Ronald Weinland (nothing yet...)

Ronald Weinland, aside from already going "over the deep end", has now started ordaining women as Elders, I don't know what other positions he will ordain them into (his wife his head over the church, so who knows).

It should be easy to see through this nonsense (since the scriptures are clear on this), but apparently not.

I believe this maneuver, is meant to trap members, who can resist being ordained into an office? Apparently the members of his church can't.

ps. Don't be surprised if he takes credit for these earthquakes, AFTER THE FACT.

Nope. He aint' Maybe he learning to keep his mouth shut a little more rather than fill it with his boots every time he opens it?
There's so much of a non event this subjects gone completely boring. What am I going to do to pass the time??

Originally posted by daggyz
Nope. He aint' Maybe he learning to keep his mouth shut a little more rather than fill it with his boots every time he opens it?
There's so much of a non event this subjects gone completely boring. What am I going to do to pass the time??

What confuses me, is...ok...everybody needs some sort of evidence....
When I went and showed that the bible says (explicitly) that the Two Witnesses are MEN...apparently that didn't convince people.

But the evidence (the lack of any fulfilled prophecy on their behalf), should be enough, now at this point in time, to be abundantly clear.

All they have to do, is compare scripture teaching + prophecy with current world events, do they match the end time event? No.

It says Jesus rose again and people don't believe that either. However, even demons believe in the Bible.

it amazes me the amount of women in christian churches who have roles, yet going against what paul taught

i disagree with paul but thats beside the point and for a different thread that been gone over millions of times here already

i dont know what delusion weinland is really under to keep thinking that he is what he says he is, to hold that much truth in your heart and still be wrong must be so intense and yet so self destructive at the same time

not once did i believe him or even still think i could but his story has really caught my attention, kinda like that one guy on youtube who said nuclear war in june of 06, cant remember his name, from texas though and yet nothing happened, and his website is still up i think, oh yeah yisrayl hawkins

i just find these people fascinating and would really love to just sit with them and really listen to what they have to say honestly, sad and maybe a bit sadistic on my part, oh well


still nothing ron......

Is RW dead? There's been nothing about him anywhere?

I don't know if anybody can verify another new teaching (like the ordination of women wasn't enough....among dozens of others).

For baptisms now, you do not need to be submerged underwater, that only the laying on of hands is necessary.

Tragic if it weren't so funny, the continued rewriting of NT instructions.

Originally posted by SirPaulMuaddib

For baptisms now, you do not need to be submerged underwater, that only the laying on of hands is necessary.

Tragic if it weren't so funny, the continued rewriting of NT instructions.

Yet more lies. Where did you hear that one?

If you simply read what I said you would have seen I asked if anybody could verify this.

Another site said this. But I did not know if it was true or not.

How are you still swallowing Ronald Weinland's own lies????

I proved to you in BTS forum that Ronald's interpretation of John 1:1 was a complete lie, yet you chose the lie over truth.

Sad...what will you do when Christ does not return in 2012?

If you still believe him now, you will believe whatever nonsense he spouts in 2012, as his excuse for yet failing again in every aspect of his so called commission.

Wow Doctorex took the bait and piped up! Good to hear from you again.

"The baptism ceremony has been modified so that it can be done mass production style. Under the old ceremony, the inductee is pushed under the water by the officiating elder (Ron stays on the side of the pool) and then after coming back up the elder lays hand on the inductee and prays.

In order to allow 100 elders or so to baptize hundreds of thousands of people, or even millions, the baptism ceremony is modified. One elder will be able to baptize dozens of people at once, as the inductees will immerse themselves as the elder calls out synchronized dunking. After which, instead of providing individual attention by actually laying hands on the inductee, the elder will simply pray over the group. Reminds me of my first day of military service".

I dont know if this method would negate a baptism although all biblical examples are one of emersion by, laying hands upon and individual prayer for.... If the above is true, it is at the very least - lazy. I've been to plenty of large evangelical events where it took hours of exhausting work to pray over people or baptise them or whatever. Thats the mark of a true dedicated leader. If we get too lazy one could imagine lazy pastors accepting repentance by txt as valid. RW could yet but he 'imagines' thousands coming into the church which will not be the case. I'm sure he has time to baptise two or three at a time which is more realistic numbers for this movement.

