User talk:DeWayneLehman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I hope you take no personal offense at my listing your article on vfd. I did so reluctantly because, as one voter pointed out, it is indeed much better and more thoughtfully written than many articles that survive vfd. However, in my view, the TEC needs to gain more visibility elsewhere before it falls within the wikipedia guidelines. Regards, Michael Ward 22:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am very glad you plan to continue to contribute. Congratulations on your engagement. The following boilerplate welcome message has some links and tips that may be useful.


Welcome!

Hello, DeWayneLehman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Michael Ward 00:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] TEC

I do not know if anyone has informed you of this, but there are two Wikimedia projects where this article would be accepted, WikiSource and WikiBooks. The former is dedicated to source documents released to the public or GFDL, the latter is dedicated to the development of textbook-oriented documents.

It seems to the latter would be an excellent choice for your article. It could easily be adapted to discussions about calendars, the history of time keeping, etc., as well as providing a good basis for acceptance of the TEC. - Amgine 03:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] CALNDR-L

Considering one of your interests is calendars, I invite you (and anyone else reading this with the same interest) to join the unmoderated e-mail list CALNDR-L, where we discuss the world's calendars, whether historical, modern, or invented. I'm sure that several subscribers (some of whom have invented their own calendars) would like to critique your calendar (though not me, my interests are historical). It is a private list in the sense that you must subscribe to view the contributions of others (archived or current) or to contribute yourself, which helps prevent spambots from getting your e-mail address. — Joe Kress 17:58, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oneness Article

I noticed that three other Oneness Authors were added to the Oneness article. I may be in error but it seems to me that particular paragraph alludes to an ancient Church succession of Apostolic Churches with full Apostolic Pentecostal doctrine and experience. If this is true then David Bernard should perhaps be listed elsewhere in the article since a careful reading of his books reveals no such teaching. He teaches that there were individuals or groups that sporadically taught one aspect or more of the Apostolic doctrine down through the centuries but not the full doctrine nor in an unbroken succession. I am unfamiliar with Dr. Reckart's writings. I have a little knowledge of Weisser but not enough to substantiate his teaching on a full doctrinal succession of Churches. The only authors I am aware that teach such are Dr. Ward and Dr. Arnold. Dr. Arnold is very inspiring for Oneness readers but a bit too reckless with history to be accepted by secular historians. Dr. Ward is much more historically grounded. The teaching of an unbroken Church succession with the complete Apostolic doctrine and experience is actually a new historical approach that has not yet been widely publicised nor recognised. The Landmark Baptists (and some Mennonites) have had such a doctrine of Church Succession for many decades but they, like Dr. Arnold, have been a bit reckless with historical accounts. I am interested in knowing if Dr. Reckart and Weisser adhere to such a teaching and how accurate they are. Where can I purchase books by Dr. Reckart and Weisser?

GWr 15:32, Dec 2, 2006

I would personally have to side on the side of sound historians and archeology. One of the biggest arguments by Oneness believers is history, but it is also a rejection (in terms of traditions), as you probably know. It was reckless history, for instance, that claimed that there was no form of writing in the time of Moses, which was used to attack the Old Testament accounts.

Here's what I've heard:

From all that I've read thus far, the common belief is two-fold, and yes, Bernard is absolutely correct (unless something new has been discovered in the last few years, and I've not heard anything).

First, that Oneness beliefs (generally, but possibly not as well formulated as today's widely reviewed and written doctrine) have existed in scattered bits and pieces throughout history, and usually crushed as heretical by larger church groups. However, I've also been reading on histories such as "The Eternal Sonship (A Refutation According to Adam Clarke)" by David Campbell (Word Aflame Press) that shows that there are examples of thinkers who have come very close to being Oneness (close enough that they may have today been considered Oneness, though not fully orthodox). For instance, Adam Clarke's conclusion, as noted by Campbell, in the end was that there is either an eternal Son or a begotten Son, not both as they contradict and evidence proved otherwise to him, and eternal Son is nowhere to be found in the bible. How he reconciled no eternal Son with Trinitarianism I don't know. Possibly, he held on much like some of the Old Catholic Age writers who had the expansion-contraction theory.

