-type of heresy, as well as a more distantly-related form of Adoptionism. The idea that his "title" establishes his deity seems like Adoptionism. A limited god created before the universe sounds like Arianism.

Actually, like Arius, Joshua's view much risks polytheism vis-a-vis this idea of a God-by-coronation who is praiseworthy. I think we only hinted at that (unless I missed a post)? The view provides us with at least two divine beings: God as necessary, eternal, etc., being, and Jesus, who was created/generated before all else. Presumably, the Spirit would also be divine? So a potential triad of God + gods rather than a Triune Godhead? Or maybe a duplicity of God/gods with the usual JW depersonalization of the Spirit?

Probably, Arianism (which is a form of adoptionism) is a better fit than Adoptionism proper, but anyway.

I enjoy your disposition, which doesn't seem to get too serious. If a person can't laugh, I get as suspicious as you do when someone calls you "brother."  

Don't worry about the ASD--your precise approach to subjects makes up for it. 

And we all have our issues. We often just don't have the guts to talk about it. That's unfortunate because it makes us feel as if we're the only one with issues.

[Athanasius]

I enjoy your disposition, which doesn't seem to get too serious. If a person can't laugh, I get as suspicious as you do when someone calls you "brother."

I have... perspective. When things are serious I'm serious, and when they're not, I'm not. I find that people often confuse the two: they're relaxed when they maybe shouldn't be and too serious when a laugh is in order.

Don't worry about the ASD--your precise approach to subjects makes up for it. 

And we all have our issues. We often just don't have the guts to talk about it. That's unfortunate because it makes us feel as if we're the only one with issues.

Ah nah, the ASD just is what it is. It's the dysphoria that gets me into trouble with the church crowd.