I sense that you had a very short stay at TWI and in PFAL from several things you’ve said in the past. Just to clue you in, many of the varied refugees from TWI are massively turned off by negative motivation to side with the God of heaven. If you’re looking for converts here for your pretty traditional sounding church, I think you are going to find even less here than I do. And THAT’S saying something significant, right folks!
***
It wasn't short enough! Also, I wasn't trying to convert anyone else either. That's the Holy Spirit's job, not mine. My responsibility however,
as a Christian is to encourage and to warn if necessary. If those who choose to not believe in the first place or who have left after being involved with TWI are offended
by the so-called negative motivation, they have a choice....don't they? They can either blow it off....not read it at all...or perhaps the Holy Spirit will begin to deal with
them once again and bring them home.
You wrote: “Mike, if you would like for me to diagram the sentence for you....I'll be most happy to do that for you, to bring you up to speed. Also, i edited my post from earlier after you wrote this one.”
No thanks. I find that when discussions enter this stage it seems to always degenerate to the “My expert is better than your expert” kind of logic. I’m not interested in your experts, though, not at all. I’m bored with official scholars and am most cynical of their product. The only thing I see coming from traditionalist scholars is a post-Reformation revival of Phariseeism trying to rival the Spanish Inquisition.
***
I take it then that you really do not have any anwers to what I posted and therefore more than willing to fluff it off with complaints of boredom and cynicism.
I had written: “We know copyists started forging counterfeit trinity passages at a very early date, earlier than most surviving manuscript fragments. You are not working with God's written Word at all, but man's working of the originals.”
Then you responded with: “Do ya mean....because the Doc told you that???? Those who have the charge of examining fragmental papyrii, Mike, copiously compare and recompare to all known existing fragments which are carefully documented, numbered and with modern technology scanned into computers so that human hands no longer have to touch the fragile pieces.”
No, it wasn’t Dr that got that to stick with me. It’s only been ten years now since I decided to meekly receive what God has offered us in PFAL. Before that I was often oscillating every six months between doubting Dr to verifying from outside sources what he said. It was a variant on when I complained of above, as I went to see what other group’s experts had to say.
Just to give you two examples: The trinity formula forgery that is in I John 5:7 is easy to see as added from almost any modern version or Interlinear, in addition to it’s scatterbrained logic. And the controversy in the supposedly “without controversy” verse of I Timothy 3:16 was due to a double forgery. I found Bullinger’s note that in a British Museum’s manuscript the forged ink turned to colors differing from the context after many centuries of aging.
Really....what sources are you using to document these claims. Again, if you're going to make such claims, shouldn't you bear out these so-called truths with your documentation? And Bullinger found ONE mss? Only ONE? Out of the thousands? My God in Heaven....that's pretty ding dang good, if you ask me! What Bullinger
book was that in, Mike? Plus, what modern version or interlinear were you referring to? You make these open-ended claims, but if you're going to assert such, then in all honesty you need to provide the documentation so that it can be verified.
When I originally heard Dr teach these things I put them to the side for verification, along with many other things. But the trinity (notice I don’t use a capital “T”) was especially important for me to verify. I figured that if Dr was wrong on that one there would be hell to pay and more, vestiges of my RC background no doubt.
Anyway, I went to many trinitarian people and churches as part of this process to hear their side(s). There were times when I left those places in tears, praying to God for help as to who to believe. Do you have ANY idea how long that process dragged out to? Try over 20 years. I think it was well into the 90’s that I finally felt free in saying goodbye to the trinity, goodbye to the old man with lightning to punish, goodbye to the bizarre bird, and goodbye to the godman hippie.
Hmmm....yet you CLAIM that you are a CHRISTIAN? These comments reflect what is truly in your HEART, Mike. Making references to the Holy Spirit as the "bizarre bird" could very well be blasphemous....you'd better hope it's not on record as such....for you will surely hear about it if it is. And if you are rejecting the "godman hippie".... what the hell do you have left, Mike? It rather seems like you took out a machete and chopped your own faith to pieces, Mike.
Some people’s mental makeup requires an institution with buildings and property for them to feel safe. Some people need a long “dignified” history to verify truth for them, as in “time tested.” Some people need a large crowd believing along with them for verification. I have seen all the above to be hopelessly flimsy.
All of the above are worldly things....you should try the LORD AND SAVIOR THAT I SERVE.....YESHUA BEN ELOHIM! He's very time tested, Mike.
I have spent enough time looking at experts on the scriptures as well as experts on experts and I’m done. God led me to PFAL twice and I’m staying.
***
Funny....He led me away from PFAL. The doc didn't like the thought of a judgmental God, either. I wonder why? Could it be that too many times he was being convicted and finally his conscience became seared with a hot iron? Where are you, Mike? Perhaps you need to repent, Sir.
You wrote: “Paul was a product of the Diaspora and therefore his family was Hellenized....so yes....Paul's primary language was most likely Greek. As I said to 2027, Greek was the LINGUA FRANCA of its day. The same way that later on FRENCH became the language of diplomacy and if you wished to be understood while travelling the continent, you automatically spoke French. In the same way, Paul spoke Greek when in public...he probably spoke Hebrew when practicing Hebraic religious customs in his family home, but it wouldn't have been his primary language. There's a good chance that his everyday common language was Aramaic. He probably spoke Latin as well since the ruling country was Rome.”
I found it interesting to note what language Jesus spoke to Paul in on the road to Damascus.
Acts 26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Now I wonder why???? Process it, Mike! (Tap, Tap, Tap)
As for your language skills, did you learn them from the official sources or from some upstart organization? That’s a trick question.
***
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....(was that long enough for you?)
You wrote: “Believe it or not Mike, the scribes were pretty accurate in their work, which is why that modern textual critics can admire that extant mss thousands of years apart are exact copies of one another. Were there probaby goofs? Yes. But when there were, they then made marginal notes to show their errors. Sounds honest to me.”
I don’t doubt that there are honest researchers, in addition to the adversary’s plants, and I don’t doubt their sincerity. There’s no amount of human brains nor modern gadgetry that will unscramble what the adversary scrambled 2000 years ago. That requires divine intervention, and we know God often does things a “little” differently than institutional expectations, don’t we. I’m willing to bet my life that divine intervention took place in 1942 and continued until 1985.
Oh, Puhleez, Mike....your view of God is small indeed, if you think that He hasn't watched over HIS WORD. Do not the Scriptures assert that "He magnified HIS WORD even above HIS NAME?
Actually, it looks like you are referring to the Old Testament scriptures from what you posted above. The whole reason for the Critical Greek texts was to iron out the thousands of variant NT manuscript points, and STILL those texts vary from each other. There WAS great agreement between an older Dead Sea Scroll copy of Isaiah and the traditional texts. But I’ve never heard of such agreement with New Testament books. Neither have I heard of a Masorah fence for the NT.
Exactly how do you think these mss were copied and re-copied, Mike? They didn't run down to their local Kinko's, nor were HP printers with Vivera inks around either.
You know, Mike....I really didn't expect you to have an answer to what I posted....because when it comes down to grammar and its rules, there really aren't any rejoinders left for the debater to come back with, and that's okay. This is why I love the fact that the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY had his HOLY WRIT put into the Greek language. The Greek
language is a highly inflected language and it's difficult to wriggle out of any supposed mistranslations that one supposes might be there. Are there some? Yes. The translators of the KJV did their best with what they had in 1611, but modern translators have so much more available to them that they ever dreamed about.
