T-Bone

Hey TLC, after mulling over your posts here and elsewhere- and especially the one on another thread (The Trinity) where you reminded me of your thought process - I feel I owe you an apology for the way I’ve come at you sometimes - basically overreacting. I know you’re big on the Socratic method - which is considerably “destructive” in that it breaks everything down so as to expose all parts for closer examination- which is one of the things I admire in your posts...maybe I use more of a dialectic approach so I tend to pursue a synthesis maybe even incorporating an opposing view or two from the discussion. I don’t know enough about all this stuff to say if one method is better than the other - although I will admit the Socratic method is probably the cutting edge of any critical thinking...and frankly I don’t think I have the discipline and patience to pursue that route to the nth degree like some folks do at Grease Spot...if we were talking shop - I’d say I’m more of a systems integrator than a design engineer anyway ...One of the great things about Grease Spot is rather than there being something of a collective consciousness in the discussions - it’s more along the lines of divergent thinking - where a variety of possible solutions are proposed in an effort to find one or more solutions that can work...here it’s cool to QUESTION EVERYTHING and you’re FREE TO PICK AND CHOOSE what makes sense and works for you! That was some of my thinking in starting this thread - - and uhm...I seemed to have forgotten that. ...Anyway, sorry for the detour folks but I thought that needed to be said... and again I just wanted to apologize to TLC for the way I’ve gone at him sometimes...and for not really appreciating the detailed thought process he brings to topics...I think these “skirmishes” have been mostly my fault - thinking back, I believe I could have been more patient and be more articulate in my questions in sorting things out for clarification...I’ll try to do better from now on...TLC has always been respectful even when I’ve pounced on something he’s said... ...peace to all. sincerely T-Bone

Finally, there’s a cure for intelligence!

An adaptation of “Respect” modified for the board of directors R-E-S-P-E-C-T Find out what it means to me R-E-S-P-E-C-T Take out those B-O-Ds (S-O-Bs would work too) ...on second thought "Take out those B-O-Ds" sounds like a mobster hit...since I'm opposed to violence let's make that "Kick out those B-O-Ds"

I think you have something there…I tend to think inspiration is not as a direct a means as revelation ( just thinking out loud here – I’m not developing an in-depth word study or anything) …maybe it has something to do with content…inspiration could be influential…something that ignites imagination or innovation - - you see something in a totally new light, realize how to resolve a conflict, etc… whereas revelation is something that is disclosed, uncovered or revealed – i.e. you didn’t figure this out on your own – you had outside help - - God! …so would it be wrong to think of scripture as being a combination of inspiration and revelation – without a big concern to split hairs on what’s what? Again just thinking out loud here.

Bizarre and sad in a way – I wonder if the local leadership even realizes how that would tend to disconnect them from the folks in their fellowship…I remember how excited I was to read through the entire Bible after taking the class - - and would “pester” my Twig coordinator with all these questions I had after reading the Old Testament and especially the Gospels…you know - - a lot of stuff not covered in the class or just skimmed over quickly... I was “encouraged” to keep reviewing the PFAL material…talk about a buzzkill on exploring the Christian faith. I liked what you said in your other post keying off of Don’t Worry’s zeroing in on “inspired”. It got me thinking…A poet or musician watches a beautiful sunset and they are somehow inspired to write something. We don’t say the sunset dictated what they should write. I think it’s the personal unique experience that filled them with the urge to write something – they felt something and had a creative response to it… so to with the biblical authors...instead of experiencing a sunset - - maybe it was a genuine epiphany - - some personal experience with God that drove folks to write about it. I especially get that feeling in reading the epistles of Paul - - his discourses on the law, the conscience, sin, redemption, the supremacy of Christ, etc. I believe they’re full of epiphanies – where Paul had enlightening realizations that enabled him to understand Old Testament theology from a new and deeper perspective.

I really appreciate that, Skyrider - nothing like one-upping the mark of the beast... guess I owe you one...there ya go !

One detective at the precinct thinks it was an inside job and is planning a stink operation to flush out the culprits.

