T-Bone

Unbareable – overcome with intense modesty at a Nudist Colony Denudify – the act of putting on clothes – often occurs after feeling unbareable Pictureassk – asking permission to photograph someone's behind Antishutterbugism – any physical harm to a photographer – often occurs after pictureassking Bottomlesspic – a photograph with no end in sight

Thanks, Bliss - that's a wonderful song - and it fits here perfectly!!!!!!!!

And in light of that, Oak - if I may add another thing to think about in all this – in my opinion when it comes to a Christian setting priorities on what to study and implement into practice I think my focus should be on the clearest biblical topics – that wouldn’t confuse even a child. My personal faith/viewpoint looks at the Bible as things God wants me to know and do – somewhat as a child would view their relationship and growth process with his/her parents. Naturally a child may not be aware of this relationship/process at the early stages – but as the child matures there comes an increasing realization that among other things, the parents have been trying to communicate what is essential to know living in this world and what responsibilities and privileges are associated with that. Hopefully the parents try to teach things that are essential to living in reality along with matters of beliefs and values. Things like the value and necessity of working honestly for a living, understanding things about personal finances, maintaining health, planning ahead, the value of another human being, etc. …On another thread I talked along these lines - of seeing what effect does viewing Jesus as God/not God have on a Christian’s practice of faith. Sometimes we Christians get so hung up on a pet doctrine – it becomes extremely difficult to see there may be some dissonance between our faith and our practice. As Garth mentioned in post # 12, we Christians can get so caught up in the priority of our doctrinal position on this or that, that we forget all about weightier matters like compassion, morality, ethics, etc. That’s why I appreciate other viewpoints – especially from people who are “theologically neutral” [in other words they don’t accept the Bible as the Word of God, non-Christians] and have no stake in the debate. I think their input is valuable in the process of critical thinking. Sometimes we Christians can unknowingly load so much doctrinal assumptions into a passage – that it hampers our analytical thinking skills…Okay – I’m done with my philosophical soap box for today…Carry on…

Oak, what you brought up makes me think of Morey's suggestion in Trinity: Evidence and Issues – of God being multi-personal. What qualities deem a person an individual – as distinct from another? I know it's comparing apples to oranges but the only idea I can come up with at the moment to think about your point is – identical twins. Though they have many similarities – each is a distinct person with a will of their own. I dunno,,,don't think it's a Siamese Twins thing either – God the Father and Jesus the Son joined together at the…uhmmm…whatever…by the Holy Spirit …hmmm…well would that technically be Siamese Triplets? In my opinion – you've nailed down the biggest issues on this topic – that will never be resolved – because I don't think Scripture addresses them: WHERE in the Bible does it explain HOW God can exist as two or three "persons" with distinct wills, natures? How can a person be fully God and fully human? Are there any clear verses that lay it all out?...And to all your questions my mind comes up with NOTHING! I personally think discussions like this are a lot of fun. Like I said in post # 13 some topics transcend scriptural specificity and articulation - precisely because of your questions! And maybe that's the hang up in discussions about this. I look at the biblical data – the grammar and syntax suggest that God is multi-personal. But I am at a loss when it comes to explaining HOW such a being or beings would function in this world. I'm not gonna win any arguments there. Maybe a Unitarian – I'm guessing here – begins with an assumption – they explain how they think God functions in our world. A Trinitarian accepts the grammar and syntax but ignores the issue of explaining how God works. A Unitarian assumes an explanation of how God works but ignores the grammar and syntax… …And in thinking about how God functions in our world Morey brings up another thing to think about – Theophanies. From Morey's Trinity: Evidence and Issues, Chapter Eight, The Theophanies, page 106: One of the most interesting subjects in Old Testament theology is what Trinitarian theologians have called "theophany." Because of the vast number of passages involved, the theophanies constitute one of the major arguments not only for the multi-personal nature of God, but also for the Incarnation and the deity of Jesus Christ. The word "theophany" comes from two Greek words – theos and phaino which simply mean the appearance of God in human form. End of excerpt In this chapter Morey said that the Old Testament references that tell us God appeared to man it is a literal manifestation of God in some kind of physical form which could be seen and heard by man. God's appearance to Abraham in Genesis 12:7 NIV The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him. The word "appeared" is ra'ah [Strong's # 7200] and refers to seeing literally or figuratively. Was this a vision or an actual appearance – the word ra'ah could be taken either way. I lean towards it meaning a literal physical appearance of God in some form because of passages like Genesis 3:8 that indicate the people actually encountered God by one of the five senses. A few of the other passages where this ra'ah is used: Genesis 26:2 God's appearance to Isaac…Exodus 3:16 God's appearance to Moses…I Samuel 3:21 God's appearance to Samuel. And as mentioned earlier a most notable appearance of God is found in the Garden of Eden – the word ra'ah is not used – for it does not say God appeared to Adam and Eve – but it does say Adam and Eve heard God walking in the garden. Genesis 3:8 NIV Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. …interesting…some food for thought…

