Galen

We have a couple CDs from 'Good seed' which we like very much. There was a time that 'Paul Norcross' was the 'military outreach coordinator at HQ'; and during another discussion here, 'Steve Axtell's name was brought up under the same context. So my question was did Steve Axtell ever function as "military outreach Co" at HQ? Being a sucessful Naval Officer is usually a 120% of your time and focus kind of job, but from that previous conversation I got the impression that he might have functioned for TWI at some point. I never had occassion to meet either Norcross or Axtell during my limited exposure to TWI, I was just curious.

:-)

Thanks :-)

socks: "... PFAL taught that we are now, in this world, "more than conquerors" through Him that loved us." It certainly does, within the given context that the Adversary is still the god of this world and in full control. "... That a person can be more than a conqueror in any situation in life regardless of the situation" That is adding a bit dont you think? "... That the devil is defeated and that we have the victory over him NOW," Only within the context that Christ got back up again and in so doing conquered death. "PFAL needs to be looked at in light of what it taught, not what we wish it meant to teach." I agree that it does need to be seen inlight what what is it, and NOT what people made from and twisted it into. I have no idea what YOU want it to have taught. :-) "How many do you know?"....the promises of God in the bible. PFAL asks the question of the student. Which is still a good question.

Oakspear: "I prefer to take advantage of the options available to me, rather than avoiding insurance because I'm afraid that it's gambling. As I have already said numerous times, I do have insurance policys. I am not sure who you think is 'afraid' of insurance? There are plenty of instances wherein, if you want to do X you must have insurance. [like escrow accounts in many areas] By all means do with your money whatever makes the best profit. Personally I like collecting Apartment buidings. I have spent many years in a career where I was surrounded by young men, who came out of bootcamp each with an allotment paying $40/month for life-insurance. No maturity dates, no borrowing against it, no equity, and no beneficiarys. Single young men dont need life insurance. Canceling it, got them more drinking money. Or shifting that allotment into a mutual fund actually got it into an investment. [yes many funds will take amounts as small as $50/month, but you have to send them a letter explaining that your a poor servicemember and thats all you can afford in an allotment]. socks- Life insurance for young studs that does not build value and has no cash value, is really difficult to call an investment. Yes there is some risk, of them dying. But without dependants and no beneficiary, the money paid to insurance companys is just lost money. I canceled my SGLI policy soon after leaving bootcamp, as soon as I could. and for all the years following, I never carried it. I dont get any benefit from paying my money into a life-insurance policy agains tmy life. By owning MFRs, their escrow accounts include such by law and Bonnie hs fought with banks in the past so she is the named beneficiary of those accounts, so should I pass she is covered. So I still dotn see the benefit to carrying life-insuracne. If I pay into a policy for three years, and I never wreck my car, or my house never burns down, or I dont die. That policy 'covers' me for that period of time, but then it ends. Unless I actually do wreck that car, or burn tht house, I will never see anything come from spending that money. And then you move on to another country and find another insurance company that under-writes in tha tcountry and you do it all over again. You say that insurance is win-win, everyone walks away a winner. How did I win from paying into all those various policys that I have had over the past 30 years? Other than to say that my risks were 'covered'. To me an investment, is something that has a cash-value that is ever-increasing. When I put money into it, it's cash value goes up, and because I put money into it, it continues to increase it's value at some advanced rate. If Today it is worth $1, and I put in another $1, and next week it is worth $3 and a month later it is worth $4; that is an investment. If the only way to get my money back out of my car insurance is to total my car, then that is not an investment to me. Besides I commonly will pay far more money into a car's insurance policy then that car is worth totaled. I have totaled cars, and I dont think that we have ever seen a check that came near to how much we had paid into the policy. Maybe we should shift the wrecking cars, within the first few months of owning it? :-)

