An Angel Highway? - Page 5

Baron1710 · #41 02-14-2010, 06:10 AM

Sounds to me like these angels are involved in identity theft. There is someone going around as me doing things as me?

I find it very weird that he attributed God's actions to a particular angel associated with another man, this is pure and simply idolatry.

DAII · #42 02-14-2010, 07:03 AM

I find the Doppelganger Angel doctrine troubling as well! I could see a perp trying to use it as his defense. "No, your Honor, that is not me in the video, it's my guardian angel."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Sounds to me like these angels are involved in identity theft. There is someone going around as me doing things as me?

I find it very weird that he attributed God's actions to a particular angel associated with another man, this is pure and simply idolatry.

DAII · #43 02-14-2010, 07:25 AM

Hey Ed, I was hoping this video would share Stoneking alleged assertion that an Angel Highway runs right thru his house in Schenectady, as he did in Winterfire?

DAII · #44 02-14-2010, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Sounds to me like these angels are involved in identity theft. There is someone going around as me doing things as me?

I find it very weird that he attributed God's actions to a particular angel associated with another man, this is pure and simply idolatry.

Stoneking appeals to the account of Rhoda and Peter's escape to prove his Doppelganger Guardian Angel doctrine:

13When he knocked at the door of the gate, (Q)a servant-girl named Rhoda came to answer.

14When she recognized Peter's voice, (R)because of her joy she did not open the gate, but ran in and announced that Peter was standing in front of the gate.

15They said to her, "You are out of your mind!" But she kept insisting that it was so. They kept saying, "It is (S)his angel."

I think this is yet another glaring example of of the poor and holey hermeneutic that besets so many Oneness apostolics who rely on prooftext and historical narrative to formulate doctrine with NO WITNESS.

This account in no way shows that the apostles taught or believed this idea that angels look like us ,or assume our image, but rather are displaying disbelief.

What we do see is a group of apostles doubting her account that Peter is at the door with sarcasm ... and doubt .... "You are out of your mind!" "It is his angel".

Simple inference requires us to use textual evidence and what we have experienced to draw reasoned conclusions ... the context here is plain.

What evidence is there that the apostles had adapted the Essenes doctrine of angels throughout NT Scripture? None.

DAII · #45 02-14-2010, 09:01 AM

Also, if one chooses to be dogmatic to believe this passage supports look alike guardian angels (with NO WITNESS), the narrative indicates that she recognized Peter by his voice, not his face. We cannot assume she even recognized him in the dark ... just what the author relates to us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAII

Stoneking appeals to the account of Rhoda and Peter's escape to prove his Doppelganger Guardian Angel doctrine:

13When he knocked at the door of the gate, (Q)a servant-girl named Rhoda came to answer.

14When she recognized Peter's voice, (R)because of her joy she did not open the gate, but ran in and announced that Peter was standing in front of the gate.

15They said to her, "You are out of your mind!" But she kept insisting that it was so. They kept saying, "It is (S)his angel."

I think this is yet another glaring example of of the poor and holey hermeneutic that besets so many Oneness apostolics who rely on prooftext and historical narrative to formulate doctrine.

This account in no way shows that the apostles taught or believe this idea that angels are look like us or assume our image but rather are displaying disbelief.

What we do see is a group of apostles doubting her account that Peter is at the door with sarcasm ... and doubt .... "You are out of your mind!" "It is his angel".

Simple inference requires us to use textual evidence and what we have experience to draw conclusions ... the context is plain.

What evidence is there that the apostles had adapted the Essenes doctrine of angels throughout NT Scripture? None.

Baron1710 · #46 02-14-2010, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAII

Stoneking appeals to the account of Rhoda and Peter's escape to prove his Doppelganger Guardian Angel doctrine:

13When he knocked at the door of the gate, (Q)a servant-girl named Rhoda came to answer.

14When she recognized Peter's voice, (R)because of her joy she did not open the gate, but ran in and announced that Peter was standing in front of the gate.

15They said to her, "You are out of your mind!" But she kept insisting that it was so. They kept saying, "It is (S)his angel."

I think this is yet another glaring example of of the poor and holey hermeneutic that besets so many Oneness apostolics who rely on prooftext and historical narrative to formulate doctrine.

This account in no way shows that the apostles taught or believe this idea that angels are look like us or assume our image but rather are displaying disbelief.

What we do see is a group of apostles doubting her account that Peter is at the door with sarcasm ... and doubt .... "You are out of your mind!" "It is his angel".

Simple inference requires us to use textual evidence and what we have experience to draw conclusions ... the context is plain.

What evidence is there that the apostles had adapted the Essenes doctrine of angels throughout NT Scripture? None.

Using what someone says in Scripture, particularly when associated with unbelief, as being truth is dangereous. For instance it is said in Scripture, "We know that God does not hear sinners prayers." We have the example of the lie told to David about Sauls death. When the Bible records what someone says, it doesn't always tell us if what they said was correct or not it simply records what was said.

LS facination with angels and attributing to them the works of God is troubling at best. If this was done by someone like the nut in Florida who was slapping people around and left his wife, Oneness people would crucify him. LS is out in left field and has been for sometime. It seems no one is able to reign him in, even articles from headquarters that caution him seem to have no effect. I am sure that there must have been personal conversations with him as well. This is a great example of why people need to be under authority.

TroubleMaker · #47 02-14-2010, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ia4KJlhPMc

Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

Aquila · #48 02-14-2010, 10:01 AM

I think it's obvious that she thought she saw Peter's ghost.

DAII · #49 02-14-2010, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Using what someone says in Scripture, particularly when associated with unbelief, as being truth is dangereous. For instance it is said in Scripture, "We know that God does not hear sinners prayers." We have the example of the lie told to David about Sauls death. When the Bible records what someone says, it doesn't always tell us if what they said was correct or not it simply records what was said.

LS facination with angels and attributing to them the works of God is troubling at best. If this was done by someone like the nut in Florida who was slapping people around and left his wife, Oneness people would crucify him. LS is out in left field and has been for sometime. It seems no one is able to reign him in, even articles from headquarters that caution him seem to have no effect. I am sure that there must have been personal conversations with him as well. This is a great example of why people need to be under authority.

He is teaching another gospel while some choose to look at tenure, status and signs to validate his heretical teachings.

A resurgent, morphed, Latter Rain movement has crept in and gripped the imaginations of the gullible who seek signs and wonders.....

DAII · #50 02-14-2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

LS facination with angels and attributing to them the works of God is troubling at best. If this was done by someone like the nut in Florida who was slapping people around and left his wife, Oneness people would crucify him. LS is out in left field and has been for sometime. It seems no one is able to reign him in, even articles from headquarters that caution him seem to have no effect. I am sure that there must have been personal conversations with him as well. This is a great example of why people need to be under authority.

The difference is he is a good ol' boy who teaches the Message ... if he was fellowshipping Trinnies like Hoekstra and Branham did in the late 1940's ... they would have excommunicated him like they did with those "washed away" by Latter Rain.

I don't care how many miracles he is a part of ... his doctrine and his ability to effectively, soundly and rationally interpret the Word has ZERO CREDIBILTY.