Happy Birthday, Temple Lady!!!!!!! It was great to meet you in person at the Texas BBQ – loved the stuff you shared at Ex10’s fellowship and love the thought you put into all your posts! I hope you can resolve all those permit issues with that Permit Clerk fella.

Well, I'm certainly no expert on this stuff – but I'll say a few things since you asked. I think in some ways a dysfunctional "skill" can have a double-edge effect in that it does harm to both the one functioning this way [self-deception] as well as the one they're interacting with [they're being manipulated]. And for what it's worth – this is coming from my two-bit Christian perspective after my TWI experience. Not saying this is all right…just saying this is how I see things working. Can't cover it all – I'll just hit a few of the big ones. Rationalization: A tendency to reason around the moral standards of Scripture assuming good intentions or a good heart will make up for any poor judgment on my part. It is elevating my heart [which Scripture says can be deceitful] to a position of supreme authority. I saw it in John Lynn's letter and in Estimated Prophet's posts – the way they assume having good intentions, a good heart, a heart for God's people will somehow translate into everything working out for the best. It's an assumption that God would honor that type of thinking – instead of me having to God's moral standards – why…He's nice enough to accommodate my shortcomings. I think many times this way of thinking is a lazy man's way to appease a guilty conscience or settle for a band aide on the boo boo. Instead of taking the time to commune with God AND my offended brother and resolve it the biblical way – I take a short cut – "Oh, you know my heart…now where's that love of God and forgiveness." A good case to study is the blameshifting Adam did after he sinned. He never saw that it was his fault. Spiritualization: Man, this is a scary one! It was no joke in post # 444 – Prophet Foxworthy saying, "If you think the devil is on the attack every time followers start arguing amongst themselves – you might be a chip off the old cult." People start seeing devil spirits behind every tree and spiders up the noses of their opponents. I remember in the craziness right after Geer's Patriarch – people would say "The integrity of the Word's at stake!" rather than talk about anything specific that should be addressed…I don't buy that personal prophecy stuff. People sacrifice thinking skills and their decision-making ability for the sake of chasing after a feeling, nailing down that "first thought" . What if those aren't spiders but boogers with legs? Reason is on vacation - feelings are running the show. Delusions of Grandeur and Reverence of Leadership: These two kinda go hand in hand. I saw this when in TWI as well as on this thread. I thought I was involved in the only group that really matters –that's doing the best job for God – and the people that appeared to have totally sold out to that cause were deemed the most important in my book. My "ministry" takes on the proportions of the very church of Christ – it's all blended together in one big hodge podge of self-centeredness. People go ga-ga over gift ministries and titles. Arrogance reigns supreme.

Quirks, eh? Great idea for a thread, Excathedra! I’ve got a bunch – but 2 odd ones come to mind right now: Quirk: When I write with pen and paper it is a combination of print and cursive. It is such a handicap that I’d rather type on a computer keyboard any day – even though I have to hunt and peck – it’s still faster. Reason: One day while coming home from High School I saw a poster on the city bus that had something about analyzing handwriting. I don’t even remember what the point of the ad was but I do remember it had an example of printing, said something about the person that writes that way – and something about the person who writes cursive style. I started writing both ways – sometimes mid-word – thinking I would throw off anybody who would try to analyze my writing style. Quirk: I alternate the wrist I wear my watch on and the hip pocket I put my wallet in – every month. Reason: Somehow at the Texas BBQ Tom Strange picked up on this quirk of mine . Years ago I read somewhere how that electronic pulse of a digital watch could possible cause wrist cancer. Okay – don’t laugh – this was in my latter TWI-daze. So I’d alternate on one wrist for a month – then on the other. Somewhere along the line I also noticed my wallet bothering my Sciatic Nerve if I did a lot of driving [also in my TWI-daze]. So it became a ritual – to alternate watch and wallet to the left/right side at the beginning of each month. The thing is – I now wear an analog watch – it gets wound up by movement – but I keep moving it every month anyway. Tom made a good suggestion – just put my wallet in a front pocket – no – that’s too simple.