Hamm- "... doc had to say "quit telling people to quit taking their medicine". Some still did though." So even VPW had a time of trying to rein in some hitler types. Interesting! "... I saw folks being talked out of a good career because some lame-brained jackass..." Now were these 'lame-brained jackass's Joe-Beleivers? or did they tend to be leadership wanna-bees? "In the eighties, we knew who to avoid." As did we, as did many Joe-Beleivers. "The "Hitler" types, the givers of stupid advice, etc. After a while, they got pretty angry- their "talents" being so under-utilized. But even then, we had the option of taking or leaving anything they had to say, and still retain ministry involvement. I saw some of the results of their counsel and refused to seek it from them." Good for you. There certainly were those types moving up and down, within the ministry screwing people's lives. We learned early on to avoid them as much as possible. "In the nineties the "idiots" were IN CHARGE. ... Even if you could walk on the water, it wasn't enough. ... [some] just refused to take any more crap out of the local corps guy. Don't get me wrong. We had a share of some good guys too. But not very many." That was certainly our observation. Though it is easy to offend people here on GS, by mentioning such. "I saw one marriage survive DESPITE the best efforts of the local clergy." I only had one experience with a TWI clergy, just never seemed to have any TWI-clergy in any area that I would get stationed to. Were they generally any better? or worse? "I saw corps sell their homes and give loads of the proceeds to the ministry, because they were not "spiritually sharp" enough to handle MONEY. At least according to their overseers. Yep, they were out of debt alright.." sharp enough to earn the money, but not sharp enough to handle it, kewl. But it sounds then like this was only from among the WC? "The corps that came to our area HAD to sell their home, uproot their family, and move to an area that they did NOT like. Bitter? They proceeded to dismantle anything good left in this area, and did their best to leave no stone unturned. And their overseers could not see any wrong.." You know this could be, what we did see a lot of. That actually local leadership was jsut ....ed that they had to keep moving, so they carried that grudge....? I dont know. I just kept moving around, but hey that was my career. "I was PERSONALLY advised to have no meaningful communication with inlaws that were "off the word". They were marked and avoided on "genuine spiritual suspicion"." Niether of our relatives ever got into TWI, so by being normal people, we were never told one way or the other, to have more or to have less contact with them. On the other hand, I doubt whether any leader could have ever known if I had relatives or not. I dont think that any ever knew enough about either Bonnie or myself, to know if we had any relatives. LOL That was probably safer. "I saw others advised to not seek college education, ..." Do you mean like outside of those limb meetings? That was the only time, we were ever confrontd on that issue. We commonly saw lots of others getting grief on the same topic. But it was never like anyone would ever travel out to our area or try to find our homes to gives us that grief. Just at the limb meetings. It woudl have been horrible to have had that kind of 'advise' happening within our Twigs. "If you had a chronic health problem, you were not "believing"...." Yeah, a real twist onto PFAL doctrine. Not actually taught in PFAL, and easily quashed but only if someone is sharp. By far the worst possible twisting of the idea of a 'Law of beleiving'. Often they forgot that 'rain falls on saint and sinner alike', and that we dont control the World there is an entire system setup for those who do control it and PFAL states that such is not us. "I don't see how Oldies missed out on all this "loving" stuff, even in the seventies. I wish I was as "lucky"." Well some of us were able to hold the b@st@rds at a distance, even while running a twig and PFAL classes. :-)

Hammeroni: "I personally was subjected to SOME, and witnessed ALL THE ABOVE and MORE. The "above" was bad enough- the "more" would make your hair stand on end.." Perhaps the problem was in going to these leaders for advice? I dont recall ever telling anyone to do any of those things. I have read about people being told to sell their houses, but even in that case by TWI's on policy on tithing only 10% - 15% would be given to HQ [iF that money was first-fruits, or increase often times selling a house is not increasing your Net Worth]. I was confronted numerous times about going WOW, but this never happened in Twig, only at those idiotic Annual Limb Meetings and it only came from WC. I think that as Ex has said many of these things were ongoing within the WC, but those of us outside that inner circle never saw it?

Bob: "Perhaps this new Hatbox toilet would help the situation, featuring a slow close toilet seat and an electronic "soft touch" actuation." Yes I went to that site, and saw the picture. Uh, Bonnie and I both had to look for a while, but yes, if you look at it long enough you can 'see' she is SITTING on a toilet. Darn I hate that, if they want to show us a picture of a toilet they use a picture that takes a long time before you can focus on the toilet. :-)

UncleHairy: Respectfully and humbly, I feel that I must point out something. "Wherever twi used the word "blessed", you can exchange it with the word "fu*ked" and come up with a more accurate assessment of the situation....When you stand with twi, you are fu*ked, when you give twi your money, you are fu*ked, when the twi leader would say "bless you", he really meant "fu*k you"...I think you get the idea." I read this humourously. I can agree that in many case such was the case. I however dont use the phrase is such a manner, and I know others who do not use such. When I say "Bless You", I do mean it, and I have no intention of saying or meaning anything near what you are implying. :-) When we collect: 'tithes and abundant sharing', we also welcome ideas of who locally should get the blessing of that money. We have bought Bibles to stock public library shelves, we have stocked the pantrys of homeless shelters, we have covered rent and/or utility bills when the military has made mistakes in people's pay causing them to go months without pay. I would have to assume that many other fellowships have done and are doing the same. In our travels we have seen other fellowships that did these kinds of things as well.