Mike, I really appreciate your being so open on this thread. I have been enjoying our discussion for a number of reasons – one of which is simply getting a better understanding of my own TWI experience. Another is that I get into exploring the belief systems of others. I've listed a few verses and I'm interested in your response to some things at the end of my post:
Matthew 16:6-12 KJV
6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Luke 12:1 KJV
1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
II Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Galatians 1:6-9 KJV
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
In regards to the previously listed verses – I would like to pose a few things for discussion.
Jesus warned of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees – which was a theological system that bred hypocrisy. I tend to think vp's doctrine would fall into the same category – a belief system with a primary concern for appearances rather than matters of the heart. Of course, that's just my opinion. I'm interested in your thoughts on that.
In regards to Paul's warning of counterfeits – and even your own mentioning of the devil's activity – I was wondering if you could mention specific reasons why you think vp was a genuine minister of God.
I was intrigued by your reference to religious folks stuck in the 4 gospel time administration [which, I guess, you also lump me in that category]. vp's teachings focused more on showing the application of PFAL principles rather than developing a relationship with Jesus Christ. Has Paul's warning of some who pervert the gospel of Christ ever been a concern of yours in the struggles you mentioned in a previous post? In other words - did you ever think vp perverted the gospel of Christ?
It's a little bit(OK, a lot) like asking your dog why he licks his own butt.
He'll cock his head sideways, stare at you in a manner that tells you he has no idea what you are talking about and then go right back to licking his own butt.
You wrote: “Jesus warned of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees – which was a theological system that bred hypocrisy. I tend to think vp's doctrine would fall into the same category – a belief system with a primary concern for appearances rather than matters of the heart. Of course, that's just my opinion. I'm interested in your thoughts on that.”
When you say “vp’s doctrine” do you mean the whole ball of wax?
I am very careful to distinguish between TVTs and the written record. It’s impossible to trace the origins and proponents of the TVTs. It seems many grads were loaded with TVTs and that gave rise to lots of baloney. I think your opinion is focused on those TVTs and their consequences. If you would come back to work the written materials, and them exclusively, you’d find that it’s a different picture there.
As far as appearances go, they are important and had to be taught. I could see that, and I could see that some took that too seriously. We were HIPPIES, or many of us were, or like hippies. We had been indoctrinated into “letting it all hang out” and wearing torn and dirty clothes and not bathing. We needed some teaching there.
And matters of the heart? I saw plenty of that taught. I’m sorry if you missed it. It’s not too late to see plenty of heart in the written forms of PFAL.
***
You wrote: “In regards to Paul's warning of counterfeits – and even your own mentioning of the devil's activity – I was wondering if you could mention specific reasons why you think vp was a genuine minister of God."
He led me to the True God. He showed me how to read the KJV and other versions and see past man’s religious baloney. We love God because He loved us first, and Dr showed me that God is love and that He loved me. From Dr’s ministry I was able to throw out the baloney of the RC Church that had plagued me with guilt and condemnation. From PFAL I received a strong desire to help others see that God is love.
I know Dr to be of God by the fruits that grew in my life from his teaching. I know from the Word that his old man nature was not worth two cents, just like mine.
***
You wrote: “I was intrigued by your reference to religious folks stuck in the 4 gospel time administration [which, I guess, you also lump me in that category]. vp's teachings focused more on showing the application of PFAL principles rather than developing a relationship with Jesus Christ. Has Paul's warning of some who pervert the gospel of Christ ever been a concern of yours in the struggles you mentioned in a previous post? In other words - did you ever think vp perverted the gospel of Christ?”
I see the perverted gospel in churchianity where a relationship with Jesus Christ is counterfeited by emotions.
Some of those emotions, in the early stages of this counterfeit process, can be genuine reactions to genuine understanding of parts of God’s Word. But, from my experiences, later on those emotions fade, as all emotional feelings do. When this happens the person who HAD experienced them naturally wants to recharge them because they felt good. By then he had absorbed the prevalent counterfeit teaching that THOSE FEELINGS were a relationship with Jesus Christ.
I remember nuns in the RC Church describing this as the reason they joined the convent. In a sense they think of themselves as married to Jesus. They do whatever they have to do to artificially pump up those emotions. When those endorphins finally do flow they feel like they are “in love” with Jesus and that is their counterfeit relationship.
I used to try and do this when I was a child in Catholic School, but being a male, I felt that it was impossible to go this route as efficiently as a female could, and I felt cheated.
Later on in life I found that some Protestants had found non-homosexual ways of duplicating the nuns’ approach, and they could get the endorphins flowing. The charismatic movement of the time even brought some of this to the RCs, but by then I was bowing out.
I suppose in other locales and in other centuries RC priests and monks may have gone this route of having an “emotional” relationship with what they thought was Jesus.
I also know now that brother-brother love can be quite strong and even emotional at times without introducing any sexual elements. I would expect that the apostles had such a brother-brother relationship with Jesus, and THOSE relationships were genuine.
However, those relationships were not strong enough nor spiritual enough to satisfy God Who wanted more for us. That relationship didn’t do them much good when they were out of Jesus’ presence, and it totally failed them during and after the crucifixion.
There was a time when Jesus told them that it would be good for them that he would leave. The kind of relationship that they had with him would be ending soon, he was telling them. Then that time finally came and he was removed from their sight.
What PFAL taught me was that the flesh person of Jesus Christ was removed by God from sight, and those flesh relationships were terminated FOR A GOOD REASON. That reason was that God had a secretly planned a BETTER kind of relationship for them.
The ministry of Jesus Christ on earth, in the senses realm, was spectacular, but it ended. He ascended and sat down at the right hand of the Father. In II Cor. 5:16 we are told “Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.”
Trying to go back to knowing Christ after the flesh is bound to end up in counterfeit soup because it is no longer available. You can’t call Christ on the phone and meet him at Starbucks. If you do it’s either another road to Damascus incident, or the more likely “spiritual problem.”
The relationship we can have with Christ starts with receiving “Christ in you the hope of glory.” Then that is improved and it becomes Christ in you THE GLORY! This is the “Christ formed in you” teaching that so few heard or remember of Dr’s, even though he did it three times that I have tape of, and probably some more. I have posted one of the transcripts here, but I don’t know if it survived the pruning of a few years ago.
My relationship with Christ is, IN MY WORDS, like the relationship a theater actor has with the role he plays. An actor is not the character he plays, but in time an actor can “identify” with that part. This can be a identity problem for that actor if it goes too far. For us, going all out in this PFAL sponsored relationship is void of problems. (Gal 4:18)
In my RC taught relationship with Christ I had to follow him at a distance. In my PFAL taught relationship to Christ I get to fill his shoes and walk his walk. I take the place of the absent (flesh) Christ wherever I go, as long as I live in that mind of Christ PFAL teaches and not in my old man nature. This is the whole point of the remaining verses in II Corinthians 5.
Let’s look at them.
I Cor. 5:16-21
Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh:
yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh,
yet now henceforth know we him no more.
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature:
old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
And all things are of God,
who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,
and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
To wit, that God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto himself,
not imputing their trespasses unto them;
and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ,
as though God did beseech you by us:
we pray youin Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
In this passage Paul is teaching that the old relationship with Christ is past, and that the new one was in full swing for Paul, but not yet for the Corinthians. They had pneuma hagion and could SIT, but they were carnal. They hadn’t yet gotten Christ FORMED in their soul/minds. They had Christ CREATED in them spiritually, pneuma hagion, but their minds were carnal, old man nature minds, for the most part.
Paul was teaching them so they too could rise up to this superior relationship with Christ. Paul was acting in Christ’s place for them. They weren’t up to that speed yet, so the “us” and the “we” in there refers to Paul and Timothy, the “you” refers to the Corinthians.