Great work Word Wolf and Mark S! Sometimes I see people coming out of TWI or some offshoot – and it's striking the similarities I see in the way they relate to people. They're still operating on the interpersonal dynamics that are prone to self-deception and manipulation – whether they realize it or not. Well…that line of BS may fly in their group but they're putting a big "Kick Me" sign on their back if they think it's gonna fly on a website where we've all been burned by those shenanigans…And if they really have good intentions and/or a desire to get their head out of their A.S.S. [Absorbed Stupefying Shenanigans] perhaps they won't take the "confrontation" so personally. Speaking for myself – I don't view them as my spiritual enemy. For lack of a better analogy – I see it as their "operating system" [their interpersonal skills] being infected with a virus. The virus being the self-deceiving and manipulative social skills we adopted while in TWI.

Continuing excerpts from Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Robert Morey for review by this forum – Morey covers the use of plural pronouns: Then God said, "Let Us make man Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them [Genesis 1:26-27] …the word "make" [asah – Strong's # 6213] in the phrase "Let us make man" is a plural verb…The main verb as well as the pronouns are all plural…Second, that the plural pronouns refer to God and not to angels is clear from the singular nouns "image" and "likeness." Man is not created in the two images or two likenesses – God's and the angels. We are created in the image and likeness of God. …some anti-Trinitarians have attempted to dismiss the passage as an example of the plural of majesty [pluralis majestaticus], much like Queen Victoria of England who is reported to have said, "We are not amused." The only problem with this argument is that there was no plural of majesty in the Hebrew language during biblical times. Rabbi Tzvi Nassi, a lecturer in Hebrew at Oxford University, explains: "Every one who is acquainted with the rudiments of the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, must know that God, in the holy writings, very often spoke of Himself in the plural. The passages are numerous, in which, instead of a grammatical agreement between the subject and predicate, we meet with a construction, which some modern grammarians, who possess more of the so-called philosophical than of the real knowledge of the Oriental languages, call a pluralis excellentiae. This helps them out of every apparent difficulty. Such a pluralis excellentiae was, however, a thing unknown to Moses and the prophets. Pharoah, Nebuchadnezzar, David, and all the other kings, throughout [the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographia] speak in the singular, and not as modern kings in the plural. They do not say we, but I, command; as in Genesis 41:41; Daniel 3:29; Ezra 1:2, etc." [from Tzvi Nassi, The Great Mystery, Jerusalem: Yanetz, 1970, page 6] [page 94, 95] End of Excerpts Morey also refers to two other verses where the plural pronoun is used of God: Genesis 11:7 "…let Us go down and, confuse their language…" Isaiah 6:8 "Then I heard the voice of [Yahweh], saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?"

I bought my copy through Christian Book Distributors: http://www.christianbook.com/?p=1018818 It came up here when I Googled the title: http://www.amazon.com/Trinity-Evidence-Iss...y/dp/0529106922

Awhile back - I literally believed that I could transform my mind into a state of unbelief just to prove that the law of believing works…Now I don’t believe it works.