“It works for me so I think I’ll stick with that” - I like the way you think…that’s also my modus operandi in a nutshell - Welcome to Grease Spot, Still Confused…enjoy a cup of cappuccino on me !

hey, don't feel so bad...currently my number is 6 6 6 .....yikes ! hopefully it's just a phase I'm going through

I really like a lot of their stuff...I don't know what happened at this one concert - - guess they just had an off night:

Perhaps you should have read the rest of my post and you might have understood why I was puzzled by your repetitive questions. I addressed your points several times over and you come back, say you’re varying your approach – and then ask the same thing a little differently. Hell yeah that’s puzzling – I’m wondering am I speaking another language or do you even read my stupid posts. So please don’t insult my intelligence by making it sound like I’m the one causing the confusion…I really don’t appreciate that underhandedness …like this one “proclivity towards going backwards which you've done twice in a row now”…fine - if you want to play that game I’ll just keep calling you out on it every time! I’m certainly not sensitive to or offended by anything you’ve said…I was merely challenging your logical fallacies – like when you said “this commentary as being heavily tainted with (or by) Trinitarian dogma” or “escape from this unchanging, dualistic, "essential nature" train of thinking that the religious intelligentsia has long promoted” …you throw those statements into the discussion like they are an accepted fact or common knowledge when in truth you have no grounds for their validity – it hits me as a feeble and deceptive way to refute someone’s argument. You said: “but the long and short of is this is: I was merely trying to minimize discussions defending what commentators or distant bible scholars have written, and key in on what you think... going forward. And not (as so many here have a proclivity towards) going backwards (which you've done twice in a row now.)” Yeah right…take off the kid gloves! If you’re gonna debate the valid points that I brought up then take a serious crack at it and don’t pussyfoot around with groundless challenges about my references. I’m not in the habit of defending what’s said in commentaries or what “distant bible scholars have written” – on the contrary I draw from any valid and relevant source that will back up what I say…so if you really want to “key in on what I think” then please afford me the simple courtesy of recognizing my statements…thesis…or whatever it is you think of my post – as a premise of mine and any scripture, commentary, or other reference I cite as merely a means to maintain or prove that…do you get that? there is a difference...I'm not trying to prove my sources are right...I'm using those sources to try and prove that I'm right! I'm no snowflake...perhaps just an incredible flake. thank you for your time and concern in this matter and have a nice day.

I am puzzled why you would say “rather than merely play back what somebody else might think or says is the "essential nature," how about pondering the extent of what might or did change at or with his resurrection?” as if all the statements and events of scripture that I chose to refer to in previous posts were of no substance...It almost makes me think you have not really read my posts - but you just blew through them in haste ....in case you have not noticed I've addressed those points several times over in my previous posts...I'm tempted to think you’re just looking for an argument…but maybe that’s just me and my insecurities…if so, excuse please… You ask a number of interesting questions – which is something I always like about your posts – but I think as theologically and philosophically challenging as they might be, I’d rather stay on our current topic and challenge your fantastic phrase “ Yet, if one can't (or doesn't) escape from this unchanging, dualistic, "essential nature" train of thinking that the religious intelligentsia has long promoted, perhaps there is no other answer necessary, nor possible.” When I said “fantastic” I meant that literally – your statement hits me as some imaginative-conspiracy-theory-remotest-thing-from-reality-appeal-to-ridicule fallacy…but I could be wrong…so… …just for grins – here is a definition of essential which implies belonging to the very nature of a thing and therefore being incapable of removal without destroying the thing itself or its character… my suggestion - if you really want to try a different approach – then how about discuss the passages I have already referenced in previous posts that show his divinity AND humanity and maybe you can explain what can be removed without altering who he is. Feel free to include but you’re certainly not limited to (or imagined as if) pre or post resurrection, pre-existence, and finally – or has, have or had the finalist of the finale of the mother of all finales...post-millennial …I look forward to your different approach.

