Tom

I didn't say that. I didn't mean that. I suspect you know that.

:) , Amen, sister.

I would just like to add that this book is talking about Jesus leading and people following - the Body of Christ in action, something that wasn't available in the temple model (yes, now we are the temple something that will burst the old wineskin temple model). The Body of Christ in action is something that wasn't available either in the Way Tree church model that Jethro advised Moses to adopt. When I first got involved with The Way: There was no Way Tree: We fellowshipped daily from house to house, and we fellowshipped in churches with steeples on top. Although there were basically fellowships that met in certain homes, the homes many times changed, & people often went to fellowship wherever they wanted to. And when we weren't doing that, we were, nevertheless together doing all kinds of things together, daily. Joints and bands ministering growth to the body in love Ephesians calls it - all coming from the head, Christ. It is not the impossible dream unless you stifle it with a structure. There was no WOW program: God really did tell people where to go to move the Word, & they really did go, & the Word really did move. There was no $ to HQ: We took care of each other. It worked; there was no lack. There was no Way Corps: Jesus did a wonderful job of organizing everything, signs, miracles, and wonders following as we followed him. It is not a fairy tale written by a guy with a bad experience in an abusive church. IT REALLY, REALLY WORKS! It is the Body of Christ. It is the Word. It is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Then the Way Corps came into town, & told us we weren't following the Way Tree, cut up all those beautiful family lines of ministering that Jesus had put together, told us who we had to go to for teaching and ministering. That was only the beginning of the road down. A Church Model? Absolutely! Straight out of Moses and Jethro. Somehow, I don't think a temple model would have been any better. God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands. Neither does his real temple, the Body of Christ. Tom

Simply put that Jesus is in the midst of those gathered in his name, period. That doesn't become the truth only in church discipline context. It IS the truth that Jesus was applying to church discipline because it is the truth. Just as an aside, extrapolation is not necessarily a bad thing. That's exactly what Jesus was doing to Deut., else you would be stoning people instead of throwing them out of your churches. On the other hand, to indicate that Jesus is not in the midst of those who gather in his name UNLESS the context is church discipline is not justified IMO. Jesus is expounding; I'm reading into - pschaw. Apparently not :) Thanks.

I'm sorry you had such a bad experience last time you engaged in this topic on this forum. I accept that you mean no offense, but simply want to offer another perspective – your perspective. Likewise, please accept that disagreements with your perspective are not offered to offend. “Concerning the verses in Matthew about gathering in His name.....looking at the context I believe that this particular passage is referencing church discipline. It is not directly related to fellowship with other Christians.” Though the verses referenced are concerning church discipline, they most certainly relate to fellowship with other Christians. Though the immediate context concerns serious discipline in the church, there is nothing in the immediate context or the remote context to indicate that these verses are not true wherever believers are gathered in his name. If anything, there is the truth that where any one of us walk in his name, he is there. But one does not a church make, & we are talking about Jesus being among us when we are gathered in his name. I hope you don’t argue the truth of that. If so, I guess we just disagree. You went on for quite a while about that, but if you don’t disagree that Jesus is among we who gather in his name, I don’t see why to continue that argument. “Why not just say "I don't like church". Because, although you present yourself as just SIMPLY offering another perspective, that statement presents the author as presenting, not a simple perspective, but a simpleton one. It seems to me by your post that you think that the author does that, but I disagree. He is not as narrow-minded as you think. “Well, yes, but the difference is.....the author made up his pastor and church.....he took the nastiest caricature he could create.......the book is fiction. The author took stereotyping quite seriously. It may have been loosely autobiographical....but it is one mans opinion based on an experience with an abusive church.” Again, he is of a broader mind than your perspective allows you to perceive. “The book doesn't really give us a viable alternative IMO.” Sorry, but the working of the Body of Christ IS viable. “We should be sharing others burdens and journey. We should be walking along side others. But, does that wandering…” I must not be understanding what you’re saying here. Are you really saying that sharing other’s burdens and journey and walking along side others is wandering??? “…replace the need for a church home?” I don’t read the need for a church home anywhere in the bible. Believers in community as the family of God as they follow Jesus – does that need to even be compared to a church home? Do you have in your church institution “consistent fellowship,”and “a close Christian family?” If so, great. Again, the author would be blessed at that. His point is that the church structure within which you enjoy that does not foster the consistency of that fellowship. Tom