I would like to put excerpts from a book on the discussion table – with the hope that we can raise the intellectual substance of this thread above some of the exercises in futility that have happened of late. Repeating my position mentioned before I am Trinitarian – and the author of this book is Trinitarian. My purpose in posting these excerpts is to provide some solid material that can be analyzed through discussion – rather than engaging in typical my-verse-counters-your-verse stuff. I'm not saying everything in this book is correct or even that my doctrinal position is correct and everyone else is wrong. I'm offering these excerpts as some evidence that does indeed favor the doctrine of the Trinity but hope that all will apply their best critical thinking skills to see if the author's points have merit. The following excerpts are from The Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Robert Morey, 1996, Word Publishing Inc.: Part II The Old Testament Evidence Chapter Seven, A Multi-Personal God Trinitarians believe that while there is only one God, numerically speaking, yet within this one God, there exists more than one person, ego, intellect or self. This is the fundamental principle underlying the doctrine of the Trinity. Thus it does not make much sense to discuss how many Persons there are in the Godhead and how They relate to each other until you have first established the multi-personal nature of God. What to Expect If the authors of the Bible believed that God was multi-personal, then we would expect to find that they would write about God in such a way as to indicate this idea to their readers. Thus, we must ask, "What would we expect to find in the Bible, if its authors believed that God was multi-personal?" On the other hand if the authors of the Bible believed that God was only one person, i.e. they were Unitarians, then they would write about God in such a way as to indicate that idea. Thus, we are also warranted to ask, "What would we expect to find in the Bible, if Unitarians wrote it?"… The Oneness of God The first question is how did the biblical authors, under inspiration of God, conceive of the oneness of God? There are nine different Hebrew words which at times are translated as the word "one."…[page 87] …there is only one word which would indicate that God is one solitary person. If this word is applied to God in the Bible, this would be quite damaging to the Trinitarian position. The word is yachiyd [Strong's # 3173] and means an absolute or solitary oneness. It is even translated "solitary" in Psalm 68:6…and refers to someone who is absolutely alone…When we turn to the Bible, what do we find? The authors of Scripture never applied yachiyd to God…In the list of Hebrew words which speak of oneness, the word echad [Strong's # 259] refers to a compound oneness in which a number of things together are described as "one." The following sample passages illustrate this compound meaning of oneness: Genesis 1:5 The first day is a combination of two things – the evening and the morning. Genesis 2:24 Adam and Eve became one flesh… Genesis 3:22 Adam and Eve became one with God. But they did not lose their personhood when they became "one" with God. Genesis 11:6 The people were one. They were, thus, "one" and "many" at the same time. Genesis 34:16,22 The Shechemites wanted to become one people with the Jews. II Chronicles 30:12 God gave the people one heart. Obviously, the thousands of individual hearts were "one" in a compound or composite sense. Ezra 2:64 The congregation of forty two thousand, three hundred and sixty persons was described as one. Jeremiah 32:39 Under the New Covenant, God will give His people one heart…[pages 88, 89] …if the writers of Scripture believed that God was multi-personal then we would expect to find that they would apply echad to God because this would mean that God is "one" in a composite or compound sense…This is so central to the Old Testament concept of God that it is found in Israel's Great Confession: "Hear, O Israel, [Yahweh] our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!" [Deuteronomy 6:4]… But how can this be the true understanding of echad when the Jews today reject the doctrine of the Trinity? The noted Hebrew scholar, David Cooper, explains: "Prior to the days of Moses Maimonides, the unity of God was expressed by echad which, as has been proved beyond a doubt, has as its primary meaning that of a compound unity. Maimonides, who drafted the thirteen articles of faith, in the second one sets forth the unity of God, using the word yachiyd which in the Tenach is never used to express God's unity. From these facts it is evident that a new idea was injected into this confession by substituting yachiyd which in every passage carries the primary idea of oneness in the absolute sense for echad which primarily means a compound unity. Hence from the days of Maimonides on, an interpretation different from the ancient one was placed upon this most important passage." [from: David L. Cooper, The Eternal God Revealing Himself (Harrisburg: Evangelical Press, 1928), 59-60]…[pages 89, 90] Singular and Plural Words If the authors of Scripture believed there was only one God, how could they express this idea in the Hebrew language? The only way, in terms of Hebrew grammar, was to use singular nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs in reference to God. Thus, they would refer to God as "He," "Him," and "His" and describe God saying, "I," "Myself," and "Me."…But, if they also believed that God was multi-personal, the only way this idea could be indicated in the Hebrew was to use plural nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and verbs. They would also refer to God as "They," "Them," and "Theirs" and describe God as saying "We," "Us," and "Ours." While both Trinitarians and Unitarians expect to find singular words applied to God, because they both believe there is only one God numerically speaking, only Trinitarians expect to find plural words used of God as well…[page 90] End of Excerpt In my next post I'll continue with excerpts from this chapter on the use of plural pronouns.

Excellent catch, Son of Arthur! It just goes to show yah – the dishonesty and/or illogic of a person intent on holding to their position. It's amusing to watch What the Hey quote Scripture and demand everyone just read what's written, fault everyone else for applying even a smidgen amount of reasoning skills to UNDERSTAND what's written. However he himself goes through such a convoluted and illogical argument, loading his doctrinal preferences into the passage and twist out a meaning that agrees with his viewpoint. I lean towards the notion that some wrong theology would be corrected by reading the Bible like you would any other book – it appears to me that you need to become aware and/or be honest that you have been READING INTO Scripture on this thread – forcing you're theology into it…John Stott in Understanding the Bible is a great little book that offers three easy points that in my opinion help a Christian gain an understanding of the Bible that is perhaps not as bound up by a doctrinal straitjacket. When reading the Bible he recommends to: 1. Look for the natural sense – the obvious, logical meaning. 2. Look for the original sense – historical, cultural, grammatical. 3. Look for the general sense – with an overview of the entire body of Scripture and how harmoniously it fits with other passages on the same subject.

