Tom

Well, like I said, I just dropped in, so I can't address that other post. Just looking at what's written. I try to do that these days. It helps to keep me free from TWI think, support professors with a predisposition that SIT isn't presently real, general gainsaying viewpoints, theological crap manufactured in the minds of men & certified valid by a certificate from the wizard of OZ. OK, so I'm prejudiced about those certified by the wizard, but dig it. I once sold concordances, bibles, PFAL books, door to door in the Way International Marketing Dept.. I spent quite a bit of that time in the backwoods areas of North Carolina where I tslked with many a person who had read the bible every day for 50 years or more. And their "pastors." God forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember meeting one of those pastors who wasn't a complete theologically concretized jerk - as in I'VE BEEN TO SUCH & SUCH SCHOOL & HAVE THIS DEGREE & THAT DEGREE, & YOU ARE A KNOW NOTHING (no, sorry, a particularly awesome pastor with the heart of Jesus comes to mind). On the other hand, the people who had read the bible every day for 50 years or more were amazing. I couldn't say anything to them that wasn't on the Word without them showing me 18 places where the Word contradicted what I was saying. Obviously, it made an impression on me. Here I am, 35 or so years later, still talking about it. I've been at meetings where people from other countries understood the words spoken in tongues - that's the least of things, but the most easily recognized - like in Acts 2, so if this is a thread dedicated to the presupposition that tongues today is false - in the name of "real research" - just let me know; I'll bow out.

Hmm, sounds good, but it doesn't say they were speaking all those languages, just that the people heard THEM speak in HIS OWN language, so here are the 12 speaking in tongues, & each person out there listening hears all 12 speaking in his own language. Sounds weird, I know, but no weirder than anything else that we were taught happened. Certainly was NOT a normal day at the temple. Why not just believe what it says? Haven't heard anything less weird when I think about it.

Ah, gotcha Nate. Still, any communication God sends your way is meant to be understood - at least on some level. Might take a while for you to get it, but God is not stupid & He knows you. If He sends you something, you CAN understand it - at least on some level. Right? His Word doesn't come back void; it accomplishes that for which He sent it.

Like 1 Corinthians 13:1 ¶Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels. Seems like other than human languages is not injecting into the text something that isn't there. It is apparently there.

Ah, been a while since I've been in this neighborhood. Don't want to step on toes. I know you appreciate being outside the TWI thought box, & yet, being products of your experiences, a bunch of the stuff that pops out of your heads, comes out of that box. Me too. OK, so anyway, here goes. Please recognize that any discussion of differences between the Giver and the Gift comes out of a TWI paradigm. Jesus Christ, God, us, we are all one. There is no "difference." Jesus Christ prayed so in the gospel of John Ch 14-16 concerning the coming of the Comforter. Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Takes a while to get it, no doubt (especially in the light/darkness of TWI thought), but there it is. No Giver & Gift - ONE SPIRIT, ONE BODY, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH. Ah, am I coopting this thread. Not my intent. Just trying to respond to what you said. I'll shut up if you want me to. Good thread though - thanks. Tom

Hi Nate & all. Been forever since I've been around here, & I feel a little uncomfortable, but I'll give it a shot. RE: interpreting "the supernatural with our own experiences rather than what really scriptural teaches," I'd just like to say that, yeah, we are all so sucked up into our own experiences, but our own experiences is all we have, right? God's word notwithstanding - or being part of those experiences. But God, the master teacher, knows that's what he has to deal with, & so he deals with us in the light of our experiences. Like where the Word says that he purifies language 7x77 times in a furnace in the making of His Word, so he purifies the language of our lives as we experience the supernatural. It is God transforming us. Yes, it takes work. It is the work of a lifetime. But it is His work. It's like the coolest thing, really. Not trying to be obtuse here. Hope this makes sense to some. Love, Tom

Hi geisha, IMO, you did a superlative job of describing what is perceived as a contradiction between grace & works, but is not. I'm sorry I couldn't find the exact post - that would have improved the compliment, but the compliment is sincere. Tom

Aweful lot of words to add up to this, but it doesn't add up. What people do with a communication has no bearing on whether the communication is...really it just has no bearing on it. Besides, every language is as able to communicate any thought ever thought as any other language. Some languages just take more words to do it. Pretty much the same with vocabulary. The word nincompoop may not be in someone's vocabulary, but I'll bet with a little work, anyone can get the idea across. Wierwille, faults notwithstanding, didn't forget that part.