Although it would not be out of character, the above statement cannot be verified though as it cannot be found in any official form.

Regarding debunking Ronald Weinland's lie on his interpretation of John 1:1, I refer those interested in learning about it here...


Christ WAS the YAHWEH of the OT


I may post the relevant stuff here later...

[edit on 29-3-2010 by SirPaulMuaddib]

Let's review our op's favorite verse, and see what Greek experts have to say on the usage of "pros" rather than "meta' in John 1:1





πρός,p [pros]
1) to the advantage of
2) at, near, by
3) to, towards, with, with regard to

Here's what Dr. Daniel Wallace says about the use of πρός in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 380 (I have an older edition):

1. Purpose (for the purpose of)
2. Spatial (toward)
3. Temporal (toward, for [duration])
4. Result (so that; with the result that)
5. Opposition (against)
6. Association (with, in company with [with stative verbs]) -- our use here.

On p. 358ff he discusses the basic nature of prepositions, and specifically that of John 1:1. There are 2 types of prepositions: stative (suggesting a state) or transitive (implying some motion). So is πρός used in John 1:1 regarding a state that the Word had with God in the beginning or regarding some sort of motion toward God? Well, πρός is in general transitive.

However, it's not that simple as a stative preposition can be used with verbs of motion, and vice-versa. In John 1:1 πρός is transitive while the verb is stative. Dr. Wallace gave a general principle that stative verbs override the transitive force of prepositions (their force). He then gave the following instances in which πρός (as transitive) is over-run by a stative verb:

Matt. 13:56; 26:18, 55; Mark 6:3; 9:19; 14:49; Luke 9:41; Acts 10:48; 12:20; 18:3; 1 Cor. 16:6-7; 2 Cor. 5:8; 11:9; Gal. 1:18; 2:5; 4:18, 20; 1 Thess. 3:4; 2 Thess. 2:5; 3:10; Philemon 13; Heb. 4:13; and John 1:2.


We should also remember that this is Koine Greek, and was intended and written in a colloquial type of language In order to communicate more clearly with the masses.



continued

Ronald Weinland is simply NOT an expert in Koine Greek. If you're going to base a critical doctrine based on the usage of a greek word, you should at the least consult an expert on the Greek language.

This is what I have done.

Here are many of the places where the greek word "pros" is used, and they are clearly and correctly translated into English as "with".

and this includes John 1:1



Matt. 13:56; 26:55;

Mat 13:56 and his sisters, are they not all with(PROS) us? Then from where does this man have all these things?

Mat 26:55 In that hour Jesus said to the crowds, Have you come out in order to take Me with swords and clubs, as against a thief? I sat daily with(PROS) you, teaching in the temple, and you did not lay hands on Me.






Mark 6:3; 9:19; 14:49;

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with(PROS) us? And they were offended at Him.

Mar 9:19 He answered him and said, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with(PROS) you? Bring him to Me!

Mar 14:49 I was with(PROS) you daily in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.






Luke 9:41;

Luk 9:41 And answering, Jesus said, O unbelieving generation, one having been perverted, how long shall I be with(PROS) you and endure you? Bring your son here.




1 Cor. 16:6-7;


1Co 16:6 And it may be that I will stay with you, and even spend the winter with(PROS) you, so that you may set me forward wherever I go.






2 Cor. 5:8; 11:9;

2Co 5:8 we are of good courage, I say, and are willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be at home with(PROS) the Lord.

2Co 11:9 And being present with(PROS) you, and in need, I was not a burden to anyone. For the brothers from Macedonia made up completely my need. And in every way I have kept myself from being burdensome to you, and I will keep myself.





Gal. 1:18; 2:5; 4:18, 20;
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed with(PROS) Him fifteen days.

Gal 2:5 to whom not even for an hour did we yield in subjection, that the truth of the gospel might continue with(PROS) You.

Gal 4:18 But it is good to be zealous always in a good thing, and not only in my being present with(PROS) you.

Gal 4:20 even now I desired to be present with(PROS) you, and to change my voice; for I am in doubt as to you.

1 Thess. 3:4;
1Th 3:4 For truly, when we were with(PROS) you, we told you before that we were going to suffer affliction, as it also happened, even you know.