Exactly…the passage in Hebrews 1 clearly declares the deity of Christ. What is your point? Scripture shows that Jesus is also worshipped, Matthew 14:33 NIV Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." John 5:23 NIV that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. John 9:38 NIV Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him. Philippians 2:10 NIV that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, Hebrews 1:6 NIV And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him" Revelation 5:6-14 NIV 6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. 8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. 10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth." 11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12 In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!" 13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!" 14 The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.

You're confusing the issue. It's more than just reading what's written – it's UNDERSTANDING what's written. Grammar is a system of rules that a culture has adopted as a standard and structure of their language – which I think is helpful towards a more accurate communication of an idea, thought, feeling, etc. But getting back to your notion of "One of the first steps in rightly dividing the Word of God is to read exactly what is written instead of reading into the Word of God" – that's another one of VPW's deceptive premises to try and guarantee that his interpretation would be unassailable…And the more I think about it – what your statement does is reduce the role of the reader to nothing more than an automatic-reading-machine like computer software that reads a word document out loud. Computer software has no comprehension – no understanding of what it's reading. But it will read out loud exactly what's written. It is very similar to how a spell-checker and grammar-checker work in a word processor. I could do draft a three page document on "Absolute Proof that God is a Krispy Kreme Donut and is Damning all those who eat at Dunkin' Donuts to Hell" and my word processor would ensure my spelling and grammar is perfect – yet it is incapable of analyzing my premise, logic, proof or arguments, if it was a serious intellectual endeavor on my part or meant to be silly. Most people who read my posts tend to have that glazed-over-look anyway. Maybe a better question would be - do you UNDERSTAND what's written? Or in reference to discussing Scripture you might ask HOW do you UNDERSTAND this passage?...Let's yank a sentence out of context from a spy novel: "The secret agent told me to meet him by the bank again." Is he referring to a building that handles money, a ridge raised above the surrounding area, or the raised ground bordering some lake or river? The author hopes the reader has read more than just that sentence – but has actually read everything before that and remembers enough relevant details to garner a meaningful understanding from that sentence. Like when the author described their previous meeting place. Simple things like noting context and previous usage are basic keys to UNDERSTANDING any book – not just the Bible. You said "Now you may disagree with what is written (that is your privilage) but it is God's Word you are disagreeing with - it's not my "grammer" or anybody elses "grammer" for that matter" – no one is disagreeing with what is written. Again this is VPW's old safeguard tactic of trying to protect your point of view and a gross arrogant assumption that you are absolutely right – and anyone who disagrees is wrong…I am disagreeing with YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the verse. In reference to this passage I said in post # 48, "The reference in Numbers 23:19 is saying God is not a man that he should lie – contrasting the unreliability of man as seen in the passage's context of Balaam himself." That is MY understanding of the verse [which may also be wrong as well] – I think it is more in line with what the whole passage is about. Contrasting the lying, fickle nature of man with God's truth and consistency. This verse is dramatically highlighted against the background of Balaam's double-mindedness, his duplicity, his deception – a man that did speak the Word of God at times – but also acted as prophet-for-hire …commissioned by Balak to curse Israel. God is not like that! How does saying Jesus is God turn God into a man? I look at Him as the God/Man when He walked the earth. I don't understand the doctrine of Jesus' divinity being one of the reduction of God into a human. While on earth He was known as the Son of God [referring to His divine nature] and also as the Son of Man [referring to His human nature]. If we want to make an oversimplified statement of His nature – maybe we could say He had a twofold nature. How are they able to be combined – how do they connect? I don't know…We are beings made in the likeness of God. And yet how is that immaterial part joined to our flesh and blood? I don't know…I think you may have a MISUNDERSTANDING of Trinitarian doctrine. I don't think it tries to make God into a man. I think it tries to explain the dynamics of a relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Back up and look at the entire incident: Matthew 12:22-32 NIV 22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?" 24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons." 25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 "Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house. 30 "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. I don't see the passage as emphasizing the Spirit as being greater – what strikes me about the account is that both parties were referring to what really drove out the demons. The Pharisees said it was Beelzebub – Jesus said it was the Spirit of God. I'm not sure what the unforgivable sin was or if it's something that one can commit in this age. Perhaps it's significant to note that one of Jesus' favorite ways to refer to Himself was as "The Son of Man" – which emphasized His humanity. He looked like everybody else. Maybe that's why speaking against the Son of Man – who appeared as a humble human – was understandably a less serious sin – one that was forgivable. It seems the healing of this demon-possessed man was truly amazing because it states, "all the people were astonished." Judging by the crowd's reaction it was undeniable proof of the power of God and made them wonder if Jesus was indeed the Messiah – yet the Pharisees attributed it to Satan…The only comparison I see of who is greater than who – is that the Holy Spirit is stronger than Beelzebub…So perhaps – it was forgivable to speak against Jesus – who looked like an ordinary human – but to witness an undeniable proof of the power of Spirit of God – to see a miracle like this and yet speak against the Holy Spirit by denying who really did it – is unforgivable…Refusing to acknowledge the Spirit's work places one in a very precarious position – for it is the Spirit who bears witness to Christ [John 15:26] and who convicts the sinner [John 16:7-11]. Scripture clearly portrays the Son as subordinate to the Father – I don't see what the problem is. There is a passage where the Father does address the Son as God: Hebrews 1:5-9 NIV 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"? 6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