Maybe we are mulling over this stuff in a similar fashion - - very cautiously … and I don’t subscribe to any rigid formula of the Trinity anyway so batting around the idea of an interface between God and man sounds like fun. We could get into a whole other topic on theophany but for now, I like the tangents that have come up…when it comes to theological / philosophical matters, I am constantly revising ideas I have about all that…after I left behind TWI and the rigid fundamentalist mindset – I became very intrigued with how to interpret a book compiled over a long period of time during ancient cultures…the challenge is much greater than just getting a handle on the biblical languages - - it’s trying to understand the mindset of the authors AND their target audience – those who were the first to read it… Historical proximity is an important aspect, in my humble opinion. I try to “look” as far back as possible – to the New Testament time …if there’s a Christian mainstream then I’m thinking we ought to swim upstream – to where it had its beginnings. The challenge is really to sort through what was written and figure out what were the salient points to Christianity back then…do we find things that point to connecting with God…how to interact with God…I think we do and perhaps Jesus Christ may be considered the touchpoint… I believe Christ’s twofold nature has enabled him to be that touchpoint. Trying to think of God as forgiving may be a little abstract – but recalling Jesus on the cross saying “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34) I see a vivid demonstration of the means God used to reconnect to man…As II Corinthians 5:19 says, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself… Christ’s duality may have been somewhat veiled in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) which have many of the same stories, sequences and similar wording – but perhaps the veil is pulled aside in John which was written much later - his gospel seems to be imbued with allusions as well as direct statements of Jesus Christ's divinity … and then moving on to the epistles of Paul – I think it might be fair to say much of what he wrote focused on the impact of Christ’s divine nature – that was Paul’s contribution to Christology an excerpt from that link: A foremost contribution to the Christology of the Apostolic Age is that of Paul. The central Christology of Paul conveys the notion of Christ's pre-existence and the identification of Christ as Kyrios. The Pauline epistles use Kyrios to identify Jesus almost 230 times, and express the theme that the true mark of a Christian is the confession of Jesus as the true Lord. Paul viewed the superiority of the Christian revelation over all other divine manifestations as a consequence of the fact that Christ is the Son of God. Nevertheless, the view that it was apostle Paul who introduced the idea that Jesus was divine and thus distorted the actual Jesus has been widely rejected by historians. As Richard Bauckham observes, Paul was not so influential that he could have invented the central doctrine of Christianity. Before his active missionary work, there were already groups of Christians across the region. For example, a large group already existed in Rome even before Paul visited the place. The earliest centre of Christianity was the twelve apostles in Jerusalem. Paul himself consulted and sought guidance from the Christian leaders in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-2; Acts 9:26-28, 15:2). “What was common to the whole Christian movement derived from Jerusalem, not from Paul, and Paul himself derived the central message he preached from the Jerusalem apostles. On the other hand, if Jesus himself did not claim and show himself to be truly divine (i.e. on the Creator side of the Creator–creature divide), the earliest Christian leaders who were devout ancient monotheistic Jews would not have come to a widespread agreement that he was truly divine (which they did), but would have regarded Jesus as merely a teacher or a prophet instead. The Pauline epistles also advanced the "cosmic Christology" later developed in the fourth gospel, elaborating the cosmic implications of Jesus' existence as the Son of God, as in 2 Corinthians 5:17: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." Also, in Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." == == == == Historically I tend to believe Christians around the New Testament time thought of Jesus Christ as a lot more than just another man. In a fascinating book Jesus: Lord & Savior FF Bruce examines the biblical evidence of how Jesus related to his followers. One of the interesting things he points out is the fact that followers had no qualms about calling Jesus “Lord” – a title usually reserved for God in the Old Testament. There is an interesting account in the gospels that goes along a related point - of how some of Jesus' detractors looked on him: 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ 45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions… Matthew 22: 41 – 46 NIV The Pharisees’ answer to Jesus’ question reflects their belief that the Messiah would be just a man. However, Jesus’ reply was an assertion of his deity.

Well I don’t know a whole lot about Eastern religions – I thought the Yin / Yang thing had to do with opposites – which I think was a theme in the most recent Star Wars – which I really dug that idea of everything maintaining a balance…good point though about referencing the goal of one’s walk. I like the word “interface” that you used… a point where two systems meet and interact…I tend to think we (of the USA) live in a very materialistic world – and for those who are Christian, thoughts of God and spiritual growth may be something reserved for certain times during the week…whereas in Eastern religions I have this notion followers tend to look at everything they do as a spiritual experience…I know that’s a dumb thing to say for someone that confesses they know nothing about Eastern Religions…and not that much about Christianity either …must be the guilt of materialism talking

