geisha779

Hi Charlene, This is why I say. . . . the existential questions which prompts our search must be part of the mix. They are relevant to the analysis and to theology. . . . . without them we can fall into a familiar pattern of. . . . knowledge for knowledge sake. I swear there is some residual pride or shame associated with the idea of existential musing. . . . a throwback to TWI . . . or part of our make-up that attracted us in the first place. What are the questions we at first were seeking to answer? Why are we here? What is our purpose? What happens to us when we die? Why is there something instead of nothing? Is there a God? Who is he? Why am I me? On and on it goes. . . . .time, space, matter, creation . . . . yada yada Those are the questions which Christian theology seeks to answer. . . it is not only an exercise in knowledge. . . . and BTW. . . . . Bart does do a great exegesis on the idea of evil and morality. . . no? You speak of an unknowable God. . . . scripture speaks of a man who came to make Him known, to declare this unknowable God. . . Jesus Christ. . . . . a Palestinian Jew who made outrageous claims and according to scripture . . . . backed them up. . . . . the issue is not inserting a theology. . . . . we have an explanation. We HAVE a theology. A Christian theology from scripture. The issue becomes is scripture reliable? Can we know? Is it too confused and corrupted to believe? Is that what was really said. Is Jesus misquoted? :) If we take theology out of THAT discussion, we are doing exactly what Dr. Witherington said. . . . assuming a particular single mindset to explain something varied . . . . theology must be part of the discussion as it is really the subject matter. The existential is relevant. Are you tracking with me? :)

Hi Soul Searcher, I would simply buy an ESV study bible. A springboard into bible scholar land. http://www.esvstudybible.org/ Bible.org has a good discussion forum. . . . Daniel B Wallace. . . a scholar of some note posts there from time to time. You are free to discuss and question away!! http://forum.bible.org/ It is probably a very good idea to examine some of these issues with others. . . . remember. . . . we ALL came out of a bible worshiping cult. Our recovery and reaction to faith is varied and will also be based in differing degrees on an aberrant understanding of the Christian faith. I include myself in this group. :) Good to mix it up a bit with those never tainted by what we have endured.

Someone told me the links don't work. . . . I have no idea how to fix them. If you click on Ben Witherington's name on the "Sorry" page it will take you to his blog. There is a six part series entitled. . . . A Detailed Analysis of Jesus Interrupted . . . . from April 2009. It is worth the hunt. . . . with all the talk around here of "critical thinking" it might be beneficial to glean several perspectives to contrast and compare. Here is an excerpt: If you actually bother to read ancient biographies (see e.g. Tacitus's Life of Agricola, or Plutarch's famous parallel lives) you will discover that the ancients were not pedants when it comes to the issue of strict chronology as we are today. The ancient biographical or historiographical work operated with the freedom to arrange there material in several different ways, including topically, geographically, chronologically, to mention but three. Yes they had a secondary interest in chronology in broad strokes, but only a secondary interest in that. If one studies the Fourth Gospel in detail and closely in the Greek, comparing it to other ancient biographies what one learns is that it is a highly schematized and edited product, and the sign narratives are arranged theologically not primarily chronologically. And whilst this might cause a modern person some consternation, it is not a reason to say that John contradicts the Synoptics on this Temple cleansing matter. The Fourth Gospel begins by showing that Jesus replaces the institutions of Judaism with himself—a theological message (he is the Passover lamb, he is the Temple where God's presence dwells etc.). The Synoptic writers are likely presenting a more chronologically apt picture of when this event actually happened. But strict chronology was not the major purpose of the Fourth Evangelist, we should not fault him for not giving us information we might want to have, or for focusing on the theological import of the event, rather than its timing. Such was the freedom, within limits, of ancient biographies and histories. I must disagree with the conclusion then when Bart says "Historically speaking, then, the accounts are not reconcilable." (p. 7). False. This is only so if one insists on a flat modern anachronistic reading of the text which pays no attention to what the authors are attempting. The Gospel of John probably tells us nothing about this chronological issue, the Synoptics probably do, and judged on their own terms and on the basis of their ancient genre, one cannot draw the conclusion Bart does. Period. And unfortunately, this is a mistake Bart makes over, and over again, judging ancient texts on the basis of modern presuppositions about history writing, and what counts as truth or error. In fact, it is not entirely erroneous to say that Bart reads the Bible with the same sort of flat literalistic hermeneutic that he would have used before he did his scholarly study of the text. And I find this passing strange. Let's take his next pet example--- the three denials of Christ by Peter, and the cock crows. I quite agree with his critique of those who come up with six denials of Christ by Peter. No Gospel says that, any more than any Gospel mentions two cleansing of the Temple. Bart points to the difference between Matthew and Mark, the latter saying Peter will deny Christ before the cock crows twice, whilst in Matthew it says 'before the cock crows". He then asks--- "which is it?" The assumption is: 1) these Gospel writers were trying to be very precise; and 2) these two options are mutually contradictory; and 3) we should ask these sorts of detail questions of ancient historical documents because we have a right to assume that modern historical ways of analyzing this material will help us to get to the bottom of such matters and find the historical truth. In the first place let's consider point 2). In fact, if Peter denied Christ three times before the cock crowed at all, then he certainly denied Christ three times before the cock crowed twice!!! But suppose the Gospels writer were not much concerned to give us precise information about the intricate relationship and intercalation between denials and cock crows. Suppose, in terms of historical information they just wanted to make clear that there were three denials and there were cock crows? Of course this is maddening to those who think that we must have precision on such matters, but in fact if an author wants to be general let him be general, and if he wants to be more specific, let him be more specific. Mark may simply have wanted to be more general in his account. And since I think, with most scholars that the First Evangelist is using Mark's account, he probably knew far more about the Markan intent than we do, and decided to be more specific. He edits his Markan account according to his own presentation of things. I could go through Bart's examples one by one explaining how insufficient attention has been paid by him to the ancient conventions of such genre of literature, but I agree with him that over-harmonizing on the basis of modern anachronistic considerations is wrong, just as wrong as claiming there are obvious contradictions based on a modern literalist reading of the same texts. And herein lies a very fundamental problem with the ex-fundamentalist readings of Bart Ehrman. The Gospels are not, and never were intended to be inspected as if they were ancient photographs of Jesus taken with a high resolution, all seeing lens. On the contrary these documents are much more like portraits, and portraits always are selective, tendentious, perspectival. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another excerpt. Not surprisingly, ancient views about 'authorship' are not quite the same as modern views which assume 'individual' authors for almost all documents that aren't collections of essays by some group of scholars. However in ancient collectivistic cultures this was not the norm. Many, if not most ancient documents were anthological in character--- a compilation of traditions from various different persons and ages through time. This was true about collections of laws, proverbs, songs, religious rituals, and stories as well. We should not be surprised in the least in reading through the book of Proverbs that all of a sudden in a book ascribed to Solomon, we have in Prov. 30 the sayings of Agur, or in Prov. 31 the sayings of King Lemuel, whoever he may have been. Or again, the psalms are compilations from various different ages, some are probably songs of David, but some are songs for or dedicated to David, some are composed by others still. It is a mistake to evaluate ancient documents as if they were just like modern documents, and this applies to NT documents as well, in various regards. For example, the vast majority of scholars are in agreement that the Gospels we call Matthew and Luke are compilations from a variety of sources, including Mark and a sayings collection, and some unique material not found in other Gospels. Of course, this becomes puzzling to modern readers of Matthew because they rightly ask the question--- why would an eyewitness apostle like Matthew need to use secondary sources for events he was present to view? Why indeed. Here is where I say to you that while we must properly answer this question, one also needs to not do what Bart Ehrman does in his chapter on who wrote the Bible when it comes to this issue—which is to suggest that these Gospels were originally anonymous, and labels were added to them later for apologetical purposes, and that when we read of who they are attributed to in an early source like Papias, we can with a wave of the hand simply dismiss such evidence. If you want to read what a historian of merit has to say indetail about the Papias' traditions I would point you to Richard Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, which is mostly a close reading and explanation of Papias and what he says. It does not in any way agree with Ehrman's analysis of these early traditions. Indeed, most scholars today think there was a collection of the four canonical Gospels together at some point early in the second century in codex form which is when we get the official labels—according to Matthew etc. based on earlier traditions about the sources of these documents (see e,g, the work of Graham Stanton). . . . .

Hope you guys get a chance to listen to this video. I truly do. It is presented by the Veritas Forum at UCBerkeley and the speaker is Dr. Francis Collins. If you are not familiar with who he is. . . . you can be sure at some time in your life you, or a loved one; or someone you know. . . . will owe him a debt of gratitude. He was instrumental in mapping the human genome. That means incredible advances in the way we can now treat individuals with disease. As someone who carries the Cystic Fibrosis gene. . . married to someone else who carries the CF gene. . .and someone with children. . . . I know what his work will mean to people. He is a Christian, and a highly respected scientist with honors too numerous to list. A man who claims to have come to his faith by way of reason and evidence. I can't imagine anyone calling him a lazy mind with a backwards point of view. I believe he is now Director of the NIH. . . . National Institute of Health. Anyway. . . Christians don't really exist in a bubble. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>I appreciate the thread and the article by Charlene, I so enjoyed it. . . :) Could there be differences in ancient historiography and those of post enlightenment.. . . which may account for some of the perceived contradictions in scripture which seem so troubling? Maybe? Are the doctrines held today by Christians really in crisis due to hopeless confusion and textual variants? Not everyone agrees with that perspective. . . . hope you can check out the links. We all make these decisions for ourselves. . . . as it should be. . . . but, I sometimes wonder if the existential questions of life become lost in a misplaced sense of shame with we ex-twi . . . having been so tricked? When speaking of matters of faith, God, scripture, the very idea of truth. . . . without them, it seems a very reminiscent discussion IMO. http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2009/04/bart-interrupted-detailed-analysis-of_08.html http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2009/04/bart-interrupted-detailed-analysis-of.html http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2009/04/bart-interrupted-detailed-analysis-of_13.html http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2009/04/bart-interrupted-detailed-analysis-of_16.html http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2009/04/bart-interrupted-detailed-analysis-of_16.html http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2009/04/bart-interrupted-detailed-analysis-of_20.html

Reading this. . . . I just threw up in my mouth a little.

My kid performed this song at the Christmas service a few years ago. . . . not traditional Christmas music, but moving all the same. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

On the flip side. . . no Pastor, Reverend, Vicar, or Priest worth their paycheck. . . is not going to let these guys within a thousand yards of their flock.

I think it matters if that is the way the creator God chose to declare Himself to us. The verses in scripture that speak about no one knowing God except through Jesus are actually not exclusionary verses IF that is how God did it. . . . than that is the way to Him. We can chose to believe whatever we want. . . . we can believe it doesn't matter because there are many ways. . . . we can chose another path. . . . but, not everything is true and corresponds with a reality. And. . . . it always comes down to "Who do you say I am?" You can say a figment of imagination, a nice guy, a rebel, one way to God, the way, the truth, and the life. . . . but, 2,000+ years later we are STILL answering that question. Am I wrong?

My son played music at a funeral toay. . . . a really sad event. . . . the woman who died left beind both her parents and her children. A reminder that life is so fleeting, and yet eternity is set in our hearts. Is that a cruel joke of evolution, or is it by design? I believe it is by design. Even though people were so sad today, they had a very moving hope. That being. . . . God is. Many of them comforted by faith in Him. I don't know about years in the word anymore. . . at all. . . to me, it is really a means to an end. . . pointing me to the person Jesus, who is the truth. There is not much in there that does not relate back to Him and the only "truths" I really understand anymore are in Him. Maybe we just can't sustain an intimate relationship with a book and were never meant to? ____________________________________ I read this comment often. . . . in varying forms around here ". . . if God wants to make the truth known then why not show him/herself?" Well, He did. Jesus came to declare Him. . . . to reveal Him. According to scripture, that is how God made Himself known to us. . . . in the person of Jesus Christ . ____________________________________ Sometimes I think all the things thrown at us in life are just a distraction from the reality of Him. I had to ask myself if I was looking for some secret truth, some special knowledge . . . . or did I just want God? Dialing it back to the most basic of life's questions. . . stripping away all the years of life's ability to jade. . . and listening like a child to the simple answers Jesus gives us. . . . . . . I believe we can catch a glimpse of truth.

That makes sense and where the analogy would fit. It wouldn't make sense if you all were bonded around the idea that TWI was a real Christian movement and you all missed the fellowship and friendship you had around "the word". Off to work. . . thanks for the topic brainfixed. It is obviously very complex and very individual. . . .and there is no way around the fact it was part of our past and because it was intense conditioning. . . . it did shape much of our youthful perceptions. . . . yikes!

I don't understand the whole Band of Brothers analogy? I suppose if people were actually united by some sort of common trauma that would make sense, similar to a support group or survivor group. That isn't really the common adhesive when people unite around a deluded nostalgia is it? I mean to say. . . . when people are missing what they call the old "fellowship" or "friendship". To unite around the foxhole they must first acknowledge is was a traumatic experience, not the idea that TWI was some great movement of "God and His Word" akin to "The Great Awakening". Really, I am not trying to be obtuse, or even super antagonistic, but doesn't that analogy run contrary to the initial post in this thread? I am not saying that people can't have genuine love and friendship with someone from their past TWI experience. I believe they can. . .we once discussed this to death. But, even then I agreed that it was the exception, not the rule. That there were rare genuine friends among the majority of compelled and instant bonding. Take WOW vet's. I can't imagine that to be a bonding experience only understood by those who lived it?? I know some believe it to be a great learning experience. Some think they "grew" closer to God and forged some kind of eternal relationships with those they lived with. . . .fine. . . but, there are others who think it was a whole big waste of youth and effort. A manufactured experience meant sell a class and wrangle people into a cult. Others still, who cringe and think it was more than not offensive to the glory of God. So, unless we all meet and agree it was one or the other. . . . where is the commonality? Was it that we were for the most part half-starved and lived sub-standard existences? So, we discuss mac-cheese and how many cockroaches our home had. . . . because unless we unite over the idea it was some great and Godly experience. . . . or it was total crap.. . . . . there is in reality. . . . nothing there. For the record. . . I fall into the cringing and it was total crap camp. Guess I really don't think the analogy applies when people are bonded around the idea of fellowship and friendship. . . . there is a missing element. The reality. I do have a theory as to why people start missing this stuff. . . . people of a certain age usually become nostalgic for their youth. It is not uncommon. And, you can either accept that it was wasted and in many ways stolen youth. . . deal with the reality and find some way to become wiser. Maybe even advocate for those ensnared in a cult. . . speak up about TWI so others don't become caught up. . . . . or. . . . . You can continue to delude yourself into thinking it was a special time, an important event, and continue to believe the lies you were spoon fed. Good thing I never grew an opinion. :)

I really don't think they would let me unless the rules have changed. Hubby never graduated. Even if I could, my personality being what it is. . . . I would offend the masses in record time. It was just an observation. . . . I read those threads about it in the Soap Opera forum recently. . . . and I thought we got into some spats here. . . . yeah right. . . child's play! :) And Excie there are names on there of people I knew in TWI.. . . who I would have a very hard time even considering forgiving. . . . they may be perfectly lovely now, but I just don't care. Too many really ugly memories. Anyway. . . . I could be totally wrong about the site . . . it was just a guess.

Oh yes! YES! I have had more than one of those horribly humiliating conversations. Still get that residual queasiness when remembering them. Sadly, they were just what I needed.

The reason I know this is because he would have someone help him with reading. . . . writing notes. . . and spelling. . . . left to do this on his own. . . he could barely get by reading. . . . his writing was indecipherable and grammar a passing concept. He was not a bright bulb. He only had a few people he trusted or used to help him. . . .He was after all a MOG. Maybe he learned. But, he did struggle back in the day. It really is so ironic. . . . almost like these guys were natural brute beasts or something! Research? We don't need no stinking research. . . . we know how to plagiarize entire libraries.. . . . grammar included.

I think I may just be in a foul mood. . . . or feeling completely antagonistic . . . . but, a friend or two from the way daze doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility. That being said. . . . I do think brainfixed points out a really valid distinction between the perception some may have of their time in a cult to the actual events and overall reality of what we were a part of. . . . basing "fellowship" and "friendship" around an idea that never really was. The "Word". . . Moving the "Word" . . . and serving some "Greater good". Breaking it down. . .the "Word" taught was a lie. . . . "Moving the word" meant lining TWI's coffers by selling a class and indoctrinating new recruits . . . . and "Serving" meant within the extremely limiting parameter of "The Word" . . . you were a workhorse to the "Household". I know some rebels did step beyond the parameters and actually help others with real problems. Sadly. . . . that was the rare exception and they usually had to break the rules to do so. For me, and in my opinion, what probably IS a good example of some sort of delusional collective memory and yearning for bygone "fellowship" and "friendship" sometimes articulated here . . . . is that Way Corps Only site. From what I can glean, because hubby refuses to join, is that it is filled with the collective nostalgia and revisionist history of days gone by, laced with a fair amount elitism added for the complete nostalgic experience. However, that is only a guess from threads here, Penwork's article, and others posts. Offshoots are another example. People perpetuating the fantasy of Moving the Word, Fellowship, and Service. Learn the gospel and go on missions if that is what you want to do! Or, do relief work. . . if you want to make a difference. . . . feed a hungry belly. So, is there anyone here I missed? Or have I offended just about everyone?

I was tempered in my opinion of JH, but to his credit. . . . he married into a lovely family. We have nothing but kind memories of his brother-in-law, sister-in-law and his wife. Really, in TWI out of TWI . . . I don't care. . . they were always just wonderful people. His brother-in-law's old business partner and family. . . just the same. . . down to earth and good. Rochelle was just a baby back then. . . I am sure she is lovely. JH is gone on to whatever just reward awaits him. Me. . . . . I just wouldn't be learning any bible from them. . . any of them. . . that's all.

It could be that Hendricks made his money another way. . . . off the backs and sweat of people slaving for him while he was a big shot in TWI. Pretty sure that is a distinct possibility. Yep. . . positive. He had a gold buying venture in the 70's and used to send the faithful out in a van to buy gold on the cheap and then re-sell it at a substantial profit. Didn't have to pay employees either. . . you got a place to stay. Hate to tell you what happened to the fool who bought some gold plate by mistake. . . . . I assure you it wasn't "Well, do better next time." He had a landscaping buisness in the 70's and 80's in NC & SC. For a while his "employees" all TWI faithful. . . . crowded into a little trailer in the backyard of a comfy home. . . . several grown men packed in like sardines. . . . nil quality of living. . . working for him at slave wage. Eventually they got out of the trailer, one said "forget this" albeit in more colorful language. . . . the rest were strategically placed to oversee his business. He had some big accounts in the Carolinas. I know if you displeased him. . . . the "nearly nothing" wage went down to "next to nothing". No overtime pay. . . . plenty of overtime work. . . . no benefits. . . . . and I also know that anything that threatened that almost free labor was treated as highly diseased. Possesed. . if you disagreed with him or stood up to him. After all, VP refered to him as the Corps Corps. . . Kind of like a man's man. He never took a salary from TWI's coffers as limb leader. . . but, he had no problem abusing TWI's "labor pool" John Hendricks didn't lack for money and knew how to use people to get it. He hid money and gold under his bed. I know this because whenthe limb home caught on fire someone had to go back into the burning building and get it. That is where it was. . . under his bed!! And while the home was being repaired. . . . he stayed in a hotel while the rest of the peons who lived there got bronchitis living at the smoke damaged home. Ironic. . . I heard he went to some kind of seminary?? It is ironic because he actually really struggled with basic reading, writing and grammar. Not exactly a biblical scholar. He surely did claim to have stopped hurricanes. . . personally meet angels(The guardian of the east coast no less). . .and control the weather. He was after all. . . . a MOG. . . he really, really believed it. What a load of BS! So much for not speaking ill of the dead. I still hear his name and have a cringing reaction.

So, you pull a verse out of context like 3 John 2 . . . . like that stand alone quote is supposed to have some depth of implication to me. . . . some meaning on its own? I hear that verse and certain understanding should spring to mind? I am no longer indoctrinated into TWI theology. It doesn't speak to me of the promise of prosperity, abundance, and a trouble free life. The context of 2nd and 3rd John is about not showing hospitality to false teachers, but showing real hospitality to the true brethren. John writing in 90AD is addressing what was then going on. . . . gnosticism, anti-christs, and false teachers challenging the church. To use it as some kind of rallying cry for TWI's concept of "the more abundant" life. . . seems sad to me. John himself was an old frail man when he wrote this. . . exiled on an island akin to a prison camp. Not Club Med. . . . nor was he rejoicing in some kind of prosperity and great health. The majority of the Apostles were martyred for the faith, they were not laughing all the way to the bank. Now, the Apostle whom "Jesus loved" might have had the inside track on "the abundant life" and what it meant. . . . even while he was sitting in painful exile on Patmos? THINK!! . . . . you might have that uh-oh moment you need. It is not about you or your best life now is it? Surely the Lord knows how to give us the very best . . . but, he also knows how to take it away. The question is. . . . in either poverty or wealth, sickness or health. . . do we know how to live for Him? Not always. . . no. Which is the greater goal? How do you reconcile that one greeting with the plethora of verses which reveal the lives of Christians as full of trouble and suffering? If it has to fit with the whole word. . . . . . . someone . . . . somewhere. . . . . is going to have to start doing some serious mental gymnastics. The result of such gymnastics. . . . . TWI theology. You might start hearing things like "For our learning" "Administrations" and "Literal according to usage". Do you know what it means to have your ears tickled? To hear what you want to hear? It is what gets us in trouble and leads us right into groups like TWI. Without the benefit of sound theology. . . . qualified teachers . . . . and accountability. . . . it is pretty much assured that someone . . . . somewhere. . . . is going to prey on our ignorance. I have tried to speak to you in biblease. . . . a language you claim as your own . . . but, if you are learning it in TWI. . . it might just be pig-latin.

Pretty sure he mentions hungry bellies too. . . . The good Samaritan didn't give the stranger 3 John 2 and walk away. . . . He fed him, clothed him, took him to the hospital and paid for it!! These are verses you don't want to be messing up. . . . remember. . . . when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats what His criteria is. . . . And. . . wasn't God watching out for righteous Job's house? Take Care . . . Heckler. Thanks for chatting.

Take a common greeting written by the loving Apostle John and build a theology around it. . .okay, why not . . . . Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Isn't that also "God's word"? . . . . . And remember two verses later God magnified His word above is name. Get thee to a church Heckler!! Take Care. . . and thanks for the chat.

Aah? Because Jesus commands it? And. . . . btw. . . . your house burns down. . . . it is the Red Cross that will be there. . . not TWI.

There is a harsh reality revealed in scripture about those who lead people astray and those who follow their pernicious ways . . . and it isn't "God knows my heart and he treasures it." You know where Paul talks about counting all these things as dung? He is talking post conversion. Filthy rags Heckler. . . . Doesn't mean you can't be a good guy. . . . but, that. . . . amounts to squat. It isn't about us or our hearts. It is about God and His glory. Call Hank Hannegraff.

No, they worship the bible. . . I worship Jesus Christ. We are eternities apart.

Well, that is an assumption. . . . but, let me ask you. . . . . holding me back from what? It is just "common sense" that I can't do all things. What I can do according to that scripture is endure troubles. It doesn't mean I have a magic wand and if I repeat Phil 4:13 enough I can do anything. But, if someone tells you it means that. . . how do you know it is correct? Common sense tells us we jump off a building. . . we don't fly. How do you know the errors have been corrected? I am more than a conqueror. . . . in what am I more than a conqueror?. . . . Trouble, hardship, persecution, famine nakedness, danger and sword? These are not happy things. . . It isn't saying that these things are not going to happen, nor is it saying I can believe them away. . . .it says they won't separate me from the love of God. . . . not that God loves me so they won't ever happen. These situations are not going to separate me . . . THAT is how they are conquered. . .I may die from them, but I will not be separated from the love of God. Christians are imprisoned, tortured and martyred all the time. . . . always for the glory of God. . . . are they still more than conquerors? Their situation doesn't resolve itself. . . . might be something else to these verses. . . more than common sense. How would you know? Psalm 138:2 I will bow down toward your holy temple and will praise your name for your love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word. Does this verse mean the ink on the page is greater than God himself? Not all psalms can be directly correlated to a specific event or time, but this one can. 2 Samuel 7 and the Davidic covenant. God promised David that his line would carry the seed. . . . this is refering to a specific promise which God made. . . . this revelation exceeded all previous revelations. . . . this is why it is magnified. . . . But.. . . . If you don't understand this. . . you can easily be lead right into bible idolatry or worship. Taking one verse out of its context and making it mean something it was never meant to. . . . building a theology around it. This is why you need qualified bible teachers to look over this class.

And for me. . . and Christianity. . . it is Jesus Christ. Do you see the disconnect? Run. . . don't walk.