You bring up a good point, Sushi. Sometimes we can misjudge people. That’s why when I have any “business” to dispose of – we all wear blindfolds…Me, my friend…and the stiff – just in case he was a friend too.

And don't forget: Steady paycheck for doing nothing……………….Check What’s expected of a committed follower......Blank Check Standard payment to subordinates……………….Bounced Check Proof that God will spit in your direction……….Cancelled Check

I don’t know, Tom – I honestly don’t know…guess the spirit works in mysterious ways in mysterious people…probably varies from person to person…Yah know…one person may get so upset at the web of deceit they find in another individual that spiders just come a crawling out their noseballs…Me? I guess I get all hep – so to speak – all shook – and poof – there’s red ink in my post.

Welcome to GSC, Estimated Prophet. I lean towards the notion that the office of an Apostle was something conferred on the individually personally by Jesus Christ with one of the qualifying factors being that the person had actually seen the resurrected Christ – and that the office may not have been necessary after the newly formed church was established – and from what I understand the biblical definition of an Apostle is different than the way VPW described it. …As far as John L being a Teacher – that's something I seriously take issue on. I recall in one of his letters to followers of his group – talking about how as former followers of TWI they are like the Israelites of old escaping the bondage of Egypt but taking with them all the gold – implying they've got all that wonderful rightly-divided Word and doctrinal truth from TWI – but are going to do things differently! I tend to view him as more of a great salesman – it doesn't matter what product he's selling – he'll get it moving off the shelves for sure! …I personally think any former leader in a cult has ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS starting their own ministry! Gee whiz – the Apostle Paul took quite awhile re-building his theology after Jesus Christ knocked him off his high horse – who knows how long – some commentaries put it at between 3 and 14 years. I've got nothing personal against John L or anyone that's started offshoots from TWI – and I'm not accusing them of any evil practices. I'm just asking WHAT qualifies them to lead anybody? They can have the best intentions in the world, immaculate personal integrity – but I KNOW from personal experience that will not help one iota. How so? I went through TWI's leadership training program the Way Corps. I always put TWI ahead of everything in my life thinking I was serving God and NEVER committed adultery – though unbeknownst to me at the time I'm working for a self-serving outfit with upper management having a free-for-all targeting/sexually molesting women…even with the grand poobah himself [VPW]– the dude with all five gift ministries and a girl at every bus station flaunting his immorality right under our noses by occasionally showing the Corps his favorite doggie/women porn video!..Yeah - marvelous leadership training program - really builds chracter and enables you to seperate truth from error. And wasn't John L a Corps Coordinator for awhile? What a great program the Way Corps is - screwing up preparing people to screw up to lead other people. …I'll tell yah what. The devil doesn't have to waste any energy destroying some TWI-offshoots. Somebody needs to save them from themselves! Egad!!!! Reading all this mess with CES – I just shake my head. What do you expect? Let's check in with Prophet Foxworthy: If your plan and process of operation are similar to TWI's – you might be a chip off the old cult. If your doctrinal assumptions are similar to TWI's - you might be a chip off the old cult. If you think the devil is on the attack every time followers start arguing amongst themselves – you might be a chip off the old cult. If you consider your presumed enlightenment of the Scriptures will have an enormous impact on the rest of us poor dullards – you might be a chip off the old cult. And if you think your top leadership has a direct line to God Himself and that they are the next best thing to Christ on a stick and for all intents and purposes should act as THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY for all church matters - you definitely are a chip off the old cult…Of course that's just the opinion of Prophet Foxworthy and he may be wrong.