Lately, the idea that God is faithful seems to be showing up all over the place for me. We do this, do that, put up with stuff - all because God is faithful. Job held on to that. I guess it is all over the bible, duh, but it is certainly central to Job.

No argument from me on that, Tom, but some examples would be worth looking at. BTW, a verse that I found instructive on this topic is "Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." I take it that imperfect words are purified in context in the Word. Rather impressive!

When words are translated into English for use in the bible, they many times wind up with various translations all from the same Greek word. Back in '74/75, a bible became popular among WC at HQ. I forget what it was called, but the research that went into it reduced words to one translation that was supposed to be the best for all possible uses. The read was somewhat awkward; it read like one of VP's "literal translations according to usage." I probably have it in storage. VP said we should be VERY careful about reading this translation. I believe he said that no one could reduce any word to one definition that would work all the time. You know, he was always about context to determine meaning. Matter of fact, he taught that all words - even the same word used in different contexts wind up with a refinement of meaning determined by its context. Not to say something possitive about VP in such an environment where the letters VP have an exceedingly negative meaning in context, but I think he had some rather fine perspectives to offer on the meanings of words in context. Matter of fact, that's what his literal translations according to usage were purportedly all about - believe it or not. Not sure where you get your thinking, Twinky, that "All that word-study stuff was interesting, and I learned a lot doing it. But it presupposes that a word never changed or developed its meaning over all the hundreds of years..." You brought up the word "prevent." Remember in the foundation class, VP taught that words must be understood in the light of their biblical usage, & he used as an example how prevent used to mean precede? Think I'm right on that memory. Part of the disagreement with VP is what he taught on administrations - whatever. What I want to say here is that one of my favorite word studies had to do with the word "house," & how it morphed in meaning from the OT to the gospels (also OT OK, right?) to Acts to the church epistles, developing into the word "administration." For what it's worth, Tom

Sorry, cman, for cutting your very fine post off. Good job. Thanks for that. I'm just remembering at one time, TWI drew a fine distinction between a mathematical exactness & a scientific precision. Only problen with that distinction is mathematics IS a science - the science or the sciences dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement.

I have a couple of Columbian friends. When we were growing up, & I was learning Spanish, from time to time I would ask them what a certain phrase meant, & they would say they couldn't explain it to me - the literal translation DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE in English. They were idioms. Somebody probably knows where the term hot dog comes from, & how it came to mean what it does, but really, for someone from a different culture who wants to know what it is, who cares? It doesn't make sense; just tell me what it means.

Bishop Pillai's perspective was thought of as valuable mainly because it brought up the Oriental point of view on an Oriental book. The idea that anyone would discount the idea of an idiom of permission because it doesn't make sense - doesn't make sense. Of course it wouldn't make sense to the Western mind if it is an Eastern idiom. It didn't make sense to me for years. I can't put it into words any more than has been done here, but after soaking my head in the book for enough time, it just started to make complete sense as part of the thinking of the Eastern mind - it was part of the fabric of the thing - couldn't get away from it.

I'll take a shot at it: As I remember from a language class that delt with the development of language, the first thing a little one experiences is that something is happening, then what is making it happen - finger hurts, stove hurt my finger. The little one now has a sentence - a subject and what the subject is doing. in any language, that's how it starts. Then little one starts blending this internal grammar with language he/she is hearing to the point where when little one starts talking, little already has a vocabulary of a couple of thousand words inside waiting to be worked by little one's internal grammar into expression. What we learn in English class is "prescribed" grammar, but the really effective way our internal grammar develops is by exposure to more advanced expression either through reading or hanging with people whose grammar is more developed than ours. Vocabulary & facility of expression is one of the few things that continue to develop in a person throughout his/her lifetime. Anyway, that's what I remember learning in school - I believe it was a linguistics class. Invest in your future; read people who can throw words together to express deep dang simply & engagingly. Back to topic.