I don’t see this kind of relationship taught in churchianity. I see mere emotionalism there at best, and a counterfeit christ-relationship at worst, especially when the trinity is brought in and it’s a god-man counterfeit christ that’s in that relationship. This is what Paul was talking about when he warned us not to pervert the relationship he had the revelation to teach. Paul’s gospel shows us the ministry of THE MAN Jesus Christ seated at the right hand of God.
The relationship with Christ we can have is to become LIKE him as I John 3:2 teaches.
To see the fullness of this requires PFAL because it was lost before the apostle Paul died. Full recovery took 2000 years and divine intervention. The Word was lost in the first century and then re-issued to us in PFAL in a new format, but the same ideas as Paul’s, with an added element. Paul ministered to God’s people by revelation to help them move into the Grace Administration, while Victor Paul helped God’s people by revelation to move into the into the Appearing Administration.
Interestingly, the notion of the Word being lost and re-issued comes up in my next response to brideofjc, as well as elements being added in the re-issue.
You wrote: “Oh, Puhleez, Mike....your view of God is small indeed, if you think that He hasn't watched over HIS WORD. Do not the Scriptures assert that "He magnified HIS WORD even above HIS NAME?”
The Word of God is protected and impossible to harm. It’s spiritual.
Once God gives His Word to be written, then THAT form of His Word is in the senses realm and CAN be damaged and even lost. The written forms of God’s Word are NOT nearly so impervious as the same Word in God's mind. That original manuscript of the written Word and any copies that are made are the charge of human beings. Those documents are subject to mis-copying and forgeries and even destruction.
Jeremiah 36 contains the record of such a destruction. It was the written form that was cut up into pieces and then thrown into a fire. The spiritual Word of God that came to be placed on that scroll was NOT destroyed, and God made arrangements to have it written again, with many words added in the second version.
Another instance of the written Word being lost is recorded. It was lost for some time under the debris of a ransacking of the temple, but later found. Jeremiah rejoiced over this finding of these lost scriptures.
The Word of God as it was written in the stars (before Moses) was corrupted over time and eventually totally lost with no replacement, not in the stars anyway. The last people I know of who could accurately read anything of detail in the stars were the Magi some 2000 years ago.
You wrote: “Oh, Puhleez, Mike....your view of God is small indeed, if you think that He hasn't watched over HIS WORD. Do not the Scriptures assert that "He magnified HIS WORD even above HIS NAME?”
The Word of God is protected and impossible to harm. It’s spiritual.
Once God gives His Word to be written, then THAT form of His Word is in the senses realm and CAN be damaged and even lost. The written forms of God’s Word are NOT nearly so impervious as the same Word in God's mind. That original manuscript of the written Word and any copies that are made are the charge of human beings. Those documents are subject to mis-copying and forgeries and even destruction.
Contradicting yourself, Mike! Read again your first line....then read your own contradiction of your own words.
Jeremiah 36 contains the record of such a destruction. It was the written form that was cut up into pieces and then thrown into a fire. The spiritual Word of God that came to be placed on that scroll was NOT destroyed, and God made arrangements to have it written again, with many words added in the second version.
Mike do you understand the fact that when you make an assertion, which brings you out onto the limb, that you are not supposed to go behind yourself and saw off the branch that you are now sitting upon? Yes, the PAPYRII, their form of paper, could be torn up, burnt, turn to dust etc., but you just established MY POINT.
" scroll was NOT destroyed, and God made arrangements to have it written again, with many words added in the second version."
If indeed God's HOLY WRIT cannot be destroyed, simply because God can never be destroyed, and HE can ARRANGE to have it rewritten....Mike....need I go on?
Another instance of the written Word being lost is recorded. It was lost for some time under the debris of a ransacking of the temple, but later found. Jeremiah rejoiced over this finding of these lost scriptures.
And yet you wish to continue to assert that God could protect HIS WORD in the first testamental period, but somehow HE LOST HIS POWER to protect HIS WORD after HIS SON ascended????
The Word of God as it was written in the stars (before Moses) was corrupted over time and eventually totally lost with no replacement, not in the stars anyway. The last people I know of who could accurately read anything of detail in the stars were the Magi some 2000 years ago.
Ummmm....Mike.....the Magi were PAGANS! Were you aware of that? The stars were being read by GOD'S PEOPLE. The reason that the Magi EVER LEARNED about the story of the coming Messiah was probably during the first exile when Daniel taught them and that was post Moses. Mike you need to change your view or get yourself a bigger GOD!
Once again Mike, thanks for opening your heart. I don't know about anyone else – but sometimes I get bored when discussions drag on in a combative manner…Thought I'd just try a decaffeinated approach for a change…
A few things you said brought up some thoughts of my past. I was brought up in the Roman Catholic Church and had the same feeling you mentioned of following Christ from a distance. My church was mostly about ceremonies, ritual, and Latin. It didn't engage the intellect or emotions.
The early part of my involvement with TWI was in a stark contrast to that church. Our Twig was just a bunch of kids cracking open the Bibles, excited about life and enjoying each other's company. I disagree with a lot of PFAL stuff now – but back then – at least it got me to open the Bible. It's been said cults are the unpaid bills of the church – and to that, I agree! It's too bad that I fell in step with the flow of TWI – because looking back I can see the influence and mindset of an organization slowly overshadowing mind and emotions...like a descending cloud of gloom...bondage...boredom.
And to be honest – I still felt like I was following Christ from a distance. vp's hyper-dispensational interpretation of the Bible had me looking at the gospels as irrelevant. I remember right after taking PFAL I began reading the Bible like crazy – all the way through – repeatedly. And I'd just go nuts in the gospels – relishing every word and deed of my Lord…I also remember the typical response of older grads to a lot of my questions about things I had read. They'd encourage me to read the church epistles, review the collaterals, and sit through the next PFAL class. Gee whiz – I think the most efficient way to anesthetize a brain is through boredom!
Anyway, since leaving behind TWI and their straitjacketing mindset, I have experienced a much more rewarding relationship with Jesus Christ – engaging intellect and emotions. As to my letting an organization's doctrine, practice, or leaders get in the way of my relationship with the Lord – I forgive myself – and have vowed never to let that happen again!
Thank you much for this exchange. I was highly motivated to answer you in as much detail as possible, considering the late hour. I do wish more conversations here would go that way for me.
I trust you see that my relationship with Jesus Christ is rich and well thought out, and not altogether missing like I suspect some grads were headed long ago.
I saw the ministry as marble cake in motion.
There were light spots and dark spots and they were all swirling around in motion. I did my best to avoid the dark and bask in the light. This worked well for me until the early 80’s and it started to get tougher. I started seeing that the situations I had been hearing a few scattered friends complaining about were starting to become more and more manifest. The dark spots increased as LCM and the first large Corps (like 6th and 7th) were taking over.
Earlier I mentioned twice that where the active hand of the true God is, not far will be the active hand of the adversary to mess things up. This is why it was marble cake.
***
You wrote: “And I'd just go nuts in the gospels – relishing every word and deed of my Lord...”
I did that too. But here’s another thing I did. Have you ever noticed in a red letter edition of the KJV that there are several red passages in Acts, and I don’t mean at the beginning, before the Ascension. The road to Damascus incident is in Acts THREE TIMES!
The first account is in the chronological slot, early in Acts, and is told by the narrator, Luke. The other two are much later and are flashbacks where Paul is describing the incident.
If you take a word processor and paste those three passages from Acts into it a blank document, what you have is remarkably similar to Colossians Chapter One.
I have often found that these three accounts that include direct quotes of Jesus’ (and recorded by the writer of the Gospel of Luke) are not NEARLY as well known as Jesus’ words in the 4 Gospels.