Vomitous. An overwhelming desire to bring up a hot meal; some references include the idea of premeditated hurling as portrayed by Linda Blair in The Exorcist. May be used literally, "Sorry to cut ahead on the bathroom line but I'm feeling rather vomitous after that thirteenth Boiler Maker." Or figuratively, "Sorry to cut ahead on the bathroom line but I'm feeling rather vomitous after having to listen to those two TWIt-heads at the back of the line yammer on about how some class literally changed their lives. I think thirteen Boiler Makers would do the same thing – and for a lot less money and time." Cool idea for a thread, NotMatilda - what a fun idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good eye, Cynic - and I think you have something there! Here's those two verses from the NET Bible along with a footnote from it on the prepositional phrase "since the foundation of the world." Revelation 13:8 NET and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed. "The prepositional phrase "since the foundation of the world" is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, "the Lamb who was killed" (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase "since the foundation of the world" modifies the verb "written" (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase "written in the book of life since the foundation of the world" occurs with no ambiguity" [textual note from NET Bible] Revelation 17:8 NET The beast you saw was, and is not, but is about to come up from the abyss and then go to destruction. The inhabitants of the earth—all those whose names have not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world—will be astounded when they see that the beast was, and is not, but is to come. But I also want to add a quote from The Commentary on the New testament: The Interpretation of Revelation by R.C.H. Lenski, referring to this prepositional phrase on page 400: "…Commentators debate as to whether they should construe, 'having been slain from the foundation of the world,' leaving together what the text places together, or, 'has been written…from the foundation of the world,' placing the phrase across all that intervenes. Appeal is made to 17:8 where the phrase does modify 'has been written." But the many, like the American Committee of the R.V., settle the matter in this manner, they overlook the fact that 17:8 has only 'the Book of the Life' and not also the genitive, 'of the Lamb, the one having been slain.' Moreover, there is I Peter 1:19,20: the precious blood of the Lamb 'who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world'; compare John 17:24. To this add Ephesians 1:4; God 'elected us in connection with him [in Christ] before the foundation of the world.' Stop and think a little…How could there be the Lamb's book of Life so that the name of any of the blessed might be written therein 'from the foundation of the world,' if the Lamb and his having been slain did not extend back before and 'from the foundation of the world'? The old exegetes were right: the Lamb has been slain from the world's foundation. In eternity [timelessness], when God had the names of the blessed written into the Lamb's Book, his Son already then constituted that Book, his Son's sacrificial blood the ink for that writing [if we may venture to say so], the efficacy of his Son's death extended backward as also forward from that day on Calvary…" End of excerpt. I liked the NIV translation of Revelation 13:8 – guess all those years of reading sci-fi and watching The Outer Limits as a kid have really taken their toll ! Seriously, I think Lenski's comments may justify NIV's rendering as another option – but I think you're right in terms of the phrasing of 13:8 matching 17:8 – being in the same book by the same writer. I think it flows better that way and makes better sense – and now I prefer the NET translation on it. Thanks for bringing that up, Cynic!

