Tom

Point to note here for those who think this argument is circular because James has pasted this reponse before: James said he would post something new (unpasted) if anyone would post an objection not addressed in previous pastes - obviously a condescending response. Johnj's post was not addressed previously, yet James posted a paste that didn't even address Johnj's post. Apparently, James can't address thoughts outside his own box - or even recognize them. Tom

Gen, I think your dad would be so proud of you! Of course, in that day, you will see just how proud he is of you, & just how much of you is fruit of his life. Everything born of love lasts forever - compounded. It is a wonder.

Great thread!!! Not a lot to contribute, I suppose. I'm still filled with wonder. Geisha, I thought your contribution profound. I've thought as much about many of your contributions here & there lately. I've never said so, but I thought I should. You're part of the wonder for me. God lives in your heart. Gen, I've been crazy about you, since I first saw you post. I'm amazed at your life. It contradicts everything I've been taught - as an education student - that you first spoke at 7, yet show such a fine sense of verbal acuity - surface evidence of an even greater sense of internal grammar, mature intellectual inquisitiveness, and personal sensitivity. Just been inspired lately to say more of what I really feel out of love. If we give out of a sense of obligation, our giving carries that sense of reciprocal obligation to those we give to, even if it is subconscious. Those we "give" to feel like they can't respond without going into debt to us. They run away. But if we give just from what overflows from within, others are attracted like a moth to light. Enjoy that which is good. Zix, so good to see you again. Tom

Oh, absolutely - on both points!!

I agree, chockfull, VP's antics were going on before the Way was incorporated, even before there was such a thing as The Way (not before the Way, the Lord Jesus Christ - but you know what I mean). But before VP grabbed the power and position by centralizing the money through his edict, the spread of the Word through the WOW program, the say so through the Way Tree & the Way Corps. Before he turned the corporate Body of Christ into a legal corporation. In other words, before he replaced the Lordship of the Lord Jesus Christ by his own Lordship, there was a difference of more than an entire magnitude in what was happening. Jesus Christ was moving it without all those limitations that VP later put in. VP was a guy with a funny skinny black tie, but he didn't tell us what to do, certainly not in any of the ways he did after his power play- Jesus did. We were like animals that lived on light, & it didn't matter where it came from. Sure there were the seeds of legalism sown in the foundational PFAL, but all they did was illicit a wtf response from me, & served as an indication of wierdness in the guy - maybe an Ohio church thing - maybe a personality fault, but such considerations didn't play into whether he was the MOG or not. There was not thought as to MOG position for it to reckon into. As far as I remember, those considerations never entered into our practice. It was a foreign idea to me later when it was first brought up. His venue didn't operate. If anything, the ministries of people like Doop, Heefner, Perez, & others did, & legalism didn't figure in. It was true revival by the Lord. That' the way it was in NY, CA, KS, South America, Europe, Africa. THEN VP took over. It was different. VP came to NY in '72 to conduct an unscheduled Advanced class. The reason he did so was because we were already doing all the things in the Advanced class. Supposedly, he wanted to instruct us more perfectly, but the point is we were already doing all those things without any help from him. Hope I'm making sense here. Tom

"Who said anything about settling?" You did when you said, "any port in a storm.." Early on, we weren't "true believers in the midst of the charlatans' whoredoms." We weren't at all "in the midst of the charlatans' whoredoms." We weren't in "the venue" at all. Not defending "the charlatans' whoredoms, nor "the venue," but there was a time before that - a time that was above that. It doesn't make "the charlatans' whoredoms, nor "the venue" defensible, it makes it even worse. Not being picky here, but there was such a time - not to be confused with those believers who held true in the midst of "the charlatans' whoredoms, or "the venue." That has been one of the major points brought out in this thread. Tom

Then I might have it made:).