Secondly, Oneness Pentecostal ideally wants to return to the original Apostolic church, which is the pre-Greek Apologist church. They also note that many philosophers and thinkers of the old ages were modalist. OP writers generally reject modalism as unorthodox, but acknowledge that it's close. Put simply, modern Oneness doesn't make God out to be like a sci-fi shape shifter that the modalists seemed to lean towards, which is why OP won't embrace modalism. Instead, OP embraces the Apostles and usually their direct students and contemporaries. It is generally held by OP that after the death of John, the church immediately backslid, to use a modern OP term.

So, if it was taught through generations, there's no succession from which the Oneness movement can identify with. Maybe in secret a few families practiced this, but this would have isolated them from mainstream religion making them stand out, I would think. If it did exist in succession, it's still a secret until this day. However, it is acknowledged that it kept popping up in writings, though usually restricted to one point and very moderated in speech, at least in Europe (nobody likes being burned at the stake, heh). OP position on this, the truth was always there if anyone cared to question and look.

The "succession" for OP, then, is a direct link from the early 1920's to roughly AD 0-100, with everything else in the middle either being a slow degradation of original orthodoxy, a dark age, or a reformation back to orthodoxy. OP highly regards the Reformation, but contends that it left many doctrinal errors in place, not just Oneness. So, it's Apostlic Age, then us, and regression and progression in between, according to OP beliefs. The link, being soley the Holy Spirit. That of course, leads to the "latter times" thinking that is prevalent where ever I go.

Back to the topic, I think the paragraph is ill-worded, and any link by succession is highly theoretical. If such a link existed, surely we would hear OP opponents or proponents (would be a two edged sword) shouting it from the rooftops. I've heard nothing. Certainly, such a claim should be documented to be verifiable. (I'd want to know book, chapter, page, and a quote as well to substantiate it, as many OP readers will see that and go, "WHAT?!?") My guess is that it is exactly as you put it, reckless.

The book I am studying now by Thomas H. Weisser is called "Three Persons - from the Bible? or Babylon". It is a very interesting read on the paganism of the early church by the Roman Empire, with historical and modern comparisons of the worship of Mithras (Seperate articles Mithra and Mithraism, which backs up most of Weisser's accounts). If you are unaware of paganism in the early church, the reading of this book and history on Mithraism will definitely be jaw dropping. He makes claims that seem very bold, which I am working to verify with other sources. It looks like he published under his own name (Copyrighted 1983), and no publishing house stated on the copy I have. I would assume as it was reprinted by the UPCI, that it could be ordered from Word Aflame Press or through one of their bookstores.

This book, btw, was included in my Steadfast 2006 binder, so I am assuming, that while I'm working to verify the credibility of individual claims, that the UPCI found this book credible enough to republish as a historical reference.

I'm not familiar with Dr. Reckart either, so I can't be of any assistance. Though, I will be sure to ask around for copies if anyone does have his books.

One note - At this point, two of us are still researching, pulling out any useful citations, and have yet to fully verify everything. One thing we probably will be avoiding in adding to the historical section is anything that goes too far beyond modern Oneness, and avoiding any speculative histories that aren't generally accepted. Those that are accepted before the modern period will likely be in a historical claims section, as both Trinitarian and Oneness claim the same original Apostles, and this will be disputed, whereas modern history shouldn't be disputed. It's paragraphs like the one you point to that is the reason for a needed rewrite. Phrases like "Many people believe..." and citing no source leads to factualizing a personal generalization. We're working to avoid that in rewrite. Our view in rewriting... if the sources are silent, so are we. ;)

BTW, glad to hear from someone with an interest in Oneness! If you can't tell, I'm have a tendency to write... and write and write, heh. If you ever want to discuss more, I'm here fairly regularly. --DeWayne Lehman 12:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/w/User_talk%7EDeWayneLehman_d6fa.html"