socks

Yeh, "great" faith looks to be relative to the challenge, not the amount of faith any one of us produces. "Faith in" and "faith of" Jesus Christ could be subjective or objective. Faith that is in a thing or faith that is from/of a thing - in this case Jesus Christ. If I have faith in the faith "OF" Jesus Christ, that has one meaning. I can also have my own faith "IN" Jesus Christ to which seems to end up in the same place as faith "OF", as it's used in the bible in Romans, Galatians. Things have happened through the faith of Jesus Christ, my faith in Him is said to open that up to me, to those who "believe" in Him. The believe in Jesus Christ, faith in Jesus Christ was described in Wayfer terms as two kinds of things - one my believing, the mental effort that I put towards acceptance and then the action that I take on that. The "faith of Jesus Christ" was taught as being "spiritual" and I guess it is in one sense but that tends to disconnect it from the reality of the processes that were that, that faith of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was a living person, He had faith, His faith accomplished what and where mankind's faith didn't or couldn't. Man's faith, like Abraham's, was "counted" for righteousness - but again it doesn't appear that his faith, his effort, accomplished anything but rather it was his acceptance and actions towards and on the things of God, God's "word", faith in and towards God. In the bible all the to's, from's, in's and of's seem to paint a circular path that points to the thing getting the faith - faith is something that I "have" that involves something else and a movement, recognition, of that thing, in it, on it. I might say that faith describes an attitude yes, a level of acceptance and subsequent action. I get you OperaBuff when you reference "taking it on faith" - I'd agree, I don't know that I can do that in a vacuum. Some do treat faith as a blanket check they write - "whatever it is, I'm in" kind of a thing. But then in life we often find ourselves challenged and not altogether in for certain things. People will often "drift" in their faith, falter, become weak as they say. A lot of teaching kind of does the "hut hut hut!" Marine Corps boot camp kind of messaging, "push yourseeeeeelf! soldier! you ain't gonna get up that hill thinking about yo' mama, now move iiiiiit the Lord is on your siiiiiide and He don't like wimps!!!!!!!" Which is a disconnection of everything which God has built salvation and redemption on, the things by which - we have access to this "faith"......mercy and grace. So to me the appropriate attitude when challenged is to do what they did in many of the bible's records - remember God's grace to me, HIs mercy, and place myself before Him in prayer as someone ready to do what I need to do but in need of what only He can do to help me. I know I have been blessed - by his mercy and grace. Given a place in His Kingdom - by what Christ has done. I know that He loved me while yet a sinner and has given me access to Him that doesn't hold me to the very shortcomings and lack that causes me to need the help that brings me constantly to Him. In my "faith", I don't see "God" as sitting there as it were and me showing up scuffing the floor with my holey shoes, tattered clothes and sad face while Jesus looks on and rolls his Eyes and they say to me ... "Oh. SO......it's YOU again...why am I not surprised? What is it THIS time? No, don't tell me, let me guess. You need something. You need Me. Again.......(sighing).....tell me again why we did all of this Jesus?.....Good Me, it's always the same...." I see a relationship built on trust, understanding and where over time I can accept the truth about myself, God, all of this stuff. "Faith".

Excellent topic for what it brings to the surface for discussion! Thanks for it! I tend to agree that the value of the life of Jesus Christ and what has been written is to point to a "living Word", a true personification of God. Jesus could say "I am the son of God" and write it down and the reader could say what many say today to that statement - no, you're not. Or you're crazy, nice but nuts. It is definitely interesting that nothing was written by the man Jesus. Somehow I don't doubt that He could have written something, somewhere at some time, but it wasn't significant or of importance. His actions, the impression that He made, what He did and said that was written down by others was done with such conviction and impact that it's almost a moot point. Speaking of Elvis Presley, no one cares too much about what he wrote and to a lesser degree even what he said. But what he sang and his performances to live audiences is what is remembered and is what people still talk about all these years later, long after his death. What he did, how and when he did it. Conversely an Einstein, I don't care how he sang but I do care about what he wrote and again to a degree what he said about what he wrote because that represents the ideas he worked with. Einstein couldn't make a theory of relativity for all of us to see and admire, he could chart the calculations and describe it though. Different things represent and reflect the work of different kinds of effort. Whether someone believes Jesus lived or not, I think anyone who considers His story can recognize that His impact, His work, was in what He did and what He said. I can see how it would be wonderful to have all of that written by Jesus Himself - "My LIfe As The Savior - Being the Son of God" by Jesus Christ. But it would just be words on paper and yeah, would probably have no greater impact than what we have today maybe less and weirder, as there would be people who would be rolling up children in wheel chairs to just try and touch the guide who stands next to the table that holds the box that holds the case that carries the photographs of the original document and claiming to see the face of the baby Jesus in the water in the pool next to the card stand outside the temple that sells the "I Saw The Jesus Book and All I Got Was This T-Shirt!" shirts, cards, balloons and coasters. And somebody selling tickets for the next show. The words of Jesus on papyrus scroll would be nice but meaningless, a curiosity, were it not for what He DID that's been remembered and written by others. Jesus could write, hey - I saved socks.....yeah, sure, try again you may have missed a step - he doesn't look like it. I can say, Jesus saved me and while I'm not pretty I owe Him whatever I have, for better or worse. So on that account He doesn't have to write a word, relax Jesus, I've got this one. :) This is more than a convenient way to explain a gap in history - it's the essence of what God did in Christ.