As you said Ham, "Not all of us." Personally, I wan't willing to settle for any port in my storm. I had tried all the ports I knew about - except asking God. Then I read (in a book called Zen Sayings and the Riddles of Jesus, Ask and you shall receive. That struck me as truth. I didn't know what he had, but I asked him to deliver me from my storm - actually, I asked him to get me off the side of the cliff because the branch I was holding on to was breaking. I told him I didn't know what he had, but whatever it was I wanted all of it, & I wanted it quick. And I also wanted him to get my a$$ off heroin. Shortly thereafter, I was witnessed to, & got everything I has asked for. The road down has been pretty well documented in this thread, but many of us weren't settling for any port. We didn't SETTLE. Well, until later - but, as I said, that's already been fairly well documented here.

Apparently not only is there a Jew/Gentile distinction among believers, there is also a Church/Israel Dichotomists//non-Church/Israel Dichotomists distinction among believers. Can I use two forward slashes/division marks in a row? Just how deeply can we divide up the Body of Christ? Ah, the good news - Paul asks is Christ divided, a rhetorical question, the obvious answer being no. Contrarywise, your stance in your book - if your excerpt is representative - is divisive in tone and spirit, IMO. You artificially set up either/or fallacies for argumentative purposes to promote your theology rather than engaging in honest pursuit of truth. For example, you say, "Dispensationalists teach that the Old Testament Law does not apply. This "Church Age" of no Law..." First, "Dispensationalists teach that the Old Testament Law does not apply." Then This "Old Testament Law does not apply" changes to "no law." No law? What about the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus? No, we're not given that option. We either believe in the Old Testament law, or we have "no law." Either/or propositions have to include all possibilities to be valid. Your argument is fallacious; your consequent forfeiture of the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus being the reason your tone is so without grace and heavy handed. Very few situations in life are either this or that. Not only must the two choices include all the possibilities, but also they must be mutually exclusive. Not everyone who believes one thing that the Church/Israel Dichotomists/Dispensational Premillinialists/Pre-Trib Rapture/no law group you have painted for us here believes EVERYTHING the Church/Israel Dichotomists/Dispensational Premillinialists/Pre-Trib Rapture/no law group believes that you should think you've won all these points in argument by some imagined preponderance of evidence. You haven't given any of these points sufficient consideration, never mind all of them. As to individual points, for the most part, you've offered off-handed (I know we are supposed to believe you have gazillions of hours of previous research), condescending remarks. As to all of the points, you've set up your own me vs the Church/Israel Dichotomists/Dispensational Premillinialists/Pre-Trib Rapture/no law group dichotomy - not valid. Just trying to be honest, James. Tom

This appears to be a remarkably informative post, James. I'm not sure if it will come through in my response, so I'm referring to the chart on post #21. I'm just wondering - on a thread where people can't even agree on the basic premise about NT Aramaic origins (and, apparently "experts" can't agree either), how reliable can a chart be that details such intricate langauge sources in bibles? Where did the chart come from? How reliable do YOU think it is & why? 200 words or fewer, please. Thanks, Tom

No, no, Wordwolf, this is good for us. I was intimidated when I first saw how much verbiage was in so many individual posts, as I tried to get a sense of the discussion. Then I felt relief when I realized so much space to answer often simple questions (Mark, bless your heart for your patience - can't believe you read through all that) was a clear indication to me that I didn't have to read that page - increase of verbiage in answer to simple questions being an accurate guage of diminishing returns for the effort involved. And that was the page before your post Wordwolf - your post was at the end of the page of shorter more concise answers.

Novel idea - maybe its time we made English the national language. Thought it might be time for a little humor to lighten things up. OK, VERY little humor. Hey, I thought Aramaic was a beautiful, simple, sensual language as opposed to the technical Greek. Why hasn't that quality of Aramaic made its way into this discussion? All seems like Greek to me.

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon Strong's Number: 726 Thanks for the welcome, Mark.

