waysider

No one is being mocked or attacked.Perhaps a slightly different approach might move things along. My suggestion would be to break the hypothesis into more bite-size pieces and deal with them on a more individualized level. Pick a more particular scripture, or section of scripture, and deal with it specifically.

I'm not mocking you, I'm questioning the methodology you're using. There's a big difference. In fact, I applaud your curiosity and efforts. When you research a subject...any subject...you can't latch on to findings that bolster your preconceived hypothesis at the expense of ignoring those that contradict it. That's what is meant by confirmation bias. It's not unique to people studying the Bible, either. Scientists can fall victim, as well, if the refuted findings jeopardize their funding. That's where the process of peer review enters the picture. Credibility of sources becomes an issue, too. For example, one of your sources has a cross-link to this article discussing the possibility we descended from space aliens. Maybe we did. Maybe we didn't. What I'm questioning here is the method the author used to arrive at such an extraordinary conclusion. Again, I'm not putting you down, bashing Wierwille or disagreeing with the scriptures. I simply don't agree with this type of approach to the subject.

That's called confirmation bias. We all do it to one degree or another.

You can make the Bible say anything you want it to say. In fact, some guy once showed me how you can even make it say "There is no God.".

So, Little Johnny hears Uncle Louie share an off-color joke and quickly realizes the whole room is consumed with laughter. He decides to retell the joke, in hopes of receiving the same response as Uncle Louie. Unfortunately, Johnny is much too young to grasp the nuanced ambiguity that fuels the humor and his retelling falls completely flat. That's pretty much how I see what happened with Little Vic when he tried to retell borrowed works that he, himself, didn't understand in the first place

This atmosphere of fear was quite prevalent at that time. As you indicated, it was not exclusive to The Way. Maybe that made it easier to accept. I don't know. It was a one-step-removed kind of thing. The U.S.S.R was out to get us ...and it was the adversary who ran the U.S.S.R. So, it was both. V.P. didn't exclusively create the fear of the U.S.S.R.. Instead, he exploited what was already there by adding a so-called spiritual aspect into the mix..

Click the link in my post.

I like Ike!

Yes. There was a huge push around the time of the bicentennial. (1975) Supposedly, the communists were plotting to invade us. In FellowLaborers, we had an emergency meeting where we physically destroyed the mimeograph plates used for the state newsletter (so the enemy couldn't get hold of them and know our identities). We built a root cellar in the side of the hill behind the Ohio BRC. to store food stuffs. We had our own rather large garden plot where we raised vegetables for the groups' consumption. There was a lot of other similar activity. Wierwille had supposedly gotten revelation that something big was about to happen. Of course, the real truth was that Wierwille was reacting to information he was getting directly from extremist groups, such as Liberty Lobby and the John Birch Society. Ultimately, our collective believing was effective enough to stave off the evil hoards. (Does that remind you of anyone?... Hint: the Seekers)

The question: what would present day Christendom do to a man like David?

rrobs Try using something other than PFAL material as your point of reference.

To clarify, this is the part of rrobs post I found humorous: " Like I said, in wit and doctrine, I have no equals here at gsc."

"I see what's going on here." Haha! There you go with that humor thing again.

Well written and insightful. Thanks, Rocky.

You forgot about humor. You're way up there in humor, too. Hahahahahahahaha!

In the U.S., his fate (for his actions, not his beliefs) would be decided by society and governing entities, not.Christendom. If Christendom became part of the decision making process deciding David's fate, it would mean we have entered a Theocracy. The Constitution warned against this. It would be in conflict with the first amendment. In 1802, Jefferson wrote this in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.'] It was emphasized in The Treaty of Tripoli, Article #11, which, though discussing a specific scenario, set the tone of future dealings. (1796) "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. On this basis, I propose the aforementioned question raises a moot point. Dave's not here.

"Dave's not here, man."

HERE is an old discussion that may interest you. edit: Please be aware that some of the people who posted in this thread have since passed away.

I didn't ask you what Bullinger or Darby said. I asked you what the scriptures say.

May I kiss your ring, Your Holiness?

Heavy, dude! Allow me to rephrase my comment: Are you saying that, in light of of this verse, the Bible has offered proof of itself that it's been sub-divided into distinct time periods?

So you're saying that verse proves the Bible is chronologically compartmentalized?

If you need a non-scriptural concept to make sense of scripture, you may want to reexamine your methodology.

Definitely not maybe.

I guess I'll be the party-pooper who spills the bean dip. There is no difference. There, I said it. It might have been Steve Lortz or Raf who examined this rather extensively, I'm not sure. If not, I offer my preemptive apology to whoever it was that did the leg work. It's all here if you are curious enough to seek it out. Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God are used synonymously in the scriptures. edit: There is THIS for starters... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/19171-kingdom-of-god-vs-kingdom-of-heaven/