Newlife, you asked for comments after posters read the book. Well, I am about 1/2 way through the audio book, & must say that I am pleasantly surprised that the book; although, I expected to enjoy it, has far surpassed my expectations. One surprise was that I saw that TWI incorporated was sooo just another church. The parallels were impossible to escape, the identity easily seen. It was very freeing in an ultimate sort of way. Another pleasant surprise was the emphasis on following Jesus & the consequent reality of community & family. Yo, Sunesis, if you are reading this, get the book; you'll love it. Newlife, thanks so much for the recommendation. I really appreciate it. Tom

Bride: "Where two or three are gathered....there I will be in their midst." Not questioning your intent here, Bride, but, just pointing out that there is a lot in that ellipsis (...). Jesus is not in the midst of those who gather any more than you are the Bride of anyolewho. You are the brideOFJC, just as Jesus is in the midst of those who are gathered IN HIS NAME. Just because people started going to buildings with steeples that became known as THE church of the Lord Jesus Christ doesn't mean it was the church of the Lord Jesus Christ any more than people who gather in homes (because that's the way the 1st century church gathered) are necessarily gathering in his name. The early believers achieved the reality of Jesus in their lives because they followed him, not because they followed principles such as the church in the home. No "church," mega church or church in the home, or any combination of those, pretenting to the name "The Church" attains justifiably that name - that we should listen to the Holy Spirit to lead us to the place where we belong. Those who truly trust in the Holy Spirit accept His truth that we are already placed in the Body where it pleases Him. Any other "trust" in the Lord is misplaced. We should just trust that God is placing us in fellowship with others who are likewise believing the truth of the present reality of the One Body - accessing by believing the grace wherein we stand. "Believing" God to place us, when he already has, precludes his sufficiency and replaces his sufficiency with an institutional requirement to access his grace. Sufficient in Him, Tom

Sounds like my cup of tea. I ordered the CD audio version a few days ago when I first read this thread. I haven't received it yet. I figure that God has placed me in the body where it has pleased him, & we ARE the church, & we are complete in Christ, so going to "church" doesn't exist. It is an artifice within which people then engage in all manner of artifice. Truth exists there only because the darkness of the artifice cannot put out the light.

Had one of those ah ha moments today. Felt pretty stupid afterwards, like how did it take me so long, but here it is. I had a friend ask me how I was doing. I answered how bad can I be doing when there are rivers of living water flowing out of my belly. Then I remembered that God is a fountain of living waters & realized that it is God flowing out of my innermost being. I don’t know, it was a rather remarkable realization for me. God flowing out of us - how's that for fruit?

Hi gen - the beauty of your presence. Long time no see. RE: noticing things: I remember once when I realized we could receive revelation by feeling. I had never experienced that, & I told God I wanted to know how to do that. I had been taught that God was the great teacher more willing to show us than we were to receive, so I had no doubt that he would show me, but wow, how he showed me. Three days later, I was sick as a dog, & in charge of a PFAL film class. This girl/young woman showed up for the class. During the break, while speaking with her, I realized whe was very sick & asked her if she wanted me to minister healing to her. She said yes, & I did. The first thing that happened after I thanked God for her healing was that I felt this overpowering fever & thought I might fall down from the result. I thought - how can I possibly minister to her when I am so sick myself. But I perservered, & asked God what I should minister to. I got no direction. I kept asking & got a big nothing. I was about to tell her I was in no condition to minister, but then I thought, maybe this feeling is from God & thanked God for removing the fever. It was gone immediately, but then I felt such a heavy feeling in my legs that I thought I could not stand to do this. Again as I thought I received no further direction, I just thanked God for removing the heavy feeling in the legs. Well, this kind of thing went on for a full 15 minutes. When there were no other feelings of sickness, I just thanked God for her wholeness & ended the ministering. She said thanks & was about to go into the class which was in session, but I just had to ask her - because I had not idea if I had done this right, "How well did I do?" wierd question from the one doing the ministering, I know - and you think I would know, but I had no idea & had to ask. She said I did great. I hit every thing that was wrong with her. I hit it just when it seemed to be hitting her most, & it immediately left her. She felt great & was delivered from everthing that was bothering her. Well, I have to tell you, the fruit of the Spirit so welled up in me. It really was Christ in me. I could really take within my Spirit the infirmities of others like Christ did. I was blown away. But I never would have experienced that fruit of the Spirit had I not asked her how well I did. The fruit was there, but I would not have realized it without her feedback. Now, I know - I no longer need the feedback of others to enjoy the fruit. But the feedback is still cool. Your engagement in the operations of God working within you is a function of your believing that, as He says, He is doing so. Your enjoyment of the fruit is likewise a function of your beliving that he just did really work within you. God confirms his work at work within you. If others realize it before you or not - both are cool. It is a family affair. Tom