Danny: "Galen so you insure a piece of sh-t car and you don't insure your life." Our mortgage in Ca has an 'escrow' account, that escrow account includes within it a life-insurance policy against my life as a matter of California law. If the mortgage holder dies, the face value of the mortgage is paid to the holder of the policy [normally the bank]. We insisted that they name Bonnie as benficiary, the bank threw a fit. The law requires one thing but does not require that the insurance money actually be used to pay off the mortgage, just that a policy must exist. Since the law does not say that the bank MUST make the profit, we were able to finally get Bonnie named as beneficiary. Our mortgage in Ct, is the same. Our mortage in Wa, did not require such a policy, but it did have an 'escrow' account. Our 'mortgage' in Scotland was done differently. There they dont do the same kind of mortgages as we do in USA. It was written where you only paid the interest on the principle, and the rest of your payment is an insurance payment. For a life-insurance policy written so that when it did matures it's face-value is rolled over to pay off the balance of the mortgage. Most everyone in USA who has a mortgage also has an 'escrow' account that pays for a long laundry list of things, some states include in this list, an insurance policy to pay the bank. Few states require that policy's pay-off to be used to pay-off the mortgage. :-) "Wow that must put a lot of faith in your wife, if per chance you get killed and are not able to provide for her But your car is insured." It does, Bonnie has a home, PLUS a life long income from the renters in each apartment building. Hmm, free homes, incomes, hmm. "My Cult meter just went off." Really? "Man you proably pay more for a piece of steel and plastic than your life." What? a car? Never paid more than $3,000 My bike ['82 gold-wing interstate full-dress] cost me $1,000. "All I can say is WOW." Okay. "By the way you didn't say I think life insurace is gambling you said IT IS gambling. You didn't give your opinion you said it as cut and dryed." Yes I did. "You know if it is guess what my wife will be real happy at my passing. because she just hit the loto. And as far as your opinion you know where you can stick it." Thank you. :-) If I die, my wife, gets what we have now. She will lose my pension, which is paid for by the Tax-payers. Thank you again. But she wont need it. :-) She can live in Ct, or in Ca, or in Me, or ... And still bring in a decent income from the renters. All due to what we setup while we were followers of The Way International. :-)

Why is it when you go to a library and read the text of state laws regulating gambling, they must have specific exemptions written for anything calling itself 'insurance'? Because when lawyers define what 'gambling' is, in each of it's many variations, they are also defining insurance policys. You are correct in that you do not have to carry insurance on your automobile, if you chose not to you can place a 'surety' bond on each vehicle. I do have various insurance policys, for each vehicle and for each apartment building, as I do not care to lock-up so much money in bonds. I would rather put my money into investments that earn me a greater Net Worth. :-)

Jim: "... Estates are taxed when we are gone" "Only after the first $140,000, before that point there is no tax on them." "I'm pretty sure the number is $1,200,000" Excuse me, you are most likely correct. I helped someone once with this issue, and I was really tacken-back by the high level that an inheritance had to reach before it was taxed. I had assumed it such limit was lower, because you so often hear people complaining about it. But then Hillary Klinton in the last phase of the Klinton administration, did orchestrate a re-structuring of the 'classes'. During which all these numbers were tweaked, to say that you really were not 'wealthy' unless you earned an astronomical salary, if you only made $150,000/year you were still just middle-class. I kind of stopped following it closely after that, and only look at those things which effect my tax-planning. You are most likely correct. Either way with the 'gift' in place and no limit on how many 'gift's an estate can give to heirs in a single year, even on your death-bed if you can not distribute your wealth tax-free you got too stinking much money, and it should be taxed. The last time I dealt with 'gift's it was defined as $10,000 and there was no limit on how many such 'gift's an estate can give to each heir, and no limit on time constraints between individual 'gift's [minutely, hourly, daily, etc]. Also 'gift's can be given into trusts, or corporations even when the heirs dont have knowledge of the trust or corporation. So the money can be shifted into the heir's name, quitely, without the heir's knowledge, while the estate holder still lives, and all without taxation. Ooops yes it has been a couple years since I last took a class on the subject, so my numbers may well be out of date. But the principle remains, only the numbers change with the administrations. :-)

Danny: "... Rent property profit is taxable income." Only if your messing it up. Ours are tax-free, and they shelter all other income, so we dont pay taxes on ANY income. :-) Schedule E [you control what your expenses were], and depreciation [straight-line method over 28.5 years, readjusting cost basis every year] "... Estates are taxed when we are gone" Only after the first $140,000, before that point there is no tax on them. "Most money professials say term life is the best insurace." Insurance policys are gambling. Gambling by putting my money on the side saying that something wrong is about to happen. If I were to gamble on something, I want my money on the side of the table saying that I will live long, that I will stay healthy, saying that I will prosper. "There is a much better way." True. I really like "The Millionaire Nextdoor".

What are you talking about?

oldiesman: "I guess that makes George Bush a murderer." Man that is a hard hard road to travel on. Is the murderer the man who pulls the trigger? Or the man who orders him to pull the trigger? Or the man who supplies him with everything he needs so he can pull the trigger? Or the man who over-sees transporting him to the scene of where he is going to pull the trigger? Or the man who is the Commander-in-chief, whose orders were being followed when the underlings invaded foriegn soil, supplanted the local rulers and pulled the trigger? Or the man who voted in Congress to authorize the policy that was being followed which allowed our armies to invade foreign soil and to kill the locals? Or the man who voted these men into office so they could establish a World Empire? Or the man who paid taxes to financialy support these clowns while they are empire building? Or the man who refused to vote, but stayed a citizen of the nation, whose goal is empire building? Off-topic? I think not. When establishing guilt, assigning it to a person. Can we assign it to just one person? Unless you act completely alone when you do your deed, then the guilt goes to a group. If that group includes our medical profession, it also extends out to everyone who pays medical bills or insurance. If that guilty group is a citizen in a war killing men for their religous beliefs, that guilt goes to the entire nation, for launching a religous war. If the original group is 'The system'; of lawyers and politicains, doctors and HMOs, then that guilt rests equaly on you and on me.