***
I’ve noticed in many theological circles that Paul is looked down on. Some churches actually don’t count Acts and the Epistles as doctrine and they SAY SO openly. Many other churches quietly steer people away from Paul giving a myriad of excuses. It is very difficult in traditional circles to reconcile Paul with the 4 Gospels. Paul and his epistles (and hence the ministry of Jesus Christ seated at God’s right hand) are irrelevant to them.
There was something similar in the ministry. There were TVTs that made the 4 Gospels irrelevant.
I did NOT get the impression that the Gospels were irrelevant from PFAL, just that there was an even MORE relevant Gospel of Paul.
In the first century the curriculum God laid out for newborn baby Gentile Christians was first the Word spoken by Paul and then his written epistles followed. THEN much later the Gospels were written, kind of like an Advanced Class.
This is the same order we were given the Word, first spoken in the film class, then the collaterals, and THEN finally came “Jesus Christ Is Not God” and “Jesus Christ Our Passover” and “Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed.” We finally did get our exposure to the Gospels and lots of detail about Jesus’ walk on earth, but only after we saw his ministry at God’s right hand, which is bigger.
***
Unfortunately, there were those dark spots in the marble cake. I saw individuals in leadership positions who would brag about not being a “Jesus person” and say terrible things like “Jesus was dead and gone.” I saw some actually put down the Jesus of the Gospels as a wimp.
All these dark distortions were derived FROM the teachings of Dr, but NOT ACCURATELY. Dr had a heart for the Jesus of the Gospels, but I saw these individuals develop a dark heart towards him, due to their sloppy idiotic handling of Dr’s teachings. I had to quietly “mark and avoid” them. Most unfortunately, they got more and more power and were harder and harder to avoid.
***
I’ve seen it posted here that Dr did not like even saying the name “Jesus” without saying “Christ” right after it, or preferably before it, but that he liked “Christ” all alone best. This is a grand distortion of Dr’s teaching, and reflects the kinds of individuals I mentioned above. I have found OODLES of places in the collaterals where “Jesus” alone is the dominant nomenclature.
I saw individuals who would visually cringe and then “reprove” at the mention of “Jesus” alone, but never did I see or hear or read Dr do that.
If there was a particular passage that called for “Christ” all alone or “Christ Jesus” and someone would mistakenly use “Jesus” alone, I could see a cringe and a correction, but it was clear to me that Dr was not at all into the “Jesus phobia” those derelict individuals were propagating. There were TVTs that grew up to spread this and the marble cake eventually turned black with mold.
I’m very thankful for the light spots that did shine through and bless us all. I’m very thankful for the light that was preserved in the written forms of PFAL. I’m very thankful for this discussion with you in your allowing me to get this all out.
You wrote: “Contradicting yourself, Mike! Read again your first line....then read your own contradiction of your own words.”
Ok, let’s read them together.
I wrote: “The Word of God is protected and impossible to harm. It’s spiritual.”
Notice I didn’t say Bible or written anywhere here. Before humans, before writing was invented, before there was an Earth, before matter and energy were created there was God. Before the written Word existed, there was God and in his mind was His Word and will. God had foreknowledge of what He was GOING TO have written much later, but it wasn’t in written form. This is what I meant when I wrote at the end “It’s spiritual.”
What God remembers having had put into written form is protected and impossible to harm. That’s what I meant when I wrote at the beginning “The Word of God is protected and impossible to harm.”
Then I wrote: “Once God gives His Word to be written, then THAT form of His Word is in the senses realm and CAN be damaged and even lost. The written forms of God’s Word are NOT nearly so impervious as the same Word in God's mind. That original manuscript of the written Word and any copies that are made are the charge of human beings. Those documents are subject to mis-copying and forgeries and even destruction.”
Following the pattern I saw Dr take, when I write “The Word of God” I mean what’s in God’s mind, and it’s spiritual, not physical. When I write “Bible” I mean that same Word of God but put into physical written form.
Do you see the difference? There is a spiritual Word of God that is always pure, and then there is the same Word in written form that starts out pure, but can be corrupted because it’s in the realm run by the god of this world. This will end someday.
Let me know if you see this apparent contradiction reconciled now and we can move on to some other points.
Mike, I’m enjoying our discussion here too…I had a meltdown…or realization…or something on a thread awhile back [maybe getting a good glimpse of my ugly side ] – and it sort of got me looking at folks here a little differently – but in a good sense…And please don’t take offense to this – but what you’ve been saying in these posts is a lot easier for me to process than when you’re in your PFAL mode. As I’m sure I can be very abrasive when I’m in my anti-PFAL mode.
I'm delighted to hear your words. Thank you again for this exchange.
I don't remember any of the details of our exchanges in the past. I’ve had combat with too many people here to remember them all. A few I do, but in time that can blur easily. I focus on remembering the ideas that come up more than the names. Maybe if we all posted actual pictures of ourselves I’d do better here.
You mentioned an epiphany or yours on another thread. I don’t know if I was involved there or similarly elsewhere, but if I was I’d be happy to re-enter those discussions here or in PMs to translate between friendly mode and combative mode ways of putting things. This offer I’d like to extend to everyone here, but when I meet someone like you and what you’re saying now, I see it as an opportunity to broadcast this invitation.
I was never combative in my ministry days. I had to develop that skill in 1988 when I noticed leaders needed confrontations more and more. I was very clumsy at first and made many mistakes. I still blow it at times (was suspended here once, and almost a second time) but I think I’m better. I vastly prefer the friendly approach.
Many times here I’ll be swinging away at many combatants. Once it was 74 posters who were simultaneously food fighting with me. I didn’t count them; one of THEM did the counting as a way of trying to persuade me with numbers.
When I’m in such a fray and a new poster comes in who doesn’t know me and I don’t know them, they tend to pick up with the side of the majority and chime in with them. There have been times when I used combative mode WAY TOO MUCH on them, not realizing their relative newness to the fray. I have felt badly when I noticed later that that happened. I think some people like Tom Strange got initial impressions of me that way, or seeing me deal with a newbee that way, and we’ve been antagonists ever since.
When you mentioned your epiphany it reminded me of this.
Do you think that these kinds of communication-connects help develop better abilities in forgiveness?
You wrote: “Contradicting yourself, Mike! Read again your first line....then read your own contradiction of your own words.”
Ok, let’s read them together.
I wrote: “The Word of God is protected and impossible to harm. It’s spiritual.”
Notice I didn’t say Bible or written anywhere here. Before humans, before writing was invented, before there was an Earth, before matter and energy were created there was God. Before the written Word existed, there was God and in his mind was His Word and will. God had foreknowledge of what He was GOING TO have written much later, but it wasn’t in written form. This is what I meant when I wrote at the end “It’s spiritual.”
What God remembers having had put into written form is protected and impossible to harm. That’s what I meant when I wrote at the beginning “The Word of God is protected and impossible to harm.”
Then I wrote: “Once God gives His Word to be written, then THAT form of His Word is in the senses realm and CAN be damaged and even lost. The written forms of God’s Word are NOT nearly so impervious as the same Word in God's mind. That original manuscript of the written Word and any copies that are made are the charge of human beings. Those documents are subject to mis-copying and forgeries and even destruction.”
Following the pattern I saw Dr take, when I write “The Word of God” I mean what’s in God’s mind, and it’s spiritual, not physical. When I write “Bible” I mean that same Word of God but put into physical written form.
Do you see the difference? There is a spiritual Word of God that is always pure, and then there is the same Word in written form that starts out pure, but can be corrupted because it’s in the realm run by the god of this world. This will end someday.
Let me know if you see this apparent contradiction reconciled now and we can move on to some other points.