For what it is worth (its worth I'm not really considering at the moment), VP taught that the fruit of the spirit is a clump. I don't consider that the spirit is something we get freely, but, then the fruit is something we do of ourselves. That's just works. As we walk in the Spirit, the fruit results. Its like I'm driving down the highway of the Spirit, & one of the exits is lust. If I just keep driving down the highway of the Spirit, the result is I don't engage in lust. It is not a big deal accomplishment of the discipline of my flesh (in which resides the sentence of death). It is just a result of driving on the highway. I don't know if that is called patience or longsuffering - both of the fruit of the Spirit, but it is NOT something I DO. It is just a result of walking the way of the Spirit rather than the flesh. It's a good deal. I guess in present company, I should say that I also don't think that the walk in the Spirit is something that I operate at my option. That is a 180 degree lie that VP taught. The energizings of the Spirit are clearly God's operations at His option. We just believe that God is working in us to will and to do of His good pleasure. Jesus said he worked as God worked. Jesus told us that when we got the Spirit, we should do what he was doing. God doesn't work as we work. We work as He does. We participate in what God is doing according to our will to do so.

I have no problem with Jesus not knowing everything. I do have a problem concluding, therefore, that he spoke wrongly. Jesus was excellent at speaking without speaking wrongly - even when he was refering to OT prophecies as they pertained to the future or to his present - as was Paul. It is part of the job description so to speak. They both would utilize only that part of the prophecy that pertained to what they were saying. Jesus didn't know everything, but he knew what he knew, and he knew what he didn't know. And he had a good track record of not confusing the two - not wrongly applying the scriptures. He was the Word in the flesh. It doesn't fit that he wouldn't know what he was talking about, especially when he was speaking the Word - his last words to his followers. Can't swallow that one. Tom

Hmm, so when Jesus told Philip "he [the father] shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 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. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you," Philip really wasn't going to see that comforter? Neither were we "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word." Does context nullify the promise to Philip and those of us who believe? Tom

Very well put. I had a loose hunch it was something like that. I guess I was hoping that Aramaic was early enough to be reliable in its grammatical use of gender. Oh, well - at least, in conjunction with Is. 66:13, the feminine grammatical uses of Spirit and Conforter were key to opening my understanding of the feminine side of God. Anyway, thanks, TrustAndObey - that was the answer I was looking for. Enjoy the beautiful scenery! In the end, this was a very rewarding discussion for me. Abi, thanks much. Year, thanks for your godly contribution. cman, you said, "it is expressed though if we can just turn enough to look" Also well said - I'm turning now. Everyone else - thank you. Psalms 69:32 The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God. Tom