vickles: "Galen, this is not Italy..lol" True. However the statement: "... No one would let their sick semi-conscious dog die like that. No one! " Did not imply [in my small mind] that it meant only Americans of the author's like-mind and culture. No doubt the err was mine.

waterbuffalo: "... No one would let their sick semi-conscious dog die like that. No one! " Hmm, actually they would. While living in Italia, we saw that they allow many many dogs to roam the streets wild. Only if they begin biting people do the authorities take action. In the mean time, they beg and dig through the trash. When a dog gets sick, it lays there and Italians walk around it. If it is injured, and crawls into a hole or corner, they ignore it. I have seen dogs walking with heads dropping, open sores on their sides, ribs showing, they need to lay down and rest after walking just a few yards, near death from starvation. Italians will then at that point give them water or wine, but no food or medical care. I gave one dying dog my sandwich, lead it out behind a vineyard, dug a hole, killed it and buried it; all while being careful not to get any of it's puss or worms on me. The LNs that I worked with were apalled/upset with me. Saying what a horrible thing I had done. How could I be so mean. It upset them such that 4 LNs walked off the job for the remainder of their shift. They had to go to mass to confess and get the shared-guilt of working with me, off their minds, before they could return to work. They were terribly offended that I would show kindness to a starving dog, and they were also terribly offended that I would end it's life [for the purpose of ending it's pain]. :-) Italians are like that. Greeks not so much, some, but at least with the Italians they generally would never serve the dog as food afterwards. :-)

ChasUFarley: ".... and the company I worked for called Hooters ..." You worked at Hooters? kewl.

He asked us to load him down with old magazines. For the guys he will be doing services for. Bah'Rain, Iraq, and around. [we did] Which reminds me bored servicemembers will sit and read about anything. Anyone have magazines? Box them up and send away. :-)