I thought I had already detailed out what I thought is his essential nature - - which is both human and divine – as referenced in my previous post; I never suggested anything about a change in how he is perceived…I think that would be more along the lines of a “perception is reality” tangent - meaning that the way a person sees Jesus Christ... the world...whatever is their “truth”, regardless of whether or not their conclusions are factually accurate or not. Rather I was drawing upon what the scriptures said about his dual nature…both human and divine as shown in the passages I referred to before...so let's look at them again - - and then I want to ask a couple of questions: 14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father…John 1:14 NET 6 who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature… Philippians 2: 6, 7 NET “The Word became flesh” – is that speaking of something that is real or merely as something to perceive or imagine? “He existed in the form of God…and sharing in human nature” – again is this speaking of a being with an actual “dual” existence or is this about a mental construct? I don’t think it takes any Trinitarian-dogma- tainted logic to see that these passages are speaking of a being who’s basic or inherent qualities are both human and divine. It says he existed in the form of God and shared in human nature - what's so difficult about that concept other than it doesn't agree with TWI's teaching that Jesus Christ is not God? Going from a gruesome battered corpse to a resurrected immortal body is a stunning change indeed – and yet his essential nature was not changed – for we read of one of his resurrected appearances in Luke 36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”…Luke 24:36 – 39 NASB Jesus Christ – in his new resurrected body said “it is I myself”. This seems to be a fairly clear and concise statement made by Jesus that he was still essentially the same person he was before he was crucified and buried…I remember a comedian saying he had the very ax that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree…of course over time due to age, rust, and rot he had to replace the ax head and wooden handle – but it still occupied the same space as George’s original ax …what I’m saying is that it wasn’t like that after the resurrection of Jesus Christ…he said “it is I myself”. I believe he still had a dual nature – and his body was still recognizable as a human – for he said he had flesh and bones…but I imagine this was a new and improved body…reconstituted at the subatomic level? I don’t know…just speculation…don’t know exactly how all this was accomplished.

That is something intriguing to think about, TLC ! Just a quick review of Ephesians 1: 19-22 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. and Philippians 2: 5-11 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Indicates some changes definitely took place…physically, of course but also his exaltation to the place of authority… commenting on Philippians 2, in The Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary Volume 2: New Testament, on page 797 it says …the participle "being" in the sense of existing is in the present tense and states Christ’s continuing condition and says “one’s essential nature can remain unchanged, though the manner in which that nature is expressed can vary greatly through changing times and circumstances.” For me, while in TWI and following the mindset that was encouraged there - I never would have considered that there was a duality in the nature of Jesus Christ – that he was both human and divine…as John 1:18 says he was one-of-a-kind, or a unique hybrid, if you will… in the Greek – monogenes…keeping in mind what the commentary said – I venture to say Jesus Christ’s essential nature remained the same – human and divine – the Word became flesh... though the manner in which this was expressed…displayed or brought out has now been modified by a unique event in history…Jesus who was crucified is now resurrected…the humbled servant is now exalted Lord…his fragile form in the grave is now transformed into a glorious immortal body. this is a big deal in Christology which is primarily concerned with the philosophical study of the nature of Jesus’ existence and his personhood in the New Testament.

I sometimes think the Trinity is like a frustrated attempt to find The theory of everything With The Trinity merely being a theological framework to explain and link together the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ...as Bolshevik said TWI focused in an extreme way on the Father. I’ve often wondered if TWI’s portrayal of the Trinity was more like a straw man fallacy - giving a misrepresentation of it so as having an easy target - something simple to refute. But I think the real focus of the New Testament is on Jesus Christ...not to the exclusion of the Father or the Holy Spirit- - more along the lines of Jesus Christ being the means of directing our attention to all aspects of the godhead ...perhaps a believer can be thought of as being able to switch view modes (an aspect of focus) when thinking of how God works whether as the Father, through his Son or the Holy Spirit. Verses that say things like whoever has seen Jesus Christ has seen the Father...In Christ dwells the fullness of the godhead bodily...Christ is the image of the invisible God...lead me to infer that Christ is the authorized image of God - perhaps like an icon - click here if you want to know what God is like...from a logical aspect there is no confusion for me - the Son is not the Father... but for all PRACTICAL purposes they are inextricably intertwined...so much so that Christ could say I and my Father are one , John 10:30...or say that not everyone that calls him Lord will enter heaven but only the one who does my Father’s will...therefore everyone that hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise house builder , Matthew 7: 21 - 27.. .as the Living Word, Christ’s words are on equal footing with Scripture - to the point where he in effect could overwrite or revise scripture as in Matthew 5 - you’ve heard it said to love your neighbor and hate your enemy but I say love your enemies and pray for them.

