Greg Stafford

Chat about anything you like here that doesn't fit under Bible Doctrines. Keep the subjects clean and refreshing to all.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Message
Author
apollos0fAlexandria
Posts: 3458
Joined: 8 years ago

Re: Greg Stafford

#11 Post by apollos0fAlexandria » 1 year ago

PoJ

For what it's worth I've had some brief interchanges with Greg and I did join his forums for a little bit.

My sense is that he got quite well-known as a scholarly anti-trinitarian (especially after his James White debate), and so I think he just got tired of fielding Trinitarian questions in the end. It seemed to me that once you were on the forum there were only certain topics that could be discussed, and the trinity was explicitly not one of them.

If he just got tired of talking about it, I can certainly understand, even if I disagree with him. But perhaps now he just doesn't want the pain of moderating a new member who has already approached him with a disagreement from the start.

From a more recent video it seems to me that he has become somewhat more dogmatic about what he believes.

But obviously it's all just speculation.

Best,
Apollos

User avatar
Proselytiser of Jah
Posts: 514
Joined: 1 year ago
Contact:

Re: Greg Stafford

#12 Post by Proselytiser of Jah » 1 year ago

apollos0fAlexandria wrote: 1 year ago PoJ

For what it's worth I've had some brief interchanges with Greg and I did join his forums for a little bit.

My sense is that he got quite well-known as a scholarly anti-trinitarian (especially after his James White debate), and so I think he just got tired of fielding Trinitarian questions in the end. It seemed to me that once you were on the forum there were only certain topics that could be discussed, and the trinity was explicitly not one of them.

If he just got tired of talking about it, I can certainly understand, even if I disagree with him. But perhaps now he just doesn't want the pain of moderating a new member who has already approached him with a disagreement from the start.

From a more recent video it seems to me that he has become somewhat more dogmatic about what he believes.

But obviously it's all just speculation.

Best,
Apollos
Well that's the thing, I agree with his stances on the Trinity, I was "for" him, not against him, I only brought up a slight understanding of translation difference at Exodus (but it wasn't against him I felt was helping him out on his position). I said "Hey, if you wasn't aware the Hebrew says "I become, not I am in comparison to the Greek OT", that was it. He did respond and say he felt the Greek may be accurate, but I merely pointed out the different words and definitions side by side, and that I felt the Greek should say “ginomai”(γίνομαι) not Ego Eimi” (ἐγώ εἰμί) if it's to match the Hebrew term ehyeh, since the Hebrew for "I am" is "ani".

That's all I said on that subject, and it seems I was blocked ever since... but to me that doesn't seem to be enough of a motivator to block someone, when you compare it to all the other trouble he's willing to engage with on his channel with other (very aggressive and belligerent) individuals, I see those people often enough and being interacted with and not blocked (they even get video responses some times).


I got the feeling maybe he just didn't like my stances in which I disagreed with him on (like me disagreeing with his stance that "Jesus supported polygamy", maybe), and because there was no real rebuttle to that (he actually never replied at all on that subject), so maybe it was that he blocked me over perhaps... or maybe it was the combination of two subjects together in a row in which he didn't have a reply for me and he didn't like it? (Pride?)


Either way, it feels like a suppression of free speech merely due to the fact that someone has a valid opinion which isn't the same as his own. Aperson can always just ignore someone's comment and let their opinion be there if it's not offensive (which he does do on his channel, even with Trinitarians at time).

I mean, I'd like to be wrong on this, because as I've said, I really like his work and content, and I hoped for fellowship with the guy. But the fact I was blocked with no given reason, even though I support majority of his stances, just smelled... off to me, you know?

Sooo *shrug* ?
"The fruitage of the Spirit is; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control..." Galatians 5:22-23

apollos0fAlexandria
Posts: 3458
Joined: 8 years ago

Re: Greg Stafford

#13 Post by apollos0fAlexandria » 1 year ago

Hi PoJ

All I'm trying to say is I wouldn't take it personally. Even with people we know well we often struggle to ascribe motivation to their actions accurately.

There are so many variables with people we don't know personally. It might be best just to assume that they also are struggling with some issues, and if we're touching a nerve then we may do well to give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of why they might not respond (or even keep us at length).

I respect some people who put themselves front and center out of genuinely believing that they are called to do this, but it can also be a heavy burden. And we know that not everyone who takes such a step is being disingenuous. My opinion is that these people eventually are likely to end up at a new place of cognitive dissonance, but I wish them well provided they are not deliberately trying to exploit others.

If someone just doesn't want to connect with us, it seems proper to accept that as a part of normal social interaction. It speaks nothing to our own person, mindset, or "knowledge". It's just a choice of that person for reasons we may never know.

My 2c in this case is not to burn any energy trying to over-analyze it.

Apollos

Vintage
Posts: 10
Joined: 6 months ago

Re: Greg Stafford

#14 Post by Vintage » 5 months ago

PoJ said,
“I got the feeling maybe he just didn't like my stances in which I disagreed with him on (like me disagreeing with his stance that "Jesus supported polygamy", maybe), and because there was no real rebuttle to that (he actually never replied at all on that subject), so maybe it was that he blocked me over perhaps... or maybe it was the combination of two subjects together in a row in which he didn't have a reply for me and he didn't like it? (Pride?)”
I’ve written recently on polygamy (against it) on YouTube comments. Choosing “Sort by most recent first” will bring up my most recent comment. Type into Google “penton knorr” and the right video comes up on the Beroean Pickets channel. I put a lot of thought into what I wrote, and I think my last comment is really good. But I haven’t gotten good reviews. Please take a look at it and comment if you are so inclined.