SEGMENT - 62 Every time a manifestation of the true Spirit of God is in operation, it is always to profit, it's actively profiting the person. That's right. Now, in verse 8 of chapter 12, in verse 8: "For" -- for, for now sets it in correspondence with and helps us to understand what the profit it. Verses 8 -- 9 & 10 tell us what the profit is in each one of the manifestations. It says in verse 8: I Corinthians 12:8 For to one [to one] is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; They have said these are gifts, doesn't say gifts, they are talking about manifestations. Verses 9 & 10: To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: There you have all nine of them, and only once is it referred to as a gift and that's regarding healing. All the rest of them, it doesn't say anything about a gift, they're still talking about manifestations. So, the healing must be a manifestation, which I'm going to explain to you a little later. But they use these verses to teach something very erroneous. They say, "For to one," in verse 8, "to one," like meaning to you, for instance, "is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom;" to another person over here, the word of knowledge; to another one over here, faith or believing; to another one, he has the God given gifts of healing; to another, he can work miracles. That's a contradiction of verse 7, because He just told us in verse 7, the manifestations, all of them, are given to every man. Then why can it say "to one?" Well, when these "to one" boys get around me, I let them read "to one," but I make them turn right around and read verse 11, because, in verse 11 it says: Verse 11: But all [of] these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally {as he will}. Ah-hah! Then I say, "Alright! You said "one," verse 11 says "severally," now you explain it. And they don't, they just get angry at me. I didn't write the book. They get angry at me, why get angry? Because you're cutting across their theology. A man can stand almost anything, except to change from error to truth. That's right. That's the last thing he wants to do, is to change from error to truth. Because he wants to stay in his error and get it corroborated so he can continue because he's afraid of losing face. Well, there's another thing they tell me, you know what they say, these "faith blasters" and unbelievers -- many of them born again Christians, you know what they say? "Tongues is the least important, God put it last." Boy, do I like that one. You know why? I make them read it -- I make them read it, because it isn't last. It says, "divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues." Then I say, "Is it last? -- Is it last?" They say, "No." Well, I say, "You said it was last. They say, "Well it-it's ALMOST last." Ah, no-no-no, you said it was last. Huh-hah! And I always love that argument, because it isn't last, it's second last. That's right, second last. And I always pray that, whenever somebody comes with one of those arguments, that they are members of a family, at least five or six children in their family, and that they're the youngest in the family. Because, they have just said, God put it last because it was least important. Of course, we saw He didn't put it last, He put it second last. Then I just hope they're the youngest in the family, because they have just said he's least important. So I say, "O.K., you're the fifth member of your family, you're the youngest in the family. Then you amount to the least, is that right?" Whoow! Yeah, hah-hah! I didn't say it, they're the one that said it. That's right. They said it. Hey, I want to tell you something else, something has to be last. If you've got two or three things something has to be last, and just because it's last does not make it least. Many times you write a letter you'll even say, "Well, this is the last point that I'd like to share with you today. But, I'd like to inform you it's not least important." But you see, anything to hash the Word to pieces, anything to discredit the Word and to elevate man's ego, that's all. Look, this "for to one"--that "to one," in verse 8, is a tremendous word. I'd like again to take a paragraph out of this book on "Receiving the holy spirit Today:" The Greek word is ho -- H. O., which is the dative case of the relative pronoun hos -- H. O. S. Being in the dative case, the word ho can be translated either "to one" or "for one," and from the context, it should be translated "for one." "One" is a relative pronoun and means--and is used interchangeably with the word "that." A relative pronoun refers to the nearest noun as its antecedent. "To profit" is an infinitive and an infinitive is a verbal used as a noun. Therefore, using the noun in the place of the pronoun, the verse would read "for that profit." That's a tremendous thing. "For a word of wisdom is given by the Spirit FOR that profit"-- that profit that the word of wisdom brings. You talk about usage of a word semantically, how do you like THAT one? Nobody can touch the accuracy of God's Word, it sets there like a diamond--a great bulwark. Verse 8: For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; ... And so on, down the line. Finally, after verse 10--eh, at the end of verse 10, it says, "all of these" -- eh, tongues; interpretation of tongues - all of these nine now have been given. Why does it say "for to one"? In the church, as I read to you from I Corinthians, chapter 1, - in the operation of the church, I operate all nine - so do you. But now, when you and I are ministering in a specific situation; I'm believing God for the word of knowledge and I get it; you're believing God for the word of wisdom, what to do with it. That's what it means, "for to one" - "for to one is given" - so on and so forth. "For to one is given," that's its meaning all through verse 8, 9 and 10. Every person born again of God's Spirit has the privilege of operating all nine manifestations of the spirit, but he will operate at least one most effectively, not because he couldn't operate all the rest as effectively, but because of his believing. For the believing determines how effectively you operate the manifestation. You're not operated BY the manifestation, you OPERATE the manifestation. That's right. So, also in this particular section, the words "another" - A.N.O.T.H.E.R., are very interesting. Verse 8: For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge ... Verse 9: To another faith ... That word "another" is always the word allos meaning "another, when there are, of the same kind, more involved." But, there are two manifestations of the spirit in these verses 8, 9 and 10 that do not use the word allos, it uses the word heteros, meaning that God the Giver and the recipient are the only ones that benefit, and one of those is faith or believing. You see, once God gives me revelation, then the manifestation of believing is of such a nature that I, personally, have to believe to bring it to pass according to the revelation I've received. It doesn't benefit you at all, it's just for MY believing, I must believe. That's why the word heteros is used with the manifestation of faith in this section. And the other usage is in kinds of tongues--divers kinds of tongues--kinds of tongues. Speaking in tongues is the ONLY other manifestation using heteros and it singly blesses me because, when I speak in tongues, I edify the spirit of God which is in me. I feed and nurture it, it benefits me, it doesn't benefit you, just me. That's why the word heteros is used with those two manifestations and every other place the word allos is used with the manifestation. And when you go through verses 8, 9 and 10, they're all manifestations with the exception of one. It says "to another," in verse 9, "the GIFTS of healing." Why does it say "gifts" with healing when it's a manifestation? Very simple, because it's the ONLY manifestation that's a gift. Every time you're healed it's a gift to you. A doctor can set my arm if it were broken--he could set it, he could not heal it. It has to be a gift according to the laws of nature that God instituted in the beginning. Every time a person is healed of a cold, a simple little old headache, anything else, it's always a gift--always a gift. Now, here in the critical Greek text, it's in the plural--the Aramaic has it in the singular. As I understand the great accuracy of God's Word here, and I've spoken to many medical men about it, they understand it in this light: for instance, let's say that I'm healed of a headache tonight, and next week I'm healed of a headache. That's gifts (plural) of healing--same disease but healed twice or more times of the same thing. That's gifts. Also, here in Corinthians in the 30th verse, it talks of gifts of HEALINGS--healings--or something. You see, healings is in the plural because, if I'm healed of a headache tonight and if I'm healed of arthritis, two entirely different diseases, that's HEALINGS. Now, every doctor knows this, every man in every medical profession knows it. Why doesn't the church know it? Because the church doesn't come to the Word. That's what the Word says, that's what it means. That's why the manifestation--the manifestation is always a gift when it comes to healing - none of the rest of them. Speaking in tongues is not a gift. No, it's a manifestation. It doesn't do anything but edify the spirit in me as I operate it. But the healing of the human body - it's a gift to you, the recipient, and it's a gift that God must, by revelation, make available. As Peter said, "Such as I have, I give; in the name of Jesus Christ, rise up an walk." Putting all these nine manifestations of 8, 9 and 10 together, you come, by their very nature in these manifestations, in the groups where they divide. They're not given in this order in I Corinthians, they're simply listed there, they're not set in order. But, by their very nature, they divide as follows: speaking in tongues and the associated manifestation is interpretation of tongues and prophecy. These are worship manifestations - utterance. Then the revelation manifestations: a word of knowledge, a word of wisdom, discerning of spirits. And, under group three, the power or the action manifestations: faith, healing and miracles. That's how they, by their very nature, fall into those categories. Now we go to verse 11, verse 11 of this twelfth chapter. Now it says in verse 11: Verse 11: {But} all [of] these [all of these -- all nine of these manifestations] worketh [The word "worketh" is the word energemata -- energize by] that one and {the} selfsame Spirit, [one and selfsame spirit] ... That's a tremendous thing, isn't it? You see, verses 8 to 10 really are a subordinate clause referring to the profit in the manifestations of verse 7. Now these three verses; 8, 9 and 10, technically and grammatically speaking, should be a parentheses in correspondence with verse 7, elaborating on the profit. Then, in verse 11, the Word of God again takes up where verse 7 terminates with the conjunction "but." "But," of verse 11, sets it in contrast with. "But," understand? Now, here, "one and the selfsame Spirit," you see these words? This is a unique triple reflective: the word "one," the word "self" and the word "same," with the emphasis on ONE, SELF and SAME. Isn't that wonderful? "Dividing" is distributing -- distributing. Verse 11: But all these [are energized by] {worketh} that one and {the} selfsame [that triple reflective] Spirit ... That's right. All are energized by the one Spirit. Who is the one Spirit? GOD! God, when He gave me the gift. The gift is the God-given ability. Who energizes it? He does! He energizes the gift. But who operates the manifestations? You do! Verse 11, watch it carefully: Verse 11: {But} all these worketh that one and {the} selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally [dividing to every man severally] as he [God wills]. That's what they teach, and most of the translations -- most of the translations that come out today have he, the pronoun "He" in a capital "H," upper case "H." Well, people, He has just told us, back in verse 7, that the manifestation's given to every man. If it's given to every man, then