You’ve brought up some good points here and on another thread. This post that has been some fascinating food for thought and inspires me to keep an open mind when reading the book of Revelation...not sure what I think of this stuff in Rev 22 - especially since I find myself lately using an amalgamation of the various views of The book of Revelation and on top of that there’s also John’s frequent use of the double entendre - both here and in the Gospel (a statement that may hold a double meaning - sometimes being literal AND symbolic - as in John 13:30, Judas having received the bread went out...and it was night) as well as the New Testament writers’ theological reinterpretation of Old Testament stuff - like Gen. 1 compared to John 1....

How do you know what these rural farmers were thinking? This is more Mike-hogwash. And what do you know about anything written in the 1st century? And what do you know about textual research? Sounds to me like you’re still pushing that same old bull$hit of wierwille’s - the pursuit of that ever elusive “original god-breathed word”. For those not familiar with Mike’s methodology – please be advised, Mike thinks very highly of wierwille’s second-third-and-fourth hand approach to get back to the "original manuscripts" – wierwille said to compare translations and versions! there’s well over 5,000 manuscripts in part or in whole of the New Testament…some as old as 350 AD…why couldn't he just do some research on these manuscripts that are still around? oh wait, wierwille lied about having studied biblical Greek through Moody’s correspondence courses see Moody letter about wierwille sometimes wierwille would occasionally redefine Greek words to suit his own agenda - like pros You can read more details on this, the issues with wierwille’s approach and the challenges presented to Mike’s fantasy “thesis” which he has still not responded to in this post of mine on the is PLAF theopneustos god-breathed? thread.

I think Romans 13 refers to the institution of government as established by God - and there's a lot to that chapter - please read the post I referred to previously - you can get there from here

translation = he's exhausted his smokescreen supply

the post - she's a duplicate

In light of Romans 13, I tend to think that the laws of the land (man’s laws) are part and parcel of the institution of government – something that was established by God a long time ago. Just wanted to mention that in response to another of Mike’s conveniently contrived and misleading assumptions…That’s about all I’ll say on that – but if anyone is interested in some more details to think about, please check out a post of mine in doctrinal where I reference two commentaries and a theological dictionary about Romans 13 – see All Governments are from God? Of note is the point made in the Evangelical Commentary , that at times believers may feel enjoined to disobey government authorities if there is a conflict with the expressed will of God…we find such is the case in Acts 4 the apostles were directed by the Holy Spirit to preach about Jesus even though it was contrary to what the rulers and elders wanted…that is NOT the issue being addressed on this thread; one of the issues on this thread which several posters have expressed is a totally different situation – when God’s moral law is being mirrored in man’s law – such as lying and stealing being wrong…this seems to be something Mike does not understand…to be honest – I have to say, once again his feeble attempts to whitewash wierwille’s plagiarism hit me as a rabid-ready-defense-system for his “hero” – maybe that’s just me as I think about his fantasy “thesis” of PFAL being god-breathed (you can review that thread yourself is PLAF theopneustos-god-breathed? ) and his tendency to be dishonest in discussions – see this post on the thread a couple of questions .

Perhaps there is a different set of priorities for those who want to defend wierwille the plagiarist…and I have a suspicion those priorities tend motivate a person to redefine words – like “spiritual growth”. According to the dictionary spiritual relates to the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things – or to religion or religious beliefs…now think about it – plagiarism is stealing AND lying – two sins that are condemned in the Bible – the Bible, which I assume should be the standard of religious beliefs for folks who say they’re Christian. Unless of course the person is a hypocrite which happens to have been another deceptive quality of wierwille. So then according to certain skewed priorities - copyright laws designed to prohibit lying and stealing are stupid when compared to developing the fine art of contradicting what the Bible says about lying and stealing. Yeah that’s some weird “spiritual growth” alright…I’d recommend getting that checked out – it might be a malignant tumor.

Welcome to Grease Spot, Annio !!! I swear my eyes are getting worse…I had to put on my reading glasses cuz I thought your name was Amino - - as in amino acids which are important in nutrition – i.e. the process of obtaining food for health and growth…that’s cool… Then I put my glasses on and saw your name is Annio…so I look that up and find Annio da Viterbo, an Italian Dominican Friar, scholar and historian…now I know you can’t be him cuz he be daid since 1502…unless you’re here to tell us the dead ARE alive now… So where do we go from here? Maybe combining the two is the key…so I look forward to your input on Grease Spot, from your personal history of TWI, G33r and beyond…lots of food for thought…and healing and growth for all… I usually offer a cup of cappuccino but thought I'd change it up a little…how about amaretto spiked coffee with some ice cream in honor of Italian Dominican Friars