I'm not a foreign lannguage expert. I suppose I'm not an English language expert either, but I am an English teacher, and have some facility in the area. I wonder if it might be a legitimate move to substitute the Latin translation of the Greek harpazo & procede with your method - tracing the word harpazo as if you were tracing the Latin rapto in the process - as the Latin rapto is presented as the equivalent of the Greek harpazo? That is the rationale presented in the book, Global Warning. What do you think? Yes, maybe, no? It sure would make the answer to this question simple. There would be no need to argue the use of a word. God could not be construed as making this important article of faith difficult to understand. Tom

Mark, you say, "I am only adding biblical insight." That's not entirely true; you also added, "To many times people use unbiblical words with a result of a degradation of understanding." I agree with you 100% on the literal truth of what you have said that I’ve quoted, but I wonder about the placement of these two statements. Is it true that the use of the word “rapture” is one of those “Too many times people use unbiblical words with a result of a degradation of understanding?" I’ve come to the point where I view “unbiblical” terms as a given that the concept itself is unbiblical. So, in my view, this term “rapture,” if not deserving of immediate disqualification as an unbiblical concept, certainly requires further investigation. The book, Global Warning, states, “The English word rapture comes from the Latin rapto, which is a translation of the Greek word harpazo in the Greek New Testament. All these terms mean “caught up” or “snatched away.” While the word rapture does not appear in English translations of the Bible, the concept of the rapture certainly does. It is a sudden and instantaneous event that occurs without warning.” So, perhaps the word “rapture,” unlike too many other unbiblical terms that are just unbiblical concepts (concepts of man in biblical disguise), is a legitimate biblical concept (and term). The book goes on to show that “the rapture and the glorious appearing are two separate phases of the second coming,” and asks the reader to consider the following differences: The book places all the following side by side, but I couldn’t figure out how to place them side by side online here. I certainly suggest you try to view the following comparing number one in the rapture with number one in the Glorious Appearing & so forth side by side. There are too many differences to consider these to be the same event. The Rapture of the Church: 1. Christ comes for believers in the air. 2. All Christians are translated into new bodies. 3. Christians are taken to the Father’s house in heaven. 4. There is no judgment upon the Earth. 5. The church will be taken to heaven. 6. It could occur at any time (it is imminent). 7. There are no signs preceding it. 8. It affects only believers. 9. It is a time of joy. 10. It occurs before the “day of wrath.” 11. Satan is not bound, but wreaks havoc on the Earth. 12. Christians are judged at the judgment seat of Christ. 13. The marriage supper of the Lamb takes place. 14. Only Christ’s own will see him. 15. The seven year Tribulation follows. The Glorious Appearing: 1. Christ comes with believers to the Earth. 2. There is no translation of bodies. 3. Resurrected saints remain on the Earth. 4. Christ judges the inhabitants of the Earth. 5. Christ sets up His kingdom on Earth. 6. It cannot occur until the end of the seven-year Tribulation. 7. There are numerous signs preceding it. 8. It affects all humanity. 9. It is a time of mourning. 10. It occurs after the “day of wrath.” 11. Satan is bound in the abyss for 1,000 years. 12. Christians have already been judged at the judgment seat of Christ. 13. The marriage supper of the Lamb has already taken place. 14. All those on Earth will see Him. 15. The 1,000-year millennium follows. Tom

Just a note here: I'm reading Global Warning by Tim LaHaye (of Left Behind series fame and Edward Hindson. I'm approaching completion, & I find the book to be logical, comprehensive, and understandable. It is definitely pretribulation rapture in its perspective & presents some fairly simple and persuasive reasons for being so. Anyway, like many of you here, all I've been able to do on this thread for the most part is read what people say about what people say. I realize all I'm doing here is recommending what others have said, however reading this book has put quite a bit of scripture into a perspective that seems to fit for me.

Sorry, Cman, I haven't been ignoring you. I get busy here, plus I wasn't sure how to say it in other words. I'm still not. The least to the greatest equals everyone. We like to think of ourselves as individuals choosing our own way, but there is a great tendency to go along with the direction everyone else is going. It is very hard to go against the direction our society is going – harder than anyone thinks. Everyone takes their cues from those around them. To do otherwise requires a frame of reference that is different from everyone around you. That is hard to find and harder to maintain. Even “Christians,” who generally think they have their own otherworldly frame of reference – The Word – generally subscribe to the “truth” that their group – their leadership – says is true. So, again, without a truly different frame of reference, Christians, like everyone else in their society, wind up going in the same direction. So, what I see here is that societies, as a whole, many times descend into covetousness of all kinds - every man for himself – selfishness – generally. Sometimes a true man rises up & others follow. Then the society – as a whole – thankfully knows the true God. Why? Because he has forgiven their iniquity. Someone has been true enough to recognize God’s gracious actions on his behalf, bold enough to live it & speak it. Thirsty society drinks it up. Everyone knows God – sometimes. When that is lost – everyone mourns. In each of the three above cases, everyone – the least to the greatest- follows suite. The least is not small enough to slip through unaffected. The greatest is not great enough to buck the crowd. I’m not saying this happens all the time & that you can’t choose to go against the flow. But it DOES happen. It IS happening in our society. I find this reality very humbling. Don’t be numbed. Don’t be silenced. Be bold – choose – speak. Tom