how can He turn right around and, in verse 11, say: "dividing to every man severally as God wills?" God doesn't like you very well, so He won't let you speak in tongues. No, you can pray 'til you're blue in the face -- maybe you haven't fasted enough; maybe you haven't lifted "holy hands" enough; maybe you haven't sat on the front pew often enough and said "Glory Hallelujah," or put enough in the collection plate. He doesn't love you. God's no respecter of what? Persons! But, you see, instead of working the accuracy of the Word, we just hash it to pieces, ordinarily. Look, just upon the surface you can see that there must be something wrong. "All of these manifestations are energized by that one and selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally." The word "severally" is this wonderful word which we have had before in this class. It is the word idios -- it is the word idios, translated "private." "Know this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." The word "private" is the word idios, and I told you it was used, I believe, 144 times. That was the only place it was translated "private." This is the ONLY place it's translated "severally," and it's ALWAYS one's own or his own. See, "dividing to every man his own" -- HIS own, as HE -- HE who? God? NO! As the man wills. "He" is a pronoun. Class, "he" is a pronoun. A pronoun is controlled and governed by its closest associated noun. Right? Sure, that's right. What is the closest noun to the pronoun "he" that controls it? "Dividing to every man SEVERALLY." MAN is the noun, he is the pronoun, as he -- HE, not God, as the man wills. Suppose the man does not will to speak in tongues. Even if he knows how, he won't do it. Suppose the man does not will to interpret. Will he? No. Divides into manifestation -- into evidence, always as the man wills -- as HE wills. This is why "as he wills" is NOT as God wills (because God has already set His will in verse 7 and every other place) but in contrast as man wills to believe, and of course man cannot believe beyond what he knows. So, if we're not taught accurately the Word, he can't believe for it. But, once you're taught accurately the Word, you know what's available, know how to receive it, know what to do with it after you've got it, you can manifest it. So, we go back to I Corinthians, chapter 12. Having finished those tremendous verses, we go back to verse 12 of this particular chapter. Now, here in the twelfth verse of chapter 12, we begin with an illustration setting forth now what He has just taught us in all the rest of the verses, and we got it from the human body -- from the human body. Now the manifestations, I want to clarify this, are not the members, but what the believers believed to receive. That's what they are. Now the first word is the word "For" -- "For" in verse 12 of I Corinthians 12 sets in correspondence this verse with verse 11 AND with verse 7. Regarding "the profit as every man wills," now it sets it in correspondence. I Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is [what?] Christ. That's right, "so also is Christ." Verse 13: For by one Spirit [were] {are} we all baptized into one body, ... The body of Jesus Christ, his spirit. You see, one Father, we're His children. Verse 13 (continued): ... whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond {or free}; and have been all made to drink [in] {into} one Spirit. Verses 14 - 18: *For the body is not [many members] {one member}, [but one] {but many}. [That's right.] If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? [sure.] {And} if the ear [should] {shall} say, {Because} [i'm] {I am} not the eye, [i'm] {I am} not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where [would be] {were} the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it [has] {hath} pleased him. So, my finger is there, physically speaking, because this is what pleased Him, right? Sure. My hand pleased Him. Now, if the finger says, "I'm not of the hand," we've got a little problem. Verses 19-22: And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And the feeblest thing I know is speaking in tongues to the average person, and it says it's the more necessary. That's right. Verses 23-26: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked. That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Verse 27: Now ye are the body of Christ, [but you're a member in particular in that body] {and members in particular}. And then come verses 28 and 29 and 30 -- real difficult verses: Verses 28-30: And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? Then they stop and they say "No, they don't. See, not everybody can interpret, not everybody can speak in tongues." Just told us, earlier, now, everybody had the manifestation. You can't get out of it that easy! Well, it's really something, it's REALLY something when you work the integrity and the accuracy of this Word in this section. You see, God has set some in the church, and then He talks about the ministries; apostles, prophets, teachers -- those are ministries. Then he gets into manifestations: miracles, gifts of healing -- helps, governments. "Diversities" in verse 28 is the word genos -- genus, those who have a genus of tongues. You see, some people speak in tongues and interpret in a believers meeting. But, boy, some people, when THEY speak in tongues and interpret, you've had it! That's it! They have a genus of speaking in tongues -- a genos. Then, in verse 29: "Are all apostles? Are all teachers? Are all prophets? Are all workers of miracles?" And the words "are" are in italics. If you'd like to REALLY get them upset sometimes, leave the italics out and read it without the question marks: "All apostles, all teachers, all prophets, all workers of miracles, all have the gifts of healing, all do speak in tongues, all do INTERPRET!" There were no question marks in the originals, no periods, no semicolons. But I do not believe that's the way it can be handled because of the double negative that's used there in the critical Greek text -- although the Aramaic would not substantiate that either. I have a literal translation of verses 28, 29 and 30, I'd like to share with you, literally from the original Greek and comparing it with the Aramaic. Listen to this: Verse 28: (LITERAL) So God has placed some in the church having the ministry of apostles, prophets and teachers. There are some who minister most effectively as miracle workers. Some who are VERY effective in ministering the blessings of healings. Some who are very adept in ministering as helps and governments. And some whose ministry is diversity of tongues. That's right. So you see, God's order -- God's order is that the greatness of this Word should live. Then: Verse 29: (LITERAL) Are all apostles? No, in the church, no. Are all prophets in the church? No. Do all speak in tongues in the church? No, if they did, you'd never get home if you had a congregation of a hundred. How'd you ever get chicken on Sunday noon if everybody spoke in tongues? But, inside the church, it doesn't say in this verse they couldn't do this. That's right. Verse 30: (LITERAL) Are all the gifts of healing in operation in the church? (No, but it doesn't say that everybody could not minister healing.) Do all speak with tongues? No! (But inside of the church, all these are in operation. That's what it says. Then comes this great thirty-first verse: Verse 31: But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way. Well, what's the best gifts? Of all the five gift ministries, there's apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers -- what's the best gifts? Depends on what's needed -- depends on what's needed. In an area where they're mostly non-Christian, the best gift for THAT area would be the ministry of an evangelist. If everybody's converted -- born again of God's Spirit, the best thing for THAT group would be the pastor -- the best gift. That's right. So it says, "covet earnestly the best gift, but" He said, "I'll show you a more excellent way" (than coveting). And the more excellent way than coveting anything is chapter 13, which is the love of God in the renewed mind. And, if you walk with that love of God in the renewed mind, you need not covet anything because; when you need the ministry of an apostle, it'll be there; when you need the ministry of a prophet, it'll be there; when you need the ministry of an evangelist, it'll be there. That's right -- that's right. Why? Because of chapter 13, and there it says, "follow after charity!" Charity is the word agapeo. Agapeo means divine or God love. Follow after divine or God love. Well, He gave this to me in the spirit, so I put it on in the renewed mind. Every time you read the word "charity," it means the love of God in the renewed mind -- living it. Like the word phileo is natural or human love. "Philadelphia" comes from this word. See, it's the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation. That's it! I Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. Follow after the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation, but rather -- and desire spiritual things or spiritual matters. Here -- I've got to go back to chapter 13 and pick this up because I flipped over to 14 on these things. But, in 13: I Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, [which is the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation] I {am} become as [a] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. You see, we are to follow, as chapter 14, verse 1 says, we're to follow after the love of God. But, before we can get to that depth, we've got to, in detail, see what this more excellent way of walking with the greatness of the power of God is. And that is, even "though I speak with the tongues of men or the tongues of angels," (And every time you speak in tongues, you're either speaking the tongues of men or the tongues of angels. If it's the tongues of men, somebody here upon earth could understand it. If it's the tongues of angels, you have to go a little differently.) "but if I have not the love of God in the renewed mind," speaking in tongues is devilish -- no! I am -- "I am become a sounding sounding brass," nothing wrong with speaking in tongues. Verse 2: And though I have [Oh, it says:] the gift of prophecy, ... Isn't that sweet? But the words "the gift" and "of" are in italics -- scratch them out. It's the manifestation, nobody has the gift of prophecy in this verse. It isn't talking about that, it's talking about: Verse 2: {And} though I have the [manifestation] {gift} of prophecy, and understand all mysteries [because of word of wisdom], and all knowledge [because of word of knowledge]; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not [the love of God in the renewed mind] {charity}, I am nothing. Verses 3-5: And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked [gets upset sometimes, but not easily], thinketh no evil; Boy, isn't that something? Doesn't even THINK evil. See that fella doing that? Immediately you think evil. If you've got the love of God in the renewed mind, you don't even think that. Verses 6-8: Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. [The love of God in the renewed mind] {Charity} never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. Ha, ha! How they love this. They said, "Tongues ceased with the apostles." Then I say to them, "If it did, you wouldn't know it, because this verse says that knowledge shall vanish away. If knowledge vanished away, how would you know tongues ceased?" That's right. Verses 9-11: For we know in part [With all these manifestations, we know in part], and [when] we prophesy [we only prophesy] in part. But when that which is perfect is come [and that's the return of Christ -- when that which is perfect is come], then [until then, everything else is here] that which [was] {is} in part shall be done away. [For] When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. Verse 13: [For] {And} now abideth faith, hope, [love] {charity}, these three; [and inside of the church] {but} the greatest {of these} is [the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation] {charity} [until Christ's return].