I love questions too, Potato. Didn't always like them…In TWI – taking on a question was a big responsibility! Because your answer better agree with TWI's body of doctrine…But the freedom to explore now is…exhilarating! As I was saying back in post # 13 - systematic theology is a handy framework – perhaps a necessary tool for sorting out things – a place to hang an idea unless a more appropriate spot comes along. I think part of how our mind learns is by questioning, by looking for details, comparing, contrasting, categorizing, noting relationships, similarities, and differences. I think systematic theology can be a helpful interpretive tool of the Bible – as long as I remember it's a tool, a process, a way to organize data. I view the doctrine of the Trinity as that – a framework of thought – a way to organize all the scriptural data on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I'm of the opinion the Bible doesn't explain the Trinity - it doesn't say, "there is a Trinity." But I think the doctrine of the Trinity tries to explain the dynamic relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by acknowledging the entire body of Scripture . I don't think we can cram what God is all about in a short, crisp creed or 10 Scripture references. How can we quantify or describe a being that is so big He exists in eternity [Isaiah 57:15]? I wonder what the panorama of redemptive history looks like from heaven? You asked "why did God wait so long?" I don't have an answer for that one either – only more puzzling verses like, Revelation 13:8 NIV All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast — all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. Some people [and I'm one of them] believe the Book of Revelation deals with events that are still future. Isn't this weird? The verse mentions the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world – the cross of Christ is pictured as a timeless event – or maybe a time-full event – frozen in eternity - or is it spanning all of history? With a renewed interest in the Holy Spirit since Mark's post # 77 - I enjoy taking in the bigger picture – seeing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit work as one on our behalf: Hebrews 9:14 NIV How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Great questions, Potato – and I'm not going to try to answer any of them. But I will share some passages that come to mind about them. Like I was saying earlier – I try to be aware of reductionism thinking on my part – at times I think it's necessary to at least start organizing how one is to address a subject. But I really dislike reductionism as a quick and easy way to provide a pat answer for someone. So – I really don't have any answers for you – just some questions I've had along the same line as yours. When it comes to thinking about things that are joined together or somehow so constituted as to appear as one thing – I think about people. The Bible says we're made in the likeness of God. How do I pin down that quality? What's it weigh? How is that connected to my flesh and bones? How do you separate it? Very mysterious… Hebrews 4:12 NASB For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Well…according to that verse soul and spirit can be separated. How can there be such a being as a God/Man? How is God and man joined together? Very mysterious…I don't know…And why…WHY…WHY did God have to come to earth to redeem man? I don't know all the divine reasoning behind that BIG plan! But how that hits my little pea brain is that God must have really loved us – enough to personally get involved – that He is not some remote and aloof being who has no idea what physical or emotional pain feels like. Philippians 2:3-12 NASB 3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. While He walked this earth Jesus never took advantage of His position, power or authority – never did anything for a selfish reason. He could have changed a stone into bread when He was starving in the wilderness – but He chose not to. But He did miraculously feed over 5,000 hungry people with just a few fish and loaves of bread. He could have thrown Himself off the pinnacle of the Temple and wow the crowd – but He chose not to. He did walk on water to the rescue of His disciples on their storm tossed boat…For very unselfish reasons [our redemption and providing an example of lifestyle] He emptied Himself of all priviledges! …I'm not gonna explain anything about the Trinity…I try to take it in with the way it puts things in Scripture…God the Father is not Jesus the Son…So I think things like – "I have a son – he's human too. He's a lot like me. He came from me." If a divine being has a child – is the child divine? If a divine being ...uhmmm...can't think of a better way to put it..."mates" with a human – is the child divine/human? So many passages talk about how the Son comes from the Father…I wonder without being overly simplistic – if we're supposed to have a much simpler approach to understanding this stuff.

Great thread, Roy – and great posts everyone! I LOVE discussions like this! I like to think I'm more open minded than I was in TWI – in terms of having a willingness to consider another point of view. I love the way you put that – "Today I try to set that I only see in part but I want a bigger picture than I had in the Way Ministry." That's my game plan too. How do I debate truth today? Well…I really see it as more of a process of exploration. I've said this before on another thread – it sounds hokey but it's my attitude most of the time I'm on GSC: On discussions I'm more into discovery than debate. I love engaging people of different viewpoints – even totally different viewpoints or perhaps even one the exact opposite of mine. It's very rewarding when everyone is courageous enough to speak their mind on something, courteous enough to truly listen to others, and thoughtful enough to give the topics on the table their best shot. And I don't think it's a "truth" that I'm after – in the sense of I'm looking for the ultimate answer for something. It's more like – frequently checking my head out to see if I'm doing my best thinking on something, trying to make my little sub-processor [my assumptions, point of view, etc.] as an overt process as possible – so I can see how I'm handling the data coming in. It's more a matter of honing my thinking skills than debate skills. Sometimes my opinion will change because of someone else's input. Sometimes a belief of mine becomes stronger or weaker or is refined. I'm always harping on critical thinking, analytical thinking, thinking out loud – people must get the idea that I think I'm the foremost authority on critical thinking. Nope – far from it. I'm like a kid with a newly discovered toy – since coming to GSC! Most threads I get on I still [after coming here for a year] feel like a kid getting to play ball with the pros! It's not like I haven't been thinking on my own since I left TWI 20 years ago – but since coming here I've gained a lot of confidence in the thinking process. TWI does a number on yah – where you doubt your mental capacity. Coming here is such exquisite therapy! You don't know what a comfort it was in coming to GSC and reading about others questioning certain doctrines or practices or about TWI's screwy mental-games or weird social dynamics…Bottom line – I've come to realize it's normal to think and feel the way we do after experiencing something like TWI…Sorry if I'm sounding like one of those blithering-idiot-basket-case types you just brought to Twig – but I really got delivered on this website, man!