Least to the greatest: aka Everyone: I think there is a great herding instinct among people - besides, people generally choose only from what others present to them as choices. So, we, especially Americans, think of ourselves as individuals (thereby sacrificing family support and connections), but our individuality is circumscribed by forces beyond our ken that do the real molding. So, people think of themselves as Democrat or Republican, & say they do so because their party is more or less this or that. The distinction in magnitude in whatever issue in either party is so small as to be not worth the effort because we ALL WIND UP IN THE SAME PLACE. In the bible, everyone: Is given to covetousness, Or knows God because God forgives their iniquity, Or goes here or their together, Or mourns. Covetousness can't be legislated by either party’s agenda though we try. EVERYONE complains about it, but rarely does anyone recognize it in themselves. We, as a people, are herded into it from the least to the greatest – usually by forces that we don’t even recognize operating on us. Oh, we see it in the stock market and in corporations and in politics, but we don't recognize it operating on a personal level where it changes us and our relationships - so we all wind up in the same place.

Yes, the fellow serving us communion & TWI came to a prting of the ways soon after. I think that it would be correct to say that at least one of the reasons was that exact difference that you just mentioned between their perspectives on what it means to serve.

I went to a communion fellowship once back in TWI. The fellow presenting the service washed everyone's feet before communion. He didn't say anything about it; he just did it. It is hard to put in words, but it was so personal an act of service. I was reminded of when Jesus washed the disciples feet. Peter said, "You shalt never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I don't wash you, you have no part with me." Peter said to him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head." Jesus said to him, "He that is washed needs not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and you are clean...." Why only the feet? Maybe it is like the scripture that tells us to cast the dust off our feet (the junk we pick up by walking in this screwed up world). It is amazing to me that we can do that for each other. Jesus said, "If you know these things, happy are you if you do them. Quite amazing! Tom

Not sure what you are saying here, Steve, when you say, "I don't think the gift of holy Spirit first poured out on the day of Pentecost is salvation itself." Unless all you mean is that it is not the whole enchilada. We have the spirit of a sound mind - there's wholeness in that. Via the One Spirit, we are members in particular in the One Body of Christ who IS the resurrection and the life. He is presently glorified and presently filling us up with the stuff of glory. That's salvation wholeness. Sure we are saved to & by the Hope. But likewise, the Spirit also helps us (Rom. 24-26). "Likewise?" Like what wise? Like the Hope will make us whole, so the Spirit makes us whole now. As far as I can see, the word likewise can mean: 1. in a similar manner 2. partly in the same manner while partly in a different manner 3. entirely in the same way because it IS the same way Also, as far as I can see it, Romans is using the 3rd sense of "likewise." I think the whole of the rest of Rom. 8 swings on this word "likewise." The Spirit is the reality of the Hope of Glory - the glorified Christ - changing us now to be like him (as Rom. 8:28-30 goes on to say). Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, is just not finished with the work yet, but it is the same work. Also Steve, I sense a tone of heavy judgment on yourself by yourself. Perhaps I'm wrong, but RE: "His judgment will be justice tempered with mercy." I would say rather than mercy tempering justice, mercy rejoices against justice, brother. Psalms 85:10 Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other. You know the truth of your deceitful heart better than anyone, & Lord knows I know mine, but God is greater than our hearts. I believe, to our amazement, if we could see ourselves through God's eyes instead of our own, we would see him holding us in the palms of his hands calling us faithful because he sees the continual yearning in our hearts to know him. And we would cry and be unburdened (or maybe burdened with the burden of Christ which is light:)) Well, we CAN know THAT much about our loving heavenly Father Bless you brother, Tom