A partial quote from Segment 21 [the remainder available upon request] "John 19:32: Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. Who was the other who was crucified with him? Luke said that when they led Jesus out they led the malefactors with him. That's the accuracy of verse 32 of John 19. Isn't that tremedous? The soldiers came and brake the legs of the first and of the other who was the one who was crucified with him when he was crucified, who is the malefactor. That's right. Then verse 33: John 19:33: But when they came ["but having come" is the original text] to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: Well if you have the four crucified, you have one here, one here, Jesus in the center. They brake the legs of the first and of the other but having come to Jesus. The other who was crucified is the malefactor, the one who was led with Jesus. So John 19 is so tremendously accurate it just shocks you when you see the great truth that it presents. They break the legs of the first and of the other, and of the other who was crucified with him. When they came to Jesus they found that he was dead already. Now, I'd like to go back to that other chart to show you some words. That word "other" in verse 32 is a tremendous key because there are two words that are translated "other" in the Bible. One word is this word heteros. The other Greek word is the word allos. These two words make all the difference between truth and error. They are both translated "other." Now here in the gospel of John in the nineteenth chapter and verse 32 the soldiers came and brake the legs of the first and of the other. The word "other" is the word allos. The word allos is used when there are more than two, more than two of a different kind. Two malefactors, two thieves make more that two. So they brake the legs of the first and of the other who was the malefactor of a different kind. That's why they use the word allos for other. While in the gospel of Luke, I'm going to go back to the gospel of Luke to chapter 23. And listen to this in verse 32 which we've already read but I'm covering the word "other." Luke 23:32: And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death. The word for "other" here is not the word allos but it is heteros. Because they were two of the same kind. Two other, but they were both malefactors. Isn't that wonderful! You talk about the accuracy and the integrity of God's Word. What a tremedous truth you find in this revelation from God's wonderful matchless Word regarding the others crucified with him. So here you have it all wrapped up in a nutshell when it comes to the others crucified with Jesus. When Jesus was led forth they led two malefactors with him. Later, after they had crucified Jesus they parted his garments, they cast lots, they sat down, they put up an accusation, THEN finally they brought two robbers and they crucified them. Two plus two make four. Jesus in the midst. And when the soldiers came they brake the legs of the first and of the other, the allos, of a different kind but having come to Jesus they found that he was dead already. Why? Becasue the Word of God said that no one would ever break his legs. They didn't take his life upon Calvary's cross. He laid it down. He gave up his life. He didn't die because they crucified him he died because he gave himself for you and for me. This is the accuracy with which the Word of God fits."