Without wishing to be redundant....NO! You said it yourself, Mike, even if you wish to leave it in God's mind, which then it would be impossible for us to know....then of a necessity God must put it into either a verbal or written form....which GOD CAN HAVE REWRITTEN if somehow it gets lost or corrupted. But its a fair shot Mike that not all of the written forms would be corrupted at one time. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls find....God kept that ace up his sleeve and pulled it out when those that wished to debunk the prophetic utterances concerning HIS SON were saying that the prophecies were really written post-Christian era.
All the originals were copied in such a way it required Stevens and others to “criticize” the fragments and “correct” them. The ink of these Critical Greek Texts was still wet 1500 years after the originals were lost.
The oldest manuscript fragments date back to which century? The 4th or 3rd?
The oldest intact NT dates to around 800 AD and is in Latin.
Looks like something got pretty darn lost and/or shredded and scattered.
***
I celebrate here often that God can and does re-issue His Word. I refuse to believe a bunch of people who believe there are three gods will get revelation from the One God in re-constructing the originals as Stevens and the others tried.
I'm delighted to hear your words. Thank you again for this exchange.
I don't remember any of the details of our exchanges in the past. I've had combat with too many people here to remember them all. A few I do, but in time that can blur easily. I focus on remembering the ideas that come up more than the names. Maybe if we all posted actual pictures of ourselves I'd do better here.
You mentioned an epiphany or yours on another thread...
..Do you think that these kinds of communication-connects help develop better abilities in forgiveness?...
Absolutely, Mike on this kind of thing promoting forgiveness…Absolutely…
My "epiphany" happened during the chapter and verse thread in Doctrinal…And it was through a lot of dialogs with my wife Tonto and good friend Another Dan that I saw how much I was letting Grease Spot consume my time and energy – and a lot of it was over pointless arguing.
…And not to re-hash my "PFAL mode" statement but I was actually trying to compliment you on your post # 913. Especially with your referencing one of my top seven favorites – the Book of Acts:
You wrote: "And I'd just go nuts in the gospels – relishing every word and deed of my Lord..."
I did that too. But here's another thing I did. Have you ever noticed in a red letter edition of the KJV that there are several red passages in Acts, and I don't mean at the beginning, before the Ascension. The road to Damascus incident is in Acts THREE TIMES!
The first account is in the chronological slot, early in Acts, and is told by the narrator, Luke. The other two are much later and are flashbacks where Paul is describing the incident.
If you take a word processor and paste those three passages from Acts into it a blank document, what you have is remarkably similar to Colossians Chapter One.
I have often found that these three accounts that include direct quotes of Jesus' (and recorded by the writer of the Gospel of Luke) are not NEARLY as well known as Jesus' words in the 4 Gospels...
That statement is intriguing – and I'll have to check that out – thanks! I don't know if this will come out right – so please don't take offense. The reason I so enjoyed your post # 913 was because the above quote wasn't laced with a PFAL promo – it came from YOU – and it was strictly about the Bible…That's cool.
Since any chance of ever being forgiven for anything has been long since lost, this:
Mssr. Weirwille did a good job of marketing his anti-"trinitarian" opinion by characterzing it in one restrictive image - "3 Gods vs 1". As with some of his material from the JCING book, it's a very incomplete and inaccurate rendering of the topic and does little to aid in understanding who Jesus Christ was or is. It's a "negative sermon" in the form of a slogan.
All the originals were copied in such a way it required Stevens and others to “criticize” the fragments and “correct” them. The ink of these Critical Greek Texts was still wet 1500 years after the originals were lost.
The oldest manuscript fragments date back to which century? The 4th or 3rd?
The oldest intact NT dates to around 800 AD and is in Latin.
Looks like something got pretty darn lost and/or shredded and scattered.
***
I celebrate here often that God can and does re-issue His Word. I refuse to believe a bunch of people who believe there are three gods will get revelation from the One God in re-constructing the originals as Stevens and the others tried.
Sorry.
Mike, they didn't reconstruct it like apparently you are envisioning as if they went up to some mountaintop and " ahhhh-uhmmmmm, ahhhh-uhmmmmmm, Oh, tell us Great One what you had written before! ahhhh-uhmmmmm, ahhhh-uhmmmmmm." The scribal process was an ongoing one, with new mss being copied and sent to new areas
as the church grew and multiplied. I don't remember the papyrii number, and it may even have been in the Hebrew, but the scribe was young and in training and actually copied the author's margin notes and put it directly into the text not realizing that it was only marginal notes and not actual text. But guess what, Mike? The scholars know about these errors and they are duly catalogued and numbered. Besides which, the places where they know about these errors, most of these errors were just that....errors and not deliberate forgeries.
You still haven't made any citations of the documents you're supposedly getting this information from....why is that? They surely have an online version somewhere, where I can also read what you are reading....unless you're talking off the top of your head.
All the originals were copied in such a way it required Stevens and others to “criticize” the fragments and “correct” them. The ink of these Critical Greek Texts was still wet 1500 years after the originals were lost.
Citation? Any?
And then it would seem that you choose to use the KJV which was from the Stevens text...why is that? Why not choose another more modern version?
And then it would seem that you choose to use the KJV which was from the Stevens text...why is that? Why not choose another more modern version?[/color]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
128
169
106
102
Popular Days
Feb 19
54
Feb 26
50
Feb 22
47
Apr 2
40
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 128 posts
Mike 169 posts
Ham 106 posts
waysider 102 posts
Popular Days
Feb 19 2008
54 posts
Feb 26 2008
50 posts
Feb 22 2008
47 posts
Apr 2 2008
40 posts
Posted Images
Mike
Yeah! I was trying to think of WHAT the heck was being implied there. I guess I'm too innocent.
If you can understand my post #899 you'll see that the mind of Christ Jesus shows up WITHIN the written forms of PFAL.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Sorry, Mike, all I see in that post is "All Hail PFAL!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Exactly how do you think these mss were copied and re-copied, Mike? They didn't run down to their local Kinko's, nor were HP printers with Vivera inks around either.
You know, Mike....I really didn't expect you to have an answer to what I posted....because when it comes down to grammar and its rules, there really aren't any rejoinders left for the debater to come back with, and that's okay. This is why I love the fact that the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY had his HOLY WRIT put into the Greek language. The Greek
language is a highly inflected language and it's difficult to wriggle out of any supposed mistranslations that one supposes might be there. Are there some? Yes. The translators of the KJV did their best with what they had in 1611, but modern translators have so much more available to them that they ever dreamed about.
Blessings
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Are you sure that the shaking isn't God splitting open the earth and his subsequent falling into the rut?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike, I really appreciate your being so open on this thread. I have been enjoying our discussion for a number of reasons – one of which is simply getting a better understanding of my own TWI experience. Another is that I get into exploring the belief systems of others. I've listed a few verses and I'm interested in your response to some things at the end of my post:
Matthew 16:6-12 KJV
6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Luke 12:1 KJV
1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
II Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Galatians 1:6-9 KJV
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
In regards to the previously listed verses – I would like to pose a few things for discussion.
Jesus warned of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees – which was a theological system that bred hypocrisy. I tend to think vp's doctrine would fall into the same category – a belief system with a primary concern for appearances rather than matters of the heart. Of course, that's just my opinion. I'm interested in your thoughts on that.
In regards to Paul's warning of counterfeits – and even your own mentioning of the devil's activity – I was wondering if you could mention specific reasons why you think vp was a genuine minister of God.
I was intrigued by your reference to religious folks stuck in the 4 gospel time administration [which, I guess, you also lump me in that category]. vp's teachings focused more on showing the application of PFAL principles rather than developing a relationship with Jesus Christ. Has Paul's warning of some who pervert the gospel of Christ ever been a concern of yours in the struggles you mentioned in a previous post? In other words - did you ever think vp perverted the gospel of Christ?