Clarifation - I hope. I think there is somewhere in the tribulation where it says that all who believe are killed. I think that is what Gen is talking about. Also, in Romans where Paul is talking to gentiles in regard to the branches being grafted into the olive tree, he is not talking to gentile believers. Paul is saying that if the gentiles continue in unbelief, their opportunity to be grafted into the olive tree will end just like Israel's did because of unbelief. And if Israel believes, they will be grafted in again. Pretty sure of that. Of course, Paul is saying more than what I just said - just trying to clarify.

Just a few thoughts here. There is so much involved - like Gen, I don't have the time to go into all the details, not do I have the present ability. God knows I've read about these things in the Word & other places and thought about them off and on for years. Lately, especially, I've been working many of these things. I still basically believe (with additions) what Wierwille - and others - have and do teach on the matter(s). Briefly, again, like Gen, I have a problem with what to so with the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, the Promise of the Father, that came on the day of Pentecost - if every believer in all time gets the same thing. Through the One Spirit, Jesus Christ is the head over all things that have to do with the One Body. God wants us to know as a reality the His power that He put in Christ when he raised him from the dead. Through the One Baptism of the church of the One Body, we have access to that realithy through the One Spirit. This reality started at a point in time and continues to this present day. This is different, no? One NEW man? I'm reading Global Warning by Tim LaHaye. He covers many of the things that have been brought up in this discussion & seems to do a fine job placing what's going on presently and what has been going on in relation to the scriptures. Some are possibilities. Others are quite certain, biblically. He separates them nicely. I'm not an expert, so I can't definitively recommend it, but, from my limited viewpoint, I do highly recommend it. It is very readable. It is quite an education. Looking at Jesus, the author and finisher of believing who is still finishing his work in all of us. Tom

Hi Spec, RE: your post above, “But to me, it seems like you can't avoid circular logic if one is going to attempt to arrive at calling anything "God's words".. Which then makes the attempt rather, well, subjective and biased.. Am I wrong?” I think so, and here is why I think so: Subjective means: 1. Taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias 2. Of a mental act performed entirely within the mind You said, “I have no doubt that the creator of the heavens and earth left His mark in everything.… I believe God's handiwork has a sort of indelible mark.” I am entirely in agreement. Consider this, Spec. If God indelibly marks His handiwork and His Word is His handiwork, His Word will bear His signature. That’s all quite redundantly said, but it is not circular. It starts with God. It ends with His mark establishing what is and what is not His Word. While it may appear to the outside casual observer that this process is subjective and biased because it takes place entirely within the mind, it is not subjective because God is there - working with you – confirming the Word as His – with signs following. That’s His mark. Matthew 18:15 ¶Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Christ is the indelible mark of God on His Word. When God has written His Living Word on the fleshy table of your heart, His signature is there, His mark, on your heart. Then with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, you, we, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. … But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost.

Greetings all, Been a while, & I haven't read all the posts since the last time I posted, so I'm sorry if this point has been covered already. But I came across this verse just a few minutes ago. It reminded me of a point that was percolating within me when last I was here, but didn’t get to post. The verse is Psalms 119:140 (KJV)Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. “very pure?” How does that apply to our topic, “Inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture?” How pure is very pure? Is it almost completely pure? Does that make scripture very inerrant? Is that like almost inerrant? Almost inerrant is not innerant. Psalms 12:6 reads, “ The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” No matter how many times silver is purified in a furnace, it is never 100% pure. I think words are like that. Language is constantly developing, improving or degrading, in a human field. Language development studies show languages improves over time up to a point – then languages start to degrade. At any point in a human language’s development, can God ever purify it to the point where we can say it is 100% pure? I think not. Nothing in the earthly realm can be made completely pure. That’s why we need Holy Spirit - because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. I think language is like that. It is a human means of communication. God can purify it, but it is ultimately imprecise. It takes Holy Spirit to enlighten the eyes of our understanding as to the truth of the Word that is recognizable as holy in application. Maybe I’m wrong. What do you think? Love in Christ, Tom