Thanks Todd & Roy, I appreciate the things you have said about the limitations of scholarly input (although I must say I've laboring under the belief that anything truly scholarly didn't necessitate any limitations - as a matter of fact, I would think that to be truly scholarly, would require that there were no limitations). Perhaps I'll have to narrow my understanding of the meaning of "scholarship." I am somewhat disappointed in the lack of response from the Aramaic scholars in the discussion. Perhaps they have no answer. Perhaps they are just otherwise engaged. I VERY much appreciate the added input and insight from both of you, and from Abigail, as to the feminine and masculine nature of God, Who created man in His/Her image. It is so wonderfully human of Him...Her. I suspect God is literally neither masculine nor feminine, and that these gender characteristics are figurative and (excuse the play on words) engendered by his desire to relate to us in every way. However, again, being figurative, they emphasize the truth of the completeness of God's relationship with us in a manner that the literal truth cannot express. I am fine with that. No, I am more than fine with that. All three of you have added immensely to my appreciation of my God - in a manner that will be with me forever. I still would like to know if the grammatical use of gender in the Aramaic bears on this at all, or is totally arbitrary (except for grammatical purposes). Tom

Thanks Abigail - may I call you Abi, friend? I've been waiting for some of the Aramaic scholars to respond with something directly biblical - maybe they don't know (which is fine), but your answer was very real and satisfying. Thank you! Tom

Exactly I'm not sure that it doesn't make much difference. I'm also not sure that it does. If the grammatical gender has to do, as you said, "more about it's philosophical qualities, then perhaps it does make a big difference. It depends on what you mean by "philosophical." Let me explain. For example, James said, "Now the Hebrew word RUACH (Aramaic RUCHA) is grammatically feminine, as is the phrase Ruach HaKodesh. This is matched by the role of the Ruach HaKodesh as “comforter” (John 14-16), and the identification of the “comforter”, with YHWH acting as a “mother” (Is. 66:13). Then he goes on to say, "While it is clear that the Ruach HaKodesh has no literal gender, it is also clear that the Ruach HaKodesh is grammatically and figuratively a “she”." Is this figurative and grammatical matching pure concidence, or does the grammatical use of the feminine carry some of the figurative power of YHWH acting as a mother in Is. 66:13, so that we may say, "she the Ruach gives testimony?" Would the Simitic ear receive that with some sense of the feminine care a mother might give simply because of the "she," or is grammitical gender arbitrary (except for purely grammitical reasons) and the matching purely coincidence. I'm sorry; I'm repeating myself. It matters because, if the use of the feminine carries some sense of the figure in Is. 66:13, figures being used for emphasis, the figure would more powerfully carry over to John 14 where the gender is feminine. I wasn't looking for that when I first asked the question, but it might be an added treat. What do you mean when you say gender carries "philosophical qualities?" Does philosophical include figurative? TrustAndObey? Anyone?

I've been looking at who/what the Comforter is, to the idea that there is only One Spirit. If the Spirit is an "it," that lends credence to the idea that each of us may have our own individual spirit - no, it doesn't really, but VP took advantage of that to leverage/spin the "it" interpretation into the doctrine that each of us has our own individual spirit. But there is One Spirit into which we are all made to drink. The ramifications of that - the "differences" are extensive and gratifying. Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Thanks Abigail, I'm really fine with that perspective. Isaiah 66:13 As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem. 14 And when ye see this, your heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall flourish like an herb: and the hand of the LORD shall be known toward his servants, and his indignation toward his enemies. Quite fine with it!