Love and peace, T-Bone
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
It's refreshing to see honest to God effort to improve one's self and others who may want said improvement dismissed with the wave of a papal hand..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hello, T-Bone
It's a little bit(OK, a lot) like asking your dog why he licks his own butt.
He'll cock his head sideways, stare at you in a manner that tells you he has no idea what you are talking about and then go right back to licking his own butt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
T-Bone,
You wrote: “Jesus warned of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees – which was a theological system that bred hypocrisy. I tend to think vp's doctrine would fall into the same category – a belief system with a primary concern for appearances rather than matters of the heart. Of course, that's just my opinion. I'm interested in your thoughts on that.”
When you say “vp’s doctrine” do you mean the whole ball of wax?
I am very careful to distinguish between TVTs and the written record. It’s impossible to trace the origins and proponents of the TVTs. It seems many grads were loaded with TVTs and that gave rise to lots of baloney. I think your opinion is focused on those TVTs and their consequences. If you would come back to work the written materials, and them exclusively, you’d find that it’s a different picture there.
As far as appearances go, they are important and had to be taught. I could see that, and I could see that some took that too seriously. We were HIPPIES, or many of us were, or like hippies. We had been indoctrinated into “letting it all hang out” and wearing torn and dirty clothes and not bathing. We needed some teaching there.
And matters of the heart? I saw plenty of that taught. I’m sorry if you missed it. It’s not too late to see plenty of heart in the written forms of PFAL.
***
You wrote: “In regards to Paul's warning of counterfeits – and even your own mentioning of the devil's activity – I was wondering if you could mention specific reasons why you think vp was a genuine minister of God."
He led me to the True God. He showed me how to read the KJV and other versions and see past man’s religious baloney. We love God because He loved us first, and Dr showed me that God is love and that He loved me. From Dr’s ministry I was able to throw out the baloney of the RC Church that had plagued me with guilt and condemnation. From PFAL I received a strong desire to help others see that God is love.
I know Dr to be of God by the fruits that grew in my life from his teaching. I know from the Word that his old man nature was not worth two cents, just like mine.
***
You wrote: “I was intrigued by your reference to religious folks stuck in the 4 gospel time administration [which, I guess, you also lump me in that category]. vp's teachings focused more on showing the application of PFAL principles rather than developing a relationship with Jesus Christ. Has Paul's warning of some who pervert the gospel of Christ ever been a concern of yours in the struggles you mentioned in a previous post? In other words - did you ever think vp perverted the gospel of Christ?”
I see the perverted gospel in churchianity where a relationship with Jesus Christ is counterfeited by emotions.
Some of those emotions, in the early stages of this counterfeit process, can be genuine reactions to genuine understanding of parts of God’s Word. But, from my experiences, later on those emotions fade, as all emotional feelings do. When this happens the person who HAD experienced them naturally wants to recharge them because they felt good. By then he had absorbed the prevalent counterfeit teaching that THOSE FEELINGS were a relationship with Jesus Christ.
I remember nuns in the RC Church describing this as the reason they joined the convent. In a sense they think of themselves as married to Jesus. They do whatever they have to do to artificially pump up those emotions. When those endorphins finally do flow they feel like they are “in love” with Jesus and that is their counterfeit relationship.
I used to try and do this when I was a child in Catholic School, but being a male, I felt that it was impossible to go this route as efficiently as a female could, and I felt cheated.
Later on in life I found that some Protestants had found non-homosexual ways of duplicating the nuns’ approach, and they could get the endorphins flowing. The charismatic movement of the time even brought some of this to the RCs, but by then I was bowing out.
I suppose in other locales and in other centuries RC priests and monks may have gone this route of having an “emotional” relationship with what they thought was Jesus.
I also know now that brother-brother love can be quite strong and even emotional at times without introducing any sexual elements. I would expect that the apostles had such a brother-brother relationship with Jesus, and THOSE relationships were genuine.
However, those relationships were not strong enough nor spiritual enough to satisfy God Who wanted more for us. That relationship didn’t do them much good when they were out of Jesus’ presence, and it totally failed them during and after the crucifixion.
There was a time when Jesus told them that it would be good for them that he would leave. The kind of relationship that they had with him would be ending soon, he was telling them. Then that time finally came and he was removed from their sight.
What PFAL taught me was that the flesh person of Jesus Christ was removed by God from sight, and those flesh relationships were terminated FOR A GOOD REASON. That reason was that God had a secretly planned a BETTER kind of relationship for them.
The ministry of Jesus Christ on earth, in the senses realm, was spectacular, but it ended. He ascended and sat down at the right hand of the Father. In II Cor. 5:16 we are told “Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.”
Trying to go back to knowing Christ after the flesh is bound to end up in counterfeit soup because it is no longer available. You can’t call Christ on the phone and meet him at Starbucks. If you do it’s either another road to Damascus incident, or the more likely “spiritual problem.”
The relationship we can have with Christ starts with receiving “Christ in you the hope of glory.” Then that is improved and it becomes Christ in you THE GLORY! This is the “Christ formed in you” teaching that so few heard or remember of Dr’s, even though he did it three times that I have tape of, and probably some more. I have posted one of the transcripts here, but I don’t know if it survived the pruning of a few years ago.
My relationship with Christ is, IN MY WORDS, like the relationship a theater actor has with the role he plays. An actor is not the character he plays, but in time an actor can “identify” with that part. This can be a identity problem for that actor if it goes too far. For us, going all out in this PFAL sponsored relationship is void of problems. (Gal 4:18)
In my RC taught relationship with Christ I had to follow him at a distance. In my PFAL taught relationship to Christ I get to fill his shoes and walk his walk. I take the place of the absent (flesh) Christ wherever I go, as long as I live in that mind of Christ PFAL teaches and not in my old man nature. This is the whole point of the remaining verses in II Corinthians 5.
Let’s look at them.
I Cor. 5:16-21
Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh:
yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh,
yet now henceforth know we him no more.
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature:
old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
And all things are of God,
who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,
and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
To wit, that God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto himself,
not imputing their trespasses unto them;
and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ,
as though God did beseech you by us:
we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
In this passage Paul is teaching that the old relationship with Christ is past, and that the new one was in full swing for Paul, but not yet for the Corinthians. They had pneuma hagion and could SIT, but they were carnal. They hadn’t yet gotten Christ FORMED in their soul/minds. They had Christ CREATED in them spiritually, pneuma hagion, but their minds were carnal, old man nature minds, for the most part.
Paul was teaching them so they too could rise up to this superior relationship with Christ. Paul was acting in Christ’s place for them. They weren’t up to that speed yet, so the “us” and the “we” in there refers to Paul and Timothy, the “you” refers to the Corinthians.
I don’t see this kind of relationship taught in churchianity. I see mere emotionalism there at best, and a counterfeit christ-relationship at worst, especially when the trinity is brought in and it’s a god-man counterfeit christ that’s in that relationship. This is what Paul was talking about when he warned us not to pervert the relationship he had the revelation to teach. Paul’s gospel shows us the ministry of THE MAN Jesus Christ seated at the right hand of God.
The relationship with Christ we can have is to become LIKE him as I John 3:2 teaches.
To see the fullness of this requires PFAL because it was lost before the apostle Paul died. Full recovery took 2000 years and divine intervention. The Word was lost in the first century and then re-issued to us in PFAL in a new format, but the same ideas as Paul’s, with an added element. Paul ministered to God’s people by revelation to help them move into the Grace Administration, while Victor Paul helped God’s people by revelation to move into the into the Appearing Administration.