2 Thess. 2:5; 3:10;
2Th 2:5 Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with(PROS) you?

2Th 3:10 For even when we were with(PROS) you, we commanded you this, that if anyone would not work, neither should he eat.





Heb. 4:13;

Heb 4:13 And there is no creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of him with(PROS) whom we have to do.


1Jn 1:2 (for the Life was revealed, and we have seen it and bear witness, and show to you the everlasting Life, who was with(PROS) the Father and was revealed to us),


(continued in next post)

Commenting on the usage of "pros' in John 1:1 here is what another expert in Greek says.



1 John1:2 καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (pros ton patera) καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν.

Once again we see this unique usage. (usage of pros)

This is a preposition of motion with the verb of repose which involves eternity of relationship with activity of life. Since John uses this idea in 1 John 1:2 in this manner I am sure that he also did so in John 1:1.


In John 1:1 and 1 John 1:2 we see the preposition of motion. (pros)This isn't simply an action that is understood as moving towards and it is absurd to attempt to understand it in that manner. The idea of pros ton patera is understood as an eternity of active relation.




from another expert, more proof of the same...




And like I said in an earlier post, when prepositions don't agree with their verbs (stative vs. transitive), the verb drives things, so a preposition such as πρός though transitive (indicating motion) can be used with a stative verb to indicate state, such as in this case. (John 1:1)





The question of "pros" vs "meta", can be and is resolved, not only by consulting with experts in the Greek language, but by the abundant amount of scriptures that also use "pros" and are correctly translated into English as "with".

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God.

Thus showing that John 1:1 is speaking of a SEPARATE ENTITY.

You still think ron is a false prophet, yet here you all are fulfilling one of his prophecies, still being eaten away inside with you obsession about him, and proving nothing false with his teachings. Speak to you in another few months.

Let me know when he pronounces a REAL PROPHECY...you know, AHEAD of time, before it happens.

"Prophesying" that people will berate him for failed (by RW's own admission no less) prophecies, is hardly convincing of anything.


Ronald Weinland (and you and the rest of his followers), however are fulfilling prophecy.

Many false prophets will come and deceive many.

Because they (followers of false prophets) did not love the truth, God sends them strong delusion so they will believe a lie.



I ask this honestly (will you be brave enough to answer this? I ask without malice)

When Christ DOES NOT return in Dec of 2012...will you still believe he's a prophet of God?

reply to post by doctorex


Actually I think I somewhere said you would never see the obvious. So my statement is also correct. Someone who says that those that don't agree with them will disagree ith them - are not prophetic statements Doctorex. Your misunderstanding of that bring you to a new low. A statement of disagreemnt is a fact with every human being on the planet. Where do you stand now?

Originally posted by daggyz
reply to post by doctorex

 

Actually I think I somewhere said you would never see the obvious. So my statement is also correct. Someone who says that those that don't agree with them will disagree ith them - are not prophetic statements Doctorex. Your misunderstanding of that bring you to a new low. A statement of disagreemnt is a fact with every human being on the planet. Where do you stand now?

Trust me on this.

When Christ does not arrive in 2012, DrEX, and all who follow Ronald Weinland will swallow yet another excuse and still follow this man. Their blindness is profound and deep.

Originally posted by daggyz
reply to post by doctorex

 

Actually I think I somewhere said you would never see the obvious. So my statement is also correct. Someone who says that those that don't agree with them will disagree ith them - are not prophetic statements Doctorex. Your misunderstanding of that bring you to a new low. A statement of disagreemnt is a fact with every human being on the planet. Where do you stand now?

Disagreeing or berating him once or twice is one thing, but that is not what Ron prophesied. He prophesied that people would slowly become consumed with their obsession. Take a look out there, there are whole websites devoted to mocking Ron, they listen in each week and give a run down on his sermons etc. If I thought someone was a false prophet, I might post a statement on why I believe so, but that would be about it. I wouldn't spend over a year, wasting my time with something I believed was false, hanging on the persons every word, continually making mocking statements about the person. You are all fulfilling Ron's prophecy, whether you like it or not. That's why I said I would speak to you in another few months, because you will still be here, fulfilling his prophecy, unless you repent of course.