Yeah, well, wow, I can see where such considerations could cause an endless loop - probably put my money on it that it DOES cause an endless loop, something that we will never plummet to the end, nor profit from in any further way after the first few loops. It’s a wonder that we communicate at all. But we do!!! Now there’s a whole linguistics study of depth that I’m not going into, but, hey, check this out: I know of a 5000 year old Native American story. According to this Native American, it is 5000 years old. Now I now, 5000 years old – how could they know that? Blah, blah (short for blah, blah, blah). But NDN memory goes way back. Their memory goes back to before Alcatraz was an island. Wow! The Iroquois memory goes back to date their constitution (attempt to date according to our system for our benefit), a model upon which our constitution – and perspective of indepence - built in great measure – to 1000 or 1400 AD. Big difference, but either way, wow! This story that goes back 5000 years is about the Great Spirit sending his son who gets killed by the Evil One, but raised up by the Great Spirit three days later to forever care for the Great Spirit’s people, the NDN’s. Give or take a few thousand years that still predates the births of Jesus, the Vikings who first visited the New World, or Columbus for that matter. Parallels of the NDN prophecy to biblical prophecy are impossible to not see. But was the Great Spirit’s son in the story, Christ or the Comforter? I tend to think that any Christ that existed before Jesus Christ existed, existed, like, ourselves, in the mind of God and His believers. The Comforter was something new, something promised to come that came. It is come. God and Christ are come in the one spirit, the one gift, the one new man, the Comforter. Wow! A lot to take in. Not God, but God comes with it. Not Christ, but Christ comes with it. A Spirit that started as fire from God, & split into tongues of fire that entered into the 12. The fire is one fire with tongues never separating from their source. So are we with the Comforter. You don’t have YOUR spirit (as in yours & no one else’s). I don’t have mine & mine alone. We are one, our membership in particular realized therein. Tom

Hi cman. I haven't read the rest of the posts, but here is what I see as the answer. In the same context as the scripture you quoted, Jesus said he would not leave us alone, but he would come unto us - the same context. So Jesus was the first comforter & he came to us in the coming of the other comforter that came on Pentecost - the one spirit. Those with the one spirit make up the one body with Jesus as the head. I mean, no?

It is totally mercy that this intercession stops the judgment against us. We deserve none of this deliverance that intercession gives us. After this wonderful chapter 8 of Romans tells us of this intercession and that nothing can separate us from the love of God, chapters 9-11 are a parenthesis dealing with Israel. Then comes chapter 12. If chapters 9-11 are a parenthesis, then we ought to be able to leave them out and proceed directly from the end of 8 to the beginning of 12 & have it flow. Chapter 12 begins, "Romans 12:1 ¶I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God." What mercies of God? The stuff chapter 8 is talking about. Mercy, Tom

I have some thoughts on the above things that interested you, but first let me say that is excellent work you've done. Thanks for sharing it. John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 ¶I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter. Jesus was the first Comforter. 18 ¶I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. He also is the 2nd comforter. Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this. The spirit of Christ came with the Comforter which is holy spirit - not the Holy Spirit, God, but the holy spirit, the Comforter. So, to have Christ making intercession IS to have the spirit making intercession. John 14:12 ¶Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. For us to make intercession IS for the spirit to make intercession IS for Christ to make intercession. John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. We're all one.

1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. There is a purpose for the law in this grace administration. The above verses tell us its purpose. I figure that I Cor. 6 is written to believers. Screwed up believers (C'mon, we're talking about I Corinthians) But believers nevertheless. The idea is that the two disputing parties are going to accept Paul's reproof. Now, if someone breaks the law - that's who the law is for.

I feel really stupid, but I have a problem answering that question. It seems to me that the answer depends. I've got a couple of answers. 1. When I said three heavens was a Jewish notion, I was looking at Easton's Bible Dictionary under "heaven." When he said three heavens was a Jewish notion, he was referring to the firmament where the fowls fly as the first, the starry sky as two, and the spiritual realm as three - although they didn't number them. I just opened 5 or 6 websites on the subject. They all agreed with Easton. After looking at many of the verses Easton and these websites referred to, I agree that the Jews definitely had 1 of these three notions in mind when they said heaven. However, I doubt that the Jews were taught in Temple that there were three heavens, & they were numbered 1, 2, & 3, such that when Paul referred to the third heaven, the Jews would immediately recognize, "Oh, the third heaven - Paul is referring to the spiritual realm." I don't see any indication that the Jews numbered the heavens. 2. So, there seems to be the possibility that when Paul referred to the third heaven, he was referring to the new heaven and earth to come after this present heaven and earth pass away. Then Gen.1:1 would be the first, we are in the second, & the coming would be the third. This makes sense to me. I would say that both perspectives of the heavens may very well be accurate. Wierwilles comment about what the "ancient" Jews believed umm, I don't see it.