Interestingly, the notion of the Word being lost and re-issued comes up in my next response to brideofjc, as well as elements being added in the re-issue.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
bride4ofjc,
You wrote: “Oh, Puhleez, Mike....your view of God is small indeed, if you think that He hasn't watched over HIS WORD. Do not the Scriptures assert that "He magnified HIS WORD even above HIS NAME?”
The Word of God is protected and impossible to harm. It’s spiritual.
Once God gives His Word to be written, then THAT form of His Word is in the senses realm and CAN be damaged and even lost. The written forms of God’s Word are NOT nearly so impervious as the same Word in God's mind. That original manuscript of the written Word and any copies that are made are the charge of human beings. Those documents are subject to mis-copying and forgeries and even destruction.
Jeremiah 36 contains the record of such a destruction. It was the written form that was cut up into pieces and then thrown into a fire. The spiritual Word of God that came to be placed on that scroll was NOT destroyed, and God made arrangements to have it written again, with many words added in the second version.
Another instance of the written Word being lost is recorded. It was lost for some time under the debris of a ransacking of the temple, but later found. Jeremiah rejoiced over this finding of these lost scriptures.
The Word of God as it was written in the stars (before Moses) was corrupted over time and eventually totally lost with no replacement, not in the stars anyway. The last people I know of who could accurately read anything of detail in the stars were the Magi some 2000 years ago.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Once again Mike, thanks for opening your heart. I don't know about anyone else – but sometimes I get bored when discussions drag on in a combative manner…Thought I'd just try a decaffeinated approach for a change…
A few things you said brought up some thoughts of my past. I was brought up in the Roman Catholic Church and had the same feeling you mentioned of following Christ from a distance. My church was mostly about ceremonies, ritual, and Latin. It didn't engage the intellect or emotions.
The early part of my involvement with TWI was in a stark contrast to that church. Our Twig was just a bunch of kids cracking open the Bibles, excited about life and enjoying each other's company. I disagree with a lot of PFAL stuff now – but back then – at least it got me to open the Bible. It's been said cults are the unpaid bills of the church – and to that, I agree! It's too bad that I fell in step with the flow of TWI – because looking back I can see the influence and mindset of an organization slowly overshadowing mind and emotions...like a descending cloud of gloom...bondage...boredom.
And to be honest – I still felt like I was following Christ from a distance. vp's hyper-dispensational interpretation of the Bible had me looking at the gospels as irrelevant. I remember right after taking PFAL I began reading the Bible like crazy – all the way through – repeatedly. And I'd just go nuts in the gospels – relishing every word and deed of my Lord…I also remember the typical response of older grads to a lot of my questions about things I had read. They'd encourage me to read the church epistles, review the collaterals, and sit through the next PFAL class. Gee whiz – I think the most efficient way to anesthetize a brain is through boredom!
Anyway, since leaving behind TWI and their straitjacketing mindset, I have experienced a much more rewarding relationship with Jesus Christ – engaging intellect and emotions. As to my letting an organization's doctrine, practice, or leaders get in the way of my relationship with the Lord – I forgive myself – and have vowed never to let that happen again!
Love and peace, T-Bone
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi T-Bone,
Thank you much for this exchange. I was highly motivated to answer you in as much detail as possible, considering the late hour. I do wish more conversations here would go that way for me.
I trust you see that my relationship with Jesus Christ is rich and well thought out, and not altogether missing like I suspect some grads were headed long ago.
I saw the ministry as marble cake in motion.
There were light spots and dark spots and they were all swirling around in motion. I did my best to avoid the dark and bask in the light. This worked well for me until the early 80’s and it started to get tougher. I started seeing that the situations I had been hearing a few scattered friends complaining about were starting to become more and more manifest. The dark spots increased as LCM and the first large Corps (like 6th and 7th) were taking over.
Earlier I mentioned twice that where the active hand of the true God is, not far will be the active hand of the adversary to mess things up. This is why it was marble cake.
***
You wrote: “And I'd just go nuts in the gospels – relishing every word and deed of my Lord...”
I did that too. But here’s another thing I did. Have you ever noticed in a red letter edition of the KJV that there are several red passages in Acts, and I don’t mean at the beginning, before the Ascension. The road to Damascus incident is in Acts THREE TIMES!
The first account is in the chronological slot, early in Acts, and is told by the narrator, Luke. The other two are much later and are flashbacks where Paul is describing the incident.
If you take a word processor and paste those three passages from Acts into it a blank document, what you have is remarkably similar to Colossians Chapter One.
I have often found that these three accounts that include direct quotes of Jesus’ (and recorded by the writer of the Gospel of Luke) are not NEARLY as well known as Jesus’ words in the 4 Gospels.
***
I’ve noticed in many theological circles that Paul is looked down on. Some churches actually don’t count Acts and the Epistles as doctrine and they SAY SO openly. Many other churches quietly steer people away from Paul giving a myriad of excuses. It is very difficult in traditional circles to reconcile Paul with the 4 Gospels. Paul and his epistles (and hence the ministry of Jesus Christ seated at God’s right hand) are irrelevant to them.
There was something similar in the ministry. There were TVTs that made the 4 Gospels irrelevant.
I did NOT get the impression that the Gospels were irrelevant from PFAL, just that there was an even MORE relevant Gospel of Paul.
In the first century the curriculum God laid out for newborn baby Gentile Christians was first the Word spoken by Paul and then his written epistles followed. THEN much later the Gospels were written, kind of like an Advanced Class.
This is the same order we were given the Word, first spoken in the film class, then the collaterals, and THEN finally came “Jesus Christ Is Not God” and “Jesus Christ Our Passover” and “Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed.” We finally did get our exposure to the Gospels and lots of detail about Jesus’ walk on earth, but only after we saw his ministry at God’s right hand, which is bigger.
***
Unfortunately, there were those dark spots in the marble cake. I saw individuals in leadership positions who would brag about not being a “Jesus person” and say terrible things like “Jesus was dead and gone.” I saw some actually put down the Jesus of the Gospels as a wimp.
All these dark distortions were derived FROM the teachings of Dr, but NOT ACCURATELY. Dr had a heart for the Jesus of the Gospels, but I saw these individuals develop a dark heart towards him, due to their sloppy idiotic handling of Dr’s teachings. I had to quietly “mark and avoid” them. Most unfortunately, they got more and more power and were harder and harder to avoid.
***
I’ve seen it posted here that Dr did not like even saying the name “Jesus” without saying “Christ” right after it, or preferably before it, but that he liked “Christ” all alone best. This is a grand distortion of Dr’s teaching, and reflects the kinds of individuals I mentioned above. I have found OODLES of places in the collaterals where “Jesus” alone is the dominant nomenclature.
I saw individuals who would visually cringe and then “reprove” at the mention of “Jesus” alone, but never did I see or hear or read Dr do that.
If there was a particular passage that called for “Christ” all alone or “Christ Jesus” and someone would mistakenly use “Jesus” alone, I could see a cringe and a correction, but it was clear to me that Dr was not at all into the “Jesus phobia” those derelict individuals were propagating. There were TVTs that grew up to spread this and the marble cake eventually turned black with mold.
I’m very thankful for the light spots that did shine through and bless us all. I’m very thankful for the light that was preserved in the written forms of PFAL. I’m very thankful for this discussion with you in your allowing me to get this all out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
brideofjc,
You wrote: “Contradicting yourself, Mike! Read again your first line....then read your own contradiction of your own words.”
Ok, let’s read them together.
I wrote: “The Word of God is protected and impossible to harm. It’s spiritual.”
Notice I didn’t say Bible or written anywhere here. Before humans, before writing was invented, before there was an Earth, before matter and energy were created there was God. Before the written Word existed, there was God and in his mind was His Word and will. God had foreknowledge of what He was GOING TO have written much later, but it wasn’t in written form. This is what I meant when I wrote at the end “It’s spiritual.”