Wow cool, so that really was a babe that has been 'flashing' on my screen all this time. Thanks

coolchef1248@adelphia.net: "galen i must reply you say that renting is not the wise choice. i dis agree." Okay. It is only a wise choice IF your focus is on using your time to gain Net Worth. If your still focused on college credits, or business travel, or something else then yes, to do MFRs we have to focus on them for a while. "always use some one elses money to get ahead" That's it. You got it. Always use someone else' money to make your investments. Use their money never your own money, your money took your work to get, their money took their work, obviously you want to use their money to build your investments with. :-)

alfakat: "... Thankfully concluded when my wife and I purchased a few years back." Congratulations. Your kewl too. ;-)

skyrider: “Smart people don't tie up all their money in a house. :)--> “ Really? “… And, don't allow real estate agents, or brokers, or banks tempting you to buy bigger and bigger! They are salesmen!!!.... selling their wares!!!” I agree. Also you got to MAKE them work for their keep. Often we have gotten terrible results from realtors. They know the area, they know mortgage brokers, they have the hook-ups. Don’t ever let one tell you that you can not buy without a down-payment. If they want to earn their points, they can call their contacts to arrange an FHA loan. Many times, realtors have looked at us, and instantly ignored what we were saying, instead they would ‘picture’ us in some idiotic house they wanted to sale. Me: “I want to look at Multi-family buildings in this neighborhood tris, quads, or bigger” Realtor: “I have a wonderful ranch that you will love, with a pool and you only need 30% down” Me: “I will not pay a down-payment, I only want a MFR, can you show my what you list?” Realtor: “lets go jump in my car and I will show you one” As we get in their car, they drive to a single-family ranch. Me: “This does not look like a MFR” Realtor: “Oh but you don’t know what you want, doesn’t this look wonderful?” I can’t tell you how many Realtors I have wanted to strangle. East-Coast, West-Coast, Europe, everywhere we have bought, it was the same as we would go through numerous realtors to find just one that would listen to us. :-)