Here is a question I posed to James T: In the gospel of John, is the "he" or "him" in the Greek in the following versus the same gender in the Aramaic. Is it an it, neutral – does it matter in the Aramaic? Thanks James. 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. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Follows James's response, what do you think? Anyone? I don't want to ratchet up a judgment on James; I would appreciate any insight though: FROM HRV INTRODUCTION One problem that presents itself, in translating the New Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic into English, is that of the gender of the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). English is very different from Hebrew and Aramaic. To begin with, English has three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter (i.e. he, she, and it). Hebrew and Aramaic have no neuter gender. In Hebrew and Aramaic everything is either a “he” or a “she”, and nothing is an “it”. Also gender plays a much more important role in Hebrew and Aramaic, than in English. In English, gender is usually only an issue when dealing with pronouns. But in Hebrew and in Aramaic, nouns and verbs are also masculine or feminine. And while there are no true adjectives in Hebrew (nouns are used as adjectives), noun modifiers must agree in gender with the noun. Now the Hebrew word RUACH (Aramaic RUCHA) is grammatically feminine, as is the phrase Ruach HaKodesh. This is matched by the role of the Ruach HaKodesh as “comforter” (John 14-16), and the identification of the “comforter”, with YHWH acting as a “mother” (Is. 66:13). Now in English, the Ruach is often referred to as “he” or “it” as also in the Greek New Testament. However this seems very odd indeed, to the Semitic mind. Now it is very clear that the gender of the RUACH has been revised in many passages of the Aramaic, to agree with the Hellenistic concept of the Holy Spirit as being either a “he” or an “it”. Thus the pronouns used for the Ruach HaKodesh in John 14-16 in the Pedangta, are all masculine. However the hand of revision is very clear. For example, while both the Pedangta and Old Syriac have “he” in John 16:8, the Old Syriac has “she” just a few verses further down in 16:13, while the Pedangta has “he”. Moreover there are many passages in which the Pedangta itself, pairs the Ruach HaKodesh with feminine verbs and/or feminine modifiers: Mk. 1:10; John 1:32, 33; 6:63; 7:39; Acts 8:29, 39; 16:17; Rom. 8:9, 10, 11, 16, 26a, 26b, 1Cor. 3:16; 1Tim. 4:1; 1Pt. 1:11; 4:14 and 1Jn. 5:6. In fact the Pedangta Aramaic of Rom. 8:16, opens with: And she the Ruach gives testimony…. While it is clear that the Ruach HaKodesh has no literal gender, it is also clear that the Ruach HaKodesh is grammatically and figuratively a “she”.

Just a note here, Abigail, , no doubt, but I think you are a beautiful peacemaker, a credit to the Israel of God. Tom

Yes, I was in on part of that class. It was eminently practical - no wonder VP had problems with it. Later, in my "Way Career," during Body, Soul, & Spirit week, I decided to teach on wisdom, It was a hit, but now, listening to what you say about Steve's "seminar" on wisdom, I don't doubt that the roots came from Steve. Apparently, God thought different. Ha, "Waybot," maybe that's a clue to why you "knew" what you did about what God couldn't do in the hearts of men. What he was doing before your very eyes. "I noticed that TWI leaders that seemed the most mature or enlightened quit or were booted." And that showed you nothing? "Why, then did I hang around TWI for another 6 years or so?" Maybe you're real McCoy experience with the ilk of Steve Heefner was arguing with your Waybot identity - maybe you just wanted to see something real again, & were confused about what you saw. Long argument. By design, But Jesus Christ is still our peace. Our only peace - as so many have been trying to say. Tom

Ah, well now you know sister mine Sharp Shootin' there, Sunesis. I and my LI buddies were sort of hybrids - 1/2 hippie & 1/2 hood. Greasers turned hippie, but you couldn't get the hood out of us. Still can't. That's why we kicked your butts in the Rye vs. LI football game - pshaw, bunch of preppies turned hippie. Just kidding - loved ya then, love you even more now, day by day - crazy about you. Your heart is golden & linked forever with the likes of Lonnie, Steve, & Jim. And Tom

Wikipedia: Lonnie became the charismatic spark igniting the rise of two worldwide denominations (Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel and the Vineyard Movement). I just finished the video. At the end, Chuck Smith, at a church service, over Lonnie's dead (March 1993) body, said a cutting remark about wondering what Lonnie's ministry could have been had he lived it fully. His ex-wife, in an interview, said she immediately rose up out of her seat, but two of her friends from the House, Steve Heefner and Jim Doop grabbed her and pulled her back down. I thought Lonnie's life (and the movie) was a great testimony to God's willingness to work wonderfully in the life of one with childlike believing regardless of his own devils to deal with. God doesn't change our old man; he gives us a new man. He gives us a new heart, the heart of Jesus Christ. We can no more change our selves out from any effort as of ourselves than we can get born again by our own power. We died with Jesus Christ; we are alive to God through him. Reckon so. Tom