Nice catch, Jb. I agree that the ancients had no common cosmology & that even the Jews had no common cosmology - at least I'm not going to argue the point. Never could see two Jews agree on anything - except there should be an Israel (that's 1/2 joking from a 1/2 Jew - Jews are famous historically for arguing jots and tittles). Nevertheless, there are certain notions about cosmology in ancient times that could be considered Jewish (or Judean:)). It was an ancient Jewish notion that there are 3 heavens. There are various words translated heaven, each with its own meaning. Firmament, as Jb pointed out, is between the earth and the waters above. The "fowls of the heaven" fly there. I haven't read further than Jb's post on page one, so sorry if this post is out of place or has already been covered. Hey, been a while - hello everyone. Ha, just read waysiders post about sleeping in a heavenly place. I see birds flying around here lower than rooftop level, so I would think that if one is sleeping on the 2nd or 3rd floor, "ancient" Jews might consider that a heavenly place. Heck, my parents had a luxury apartment rather high off the ground. I considered it up in the heavens. Of course, I was taught by Wierwille, but I can see that perspective as maybe "ancient" Jewish in character. Okay, here's one for you. Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is at hand. At hand means immediately present - right here, right now. And he wasn't talking about himself. After he put the spirit upon the apostles, he told them to go preach the same. The kingdom of heaven is right here, right now. Love, Tom Heller

Well, I finished the book. Not much to add to what I said above, except when I said, "One surprise was that I saw that TWI incorporated was sooo just another church," I hadn't read the comments on the previous page yet about TWI being or not being a church. Also, someone on page 1 said that they never wanted the book to end. I can agree. I was sorry when I came to the end of it that there was no more. Of course, there is more - the emergence of the truths that it contains in our lives:).

Unnecessarily insulting, all God's magnanimous forgiving nature notwithstanding, apparently. Self-denigrating, actually. I’ll assume the best of intentions on your part. Thanks for trying. And thank you for sharing the context of Jesus' presence in Matthew. It really is quite beautiful. Have a blessed New Year. Tom

“I simply am pointing out that what you wrote is not true. Anyone can meet in Jesus name....” Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. These many are SAYING to the Lord that they are doing this or that in his name, but they are not really; really, they are working iniquity. Obviously, I am not talking about people who are just SAYING that they are gathering in the name of Jesus, but those who really are. If you are saying that Jesus is NOT among those who gather in his name, then I don’t know what to say in response – enjoy whatever community you feel among those you gather with in whomever’s or whatever’s name you are gathering? But, on the other hand, if you believe that when you gather with others in his name, he is in your midst, then it is the truth that he is in the midst of those who gather in his name – whether you are, at the time, kicking people out of your church or not. It is either the truth that he is in the midst of his followers, or it is not. I don’t argue the depth of Jesus’ application of that truth in Matthew. Quite frankly, that is off topic. He still is in the midst of those who follow him. Nevertheless, the vastness and beauty of his application of that truth in Matthew is no less vast or beautiful in its application in or outside an institution. THAT’s on topic. That Jesus is in the midst of those gathering in his name is true wherever true followers gather. But, if you insist that is only true in the context of Matthew (despite the fact that I feel sorry for your community when you gather that he is not there), and that it doesn’t need another context, I can only say, then don’t add an institutional context requirement. All your possible inferences aside, Jesus didn’t add that requirement, I don’t, & the book never did. Maybe it is only the institutional environment that is your perspective that limits your perspective of the sufficiency of the Body to operate without it. I’m an English teacher. I teach my students that anything added to their text that is not necessary, detracts. We are sufficient in him. Institutions, made by the hands of man, well you get the idea – or not. Thankful for everything Jesus is doing in your life, Tom