Vintage
Posts: 10
Joined: 6 months ago

Re: Greg Stafford

#15 Post by Vintage » 5 months ago

Hi Proselitizer of Jah,
Did you takes a look at the polygamy thread under the Penton Knorr video? It's ongoing.
I saw just now that you'd posted the following earlier on this thread;
"The only thing I did was kindly state my honest opinion on why I disagreed with his scriptural interpretations on polygamy in the NT (by means of using the scriptures and applied logic), as well as innocently stating that there was a translation error in the Greek OT scrolls when we compare them to the Hebrew scrolls at Exodus 4:14 on one of his videos.
"
I'd like to see what you wrote to "Greg" on polygamy. It might help me make a defense against polygamy in my discussion with Eric, over on his youtube channel. Would you share your reasonings and research with me, please?
- Vivi

User avatar
Proselytiser of Jah
Posts: 514
Joined: 1 year ago
Contact:

Re: Greg Stafford

#16 Post by Proselytiser of Jah » 5 months ago

Vintage wrote: 5 months ago Hi Proselitizer of Jah,
Did you takes a look at the polygamy thread under the Penton Knorr video? It's ongoing.
I saw just now that you'd posted the following earlier on this thread;
"The only thing I did was kindly state my honest opinion on why I disagreed with his scriptural interpretations on polygamy in the NT (by means of using the scriptures and applied logic), as well as innocently stating that there was a translation error in the Greek OT scrolls when we compare them to the Hebrew scrolls at Exodus 4:14 on one of his videos.
"
I'd like to see what you wrote to "Greg" on polygamy. It might help me make a defense against polygamy in my discussion with Eric, over on his youtube channel. Would you share your reasonings and research with me, please?
- Vivi
Of course.

I will quote what I wrote on Greg's video (which is now invisible on his channel as I was blocked):


Whilst I'll respect the views and interpretations of others and not judge anyone, I firmly hold the opinion that the NT forbids marrying more than one person.

Jesus said anyone who divorces a person and then gets married to someone else commits adultery (with exception to permitted divorce through an adultering partner or the death of a partner). So once married, it's seen as permanent unless they commit adultery (which 'then' breaks the bond), and in that stead, marrying someone else whilst "married" (even if divorced on paper) is a sin, which must mean "no to polygamy", otherwise marrying someone else would not be adultery, but Jesus said it was. (Matthew 19). Does it make any sense that "marriage to another whilst being married is not adultery, but marriage to another when being unjustly divorced is"?

The Bible says "the only valid divorce is when a spouse has sex with someone who isn't their spouse", therefore, I understand this to mean that the "divorce" of a spouse of whom hasn't committed adultery is 'invalidated' and is "not recognised" as a 'genuine divorce' because there are no grounds for it, which is 'why' marrying another by means of divorcing an innocent (non adultering) mate is "adultery" on part of the partner who divorces them, because the divorce is not recognised by God as being legitimate, and therefore the non-adultering partner is still "married to them" in God's eyes even if they are "divorced" in man's eyes, as such marrying another person when the partner hasn't committed adultery is sin, whether they get secularly divorced or not.

We have to ask the question "why" the qualifications for Christian Elders say that a man should be of high moral standing and Christian conduct, which includes being "married to one wife". If it was fine, then why is it given as a requirement?

This didn't appear to be in any social or political context, but in relation to Christian doctrine and Christ's words. And I don't think it was "One law for the overseers and deacons" and another law for all Christians, rather, that is putting the cart before the horse. Instead, it appears to me that the context of the passage is saying overseers and deacons are required to have upstanding Christian conduct "before" they can "become" overseers, of which includes marriage to one person. The Christian laws come before the Christian positions, not the other way around. One law for one and one law for another is not the way of the Gospel.

If you're not an Elder, does that also mean you can be arrogant? violent? Without love? Faith? Unchaste? Afterall, that's just to Elders right? (1 Timothy 4:11-16). Rather it says Elders are to be.. "an example" to the flock, an example is meant to be imitated. That's why these requirements for Elders I believe are wrote out, because they are the requirements for all Christians, but only Christians who loyally follow those commands and live that way of life to the letter can apply for Eldership, otherwise the Congregation would be ruled by hypocrisy. An Elder would make a poor shepherd if he tried to encourage other Christians not to do the things or live the life that he himself does. Hence, the qualifications.

An elder is a "leader/teacher by example" for the purposes of helping others live by the same Christian standards, as opposed to being some form of "clergy class" that has to follow laws that other Christians don't, that's not brotherhood, to me I would say that's class distinction and serves no purpose to the Congregation.

I believe God "put up with" polygamy in the OT, just as he put up with incest before writing it in the Law as a crime. As Jesus said, God put up with Israel's practices because of their hard hearts, so it's likely I feel that God merely worked with what he had, and regulated it. In certain cases it was needed, but these were very specific circumstances, just like killing is a sin, but God ordered his people to go to war at times.

What is the fruitage of polygamy? Jealously... competition... greed.... STDs... many things that are not becoming of men of Christ, even when permitted in the old Testament it is has often lead to shame (David, Solomon, etc). Indeed, God put up with men's hard hearts.
"The fruitage of the Spirit is; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control..." Galatians 5:22-23

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests