oldiesman

Nice video and the quality is outstanding. Thx for sharing.

The way I look at that verse is not an attack but a simple statement of how spiritual activity works, ie. spiritual things are spiritually discerned, assimilated, acted upon whereas reason is naturally or sensually (5-senses) discerned. Obviously we are 5-senses man but Paul explains that spiritual things are an additional realm that man can live in and those who don't will view the spiritual as a crock of foolishness.

Agree. Thx for sharing.

I will offer this opinion to try to summarize what Raf means, maybe its correct: The Jews rejected Jesus because they believed he was a liar and a con artist. Former TWI members reject PFAL because they believe VPW was a liar and a con artist.

Agree

Watched again at high speed. Keeping this as simple as possible: It's pretty clear that the Founders believed in freedom of religion, and the fruits of that belief came in govt edict i.e. the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Even if they all didn't believe in Jesus the way some of us do today, they left us with an amazing govt document that makes it "available" for us to energetically and vibrantly believe in Jesus the way we want to without govt hassle or restriction, and likewise the reverse; left it open for Americans not to believe and even mock and ridicule everything about Jesus the way they want to without govt hassle. In sum, the US Constitution puts its limits on govt, but not religion.

Oh yes, I've seen this one and I believe it was posted on GS already. Quite a video. Thx.

Yes. Your mention of Jefferson motivated me to retrieve a book that I had in the house but haven't read in years, "In God We Trust -- the religious beliefs and ideas of the American Founding Fathers." In it contains quite a chapter on Jefferson... a little over 100 pages. Another Chapter is devoted solely to the Jefferson - Adams letters. Here's a nice quote among many about Jefferson: "To his good friend Benjamin Rush he wrote that his religious beliefs were the "result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and are very different from the Anti-Christian system attributed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, but I am a Christian in the only sense in which I believe Jesus wished anyone to be, sincerely attached to his doctrine in preference to all others; ascribing to him all human excellence, and believing that he never claimed any other."

Thx, but just ordered one from Amazon for 5 bucks.

Pls explain your take on it, thx. ( I WILL buy it )

Never picked one up but you encourage me to do so. Is this a pretty good summary of it? "The letters intimate great appreciation of the life and words of Jesus as the true cynosure of republican government. It is understood by some historians that Jefferson composed it for his own satisfaction, supporting the Christian faith as he saw it."

Here's an "apparent" contradiction to Mike's theory from PFAL: God is the Fountain of Living Waters. "God is a fountain. That's an unlimited supply; that's what makes it a fountain."

Proceeding under Mike's theory then (while also considering VPW here) God's willingness and ability are equal but limited to His budgetary limit.

But you ARE putting it on God. Isn't that basically what you suggested when starting this thread?! You spoke about the possibility of God's budget of miracles being scarce, then wrote: "Now another feature of this theory or hunch of mine is that the budget not only applies to the “amount” of an intervention from the spiritual to the physical, it ALSO implies a TIME BUDGET as well." Are you now walking it back and saying lack of results when we believe is our doing?

I agree in the sense that if Mike believes that "the law of believing" works like VPW taught it, then it contradicts the very thesis of this thread; i.e., there are other forces at work even when we really do believe to receive. If I got that wrong Mike pls. clear it up. Thx.

This may fall into one of those cases that isn't an exact representation. Here's a commentary on it: To the Wilderness—or a Wedding? - Apologetics Press It's like that verse in Genesis 1:1 "in the beginning" and then Gen 1:2 says "and the earth was void" Stuff happened in between that the scriptures omit which appears to be the same here. I agree with your prior statement that religion demands acceptance of the disproven. Christians even believe the preposterous on occasions.

Me too! Thank you for sharing that.

Yes, with limits. What I recollect is that it's "available" for believers to operate them, contingent on God's will at the time. Remember when VPW said "I reached up in daddy's cookie jar"? Sometimes a cookie was there, sometimes not. Another way to put it is, we have the inherent power, and God works as you act. But what if God doesn't want or need to do it at the time? Then it won't work. There's obviously other things at play that we might not know about, which is what I think Mike wants to explore in this thread.

And at that time then God's full power will be manifest? (following along with your concept) ?

Mike, so far I think what you said is possible but awaiting those additional scriptures you spoke about. Interesting.

He didn't say we were supposed to tithe, in fact he specifically said that was one of TWI's inconsistencies i.e. he noted that TWI taught the old testament was not written "to" us but epistles only are "to" us therefore how can TWI teach we must obey it? Good point.

Thanks for posting, it was good. I liked his handling of "tithing and abundant sharing" emphasizing we give out of love and gratefulness and not out of fear. I liked how he mentioned the time between Christ's ascension and the Council of Nicea, and the sources teaching that Jesus is God during that period. The biggest impact for me was when he said "they never experienced born again supernatural life change." Of course that's not true, how would he know? On the other hand, for those folks who didn't give up their pot and booze, it may be an eye opener. Does that mean we really aren't saved if we didn't see changes like that? Otherwise, I thought it was accurate.

Your mention of Hebrews 10 encouraged me to read it, and boy, does it pack a wallop. Specifically, verse 26 talks about abandoning the once-held faith. I believe this is what Catholics mean when they talk about the "unforgivable sin" and I have heard it said by more than one Catholic that this is what they believe the unforgivable sin really is. I don't remember TWI ever suggesting this theme. Below is a short commentary on the verse (and it's scary): [26] "If we sin willfully": He speaks of the sin of willful apostasy from the known truth; after which, as we can not be baptized again, we can not expect to have that abundant remission of sins, which Christ purchased by his death, applied to our souls in that ample manner as it is in baptism: but we have rather all manner of reason to look for a dreadful judgment; the more because apostates from the known truth, seldom or never have the grace to return to it.

I was assuming we're going by what the scriptures say about it. If not, how are you defining it?

Reading Hebrews 11 again without TWI glasses on is pretty eye-opening, i.e. that having faith doesn't always bring results. Just look at all those who had faith and never saw results ... so obviously, there can be other forces at work simultaneously.