What God remembers having had put into written form is protected and impossible to harm. That’s what I meant when I wrote at the beginning “The Word of God is protected and impossible to harm.”
Then I wrote: “Once God gives His Word to be written, then THAT form of His Word is in the senses realm and CAN be damaged and even lost. The written forms of God’s Word are NOT nearly so impervious as the same Word in God's mind. That original manuscript of the written Word and any copies that are made are the charge of human beings. Those documents are subject to mis-copying and forgeries and even destruction.”
Following the pattern I saw Dr take, when I write “The Word of God” I mean what’s in God’s mind, and it’s spiritual, not physical. When I write “Bible” I mean that same Word of God but put into physical written form.
Do you see the difference? There is a spiritual Word of God that is always pure, and then there is the same Word in written form that starts out pure, but can be corrupted because it’s in the realm run by the god of this world. This will end someday.
Let me know if you see this apparent contradiction reconciled now and we can move on to some other points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike, I’m enjoying our discussion here too…I had a meltdown…or realization…or something on a thread awhile back [maybe getting a good glimpse of my ugly side
] – and it sort of got me looking at folks here a little differently – but in a good sense…And please don’t take offense to this – but what you’ve been saying in these posts is a lot easier for me to process than when you’re in your PFAL mode. As I’m sure I can be very abrasive when I’m in my anti-PFAL mode.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Not to be argumentative, but I thought I WAS in my PFAL mode all through this exchange.
Do you possibly mean "combative mode"? THAT mode I felt I had dropped for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah Mike - I stand corrected - I should have said the combative mode.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'm delighted to hear your words. Thank you again for this exchange.
I don't remember any of the details of our exchanges in the past. I’ve had combat with too many people here to remember them all. A few I do, but in time that can blur easily. I focus on remembering the ideas that come up more than the names. Maybe if we all posted actual pictures of ourselves I’d do better here.
You mentioned an epiphany or yours on another thread. I don’t know if I was involved there or similarly elsewhere, but if I was I’d be happy to re-enter those discussions here or in PMs to translate between friendly mode and combative mode ways of putting things. This offer I’d like to extend to everyone here, but when I meet someone like you and what you’re saying now, I see it as an opportunity to broadcast this invitation.
I was never combative in my ministry days. I had to develop that skill in 1988 when I noticed leaders needed confrontations more and more. I was very clumsy at first and made many mistakes. I still blow it at times (was suspended here once, and almost a second time) but I think I’m better. I vastly prefer the friendly approach.
Many times here I’ll be swinging away at many combatants. Once it was 74 posters who were simultaneously food fighting with me. I didn’t count them; one of THEM did the counting as a way of trying to persuade me with numbers.
When I’m in such a fray and a new poster comes in who doesn’t know me and I don’t know them, they tend to pick up with the side of the majority and chime in with them. There have been times when I used combative mode WAY TOO MUCH on them, not realizing their relative newness to the fray. I have felt badly when I noticed later that that happened. I think some people like Tom Strange got initial impressions of me that way, or seeing me deal with a newbee that way, and we’ve been antagonists ever since.
When you mentioned your epiphany it reminded me of this.
Do you think that these kinds of communication-connects help develop better abilities in forgiveness?
I do.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Without wishing to be redundant....NO! You said it yourself, Mike, even if you wish to leave it in God's mind, which then it would be impossible for us to know....then of a necessity God must put it into either a verbal or written form....which GOD CAN HAVE REWRITTEN if somehow it gets lost or corrupted. But its a fair shot Mike that not all of the written forms would be corrupted at one time. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls find....God kept that ace up his sleeve and pulled it out when those that wished to debunk the prophetic utterances concerning HIS SON were saying that the prophecies were really written post-Christian era.
The debunkers have shut their mouths.
So, no Mike, GOD PROTECTS HIS WORD.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
All the NT originals were lost.
All the originals were copied in such a way it required Stevens and others to “criticize” the fragments and “correct” them. The ink of these Critical Greek Texts was still wet 1500 years after the originals were lost.
The oldest manuscript fragments date back to which century? The 4th or 3rd?
The oldest intact NT dates to around 800 AD and is in Latin.
Looks like something got pretty darn lost and/or shredded and scattered.
***
I celebrate here often that God can and does re-issue His Word. I refuse to believe a bunch of people who believe there are three gods will get revelation from the One God in re-constructing the originals as Stevens and the others tried.
Sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Absolutely, Mike on this kind of thing promoting forgiveness…Absolutely…
My "epiphany" happened during the chapter and verse thread in Doctrinal…And it was through a lot of dialogs with my wife Tonto and good friend Another Dan that I saw how much I was letting Grease Spot consume my time and energy – and a lot of it was over pointless arguing.
…And not to re-hash my "PFAL mode" statement but I was actually trying to compliment you on your post # 913. Especially with your referencing one of my top seven favorites – the Book of Acts:
That statement is intriguing – and I'll have to check that out – thanks! I don't know if this will come out right – so please don't take offense. The reason I so enjoyed your post # 913 was because the above quote wasn't laced with a PFAL promo – it came from YOU – and it was strictly about the Bible…That's cool.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Since any chance of ever being forgiven for anything has been long since lost, this:
Mssr. Weirwille did a good job of marketing his anti-"trinitarian" opinion by characterzing it in one restrictive image - "3 Gods vs 1". As with some of his material from the JCING book, it's a very incomplete and inaccurate rendering of the topic and does little to aid in understanding who Jesus Christ was or is. It's a "negative sermon" in the form of a slogan.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Mike, they didn't reconstruct it like apparently you are envisioning as if they went up to some mountaintop and " ahhhh-uhmmmmm, ahhhh-uhmmmmmm, Oh, tell us Great One what you had written before! ahhhh-uhmmmmm, ahhhh-uhmmmmmm." The scribal process was an ongoing one, with new mss being copied and sent to new areas
as the church grew and multiplied. I don't remember the papyrii number, and it may even have been in the Hebrew, but the scribe was young and in training and actually copied the author's margin notes and put it directly into the text not realizing that it was only marginal notes and not actual text. But guess what, Mike? The scholars know about these errors and they are duly catalogued and numbered. Besides which, the places where they know about these errors, most of these errors were just that....errors and not deliberate forgeries.
You still haven't made any citations of the documents you're supposedly getting this information from....why is that? They surely have an online version somewhere, where I can also read what you are reading....unless you're talking off the top of your head.
All the originals were copied in such a way it required Stevens and others to “criticize” the fragments and “correct” them. The ink of these Critical Greek Texts was still wet 1500 years after the originals were lost.
Citation? Any?
And then it would seem that you choose to use the KJV which was from the Stevens text...why is that? Why not choose another more modern version?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe none of them had an "orange" cover.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Well,
if one wants a Bible that has the closest relation to the texts into English,
the New Revised Standard is #1,
with the New American Standard Bible, and the Revised Standard,
then coming up the rear's the Contemporary English and the New International.
If one wants a Bible that has the italics,
there's the King James, the New King James, and the New American Standard Bible.
If one wants a Bible that translates the same word into the same word more often,
then that strength has been criticized of the New American Standard Bible.
In short, the New American Standard Bible is about the best Bible one can find in
English. It's one of the very best for general usage, and for italics fans,
it is far, far better than the KJV and NKJV.
However, some people have chosen the KJV, and they will stay with it no matter what,
just as some others chose the NIV and will stay with it no matter what.
That's a shame, since both can easily find Bibles that would serve them better
(The NRSV over the NIV, the NASB over the KJV.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.