James 2:20 - faith without works is dead. Eph. 2: 8 and 9, saved by faith not by works. Faith, 'pistis', our trust in Christ is not considered a "work", which I've always found interesting. Many theologians who lean towards Calvinist thinking tend to construe that "all is of God" and without the divine impetus no salvation is possible. God chooses, creation follows His choice and the creation can't say to the creator why have You made me so? Some are chosen some aren't. That's Calvin. (I don't agree with that, in that it disallows for man's choice, man's response. Calvinist theory takes umbrage at that, as if to say that man's response is now in control. It's not - if man could choose and be in control he wouldn't be limited to God's selections. Clearly God has outlined the path and choices in the Bible and man's choice is to align, have "faith", and then place his faith in God. God's will is still sovereign, God's purposes are enacted and in play at all times. Man chooses and glorifies the Creator - or not but his choice either way recognizes God's 'sovereign will'.) Watchman Nee wasn't Calvinist, as best I understand, not in the basic sense and in that I think he was correct by the Bible in his understanding of faith, believing, "works" (gr: ergon) and their meanings and outcomes. He allows - necessarily - for the Bible to speak as it does and let all parts speak for themselves "as is". I bring up Calvin because I think the tendency has been in theology to construe meaning across parts of the Bible that don't seem to agree rather than let them stand and get meaning from the total, even if it appears contradictory and to take a logical appraisal of how to harmonize scripture. Which goes to James 2:20 - faith "without works" being dead - if I assume that all '"faith" is salvation faith and related to the state of peace between God and man then I have to assume there's a relationship between them. But there isn't in Ephesians, where salvation is of "faith" - where trust and confidence in what God has done isn't a "work" of man that produces the salvation. In James then I can simply assume that faith is faith, whatever it is and that without the "works/ergon" faith is "dead" as the body is dead without it's "spirit". Without drilling too deep on that I can say that the body dead or alive is still a body, but it produces when it has life. Faith without works is still faith. Faith with works is alive and producing. The lesson with Abraham seems to be stated that he "had faith" and when he "put his faith" in God it was counted to him for righteousness. The claim-it doctrines always seem to put a measurement to pistis, faith. "Big" believers get more of what God offers. Yet God's grace is full to all, mercy to all, love to all. Salvation extended to all, God loving man and so loving "the world" that he gives His son, a true living expression of Himself in man. No more, no less in that. It's not a quantity measurement, other than we see what God has given. "Quality", perhaps. Faith with responsive effort is "alive", producing, bringing forth "fruit".

Good thoughts Kit. Name it and claim it...."Shopping Cart Christianity". Now you're a child of God, time to do some praying and get some stuff! And sweat the small stuff, God cares about every little hair on your head which means he wants you to have the best shampoo and conditioner! It has to, it's what The Word says! It doesn't take long for the needy side of man to embrace that sort of thinking. God provides for man's need much as Jesus described. After reading Genesis and the rest of the Bible I have to think that if God had wanted humans to sing one song, all the time and do it in unison he would have created a brainless choir that knew only the song He gave them and didn't need to take bathroom breaks. He didn't do that - His creation is one that produces, generates, operates, moves, takes, keeps, gives, shares, offers and does it in such diversity it's hard to describe in few words. Just the enormity of what we are and what life is requires generation after generation to be and come into fruition. What I offer to God in this life is my gift, made sacred by the faith that produces it and that I invest into it. That's how I see the faith of this life. In Christ I have a way, a light, a means to join together with and to know what it looks like to do that. I can only do it my way, in my time and in my life. I want to be joined to that purpose that God has for all of us and to make my part what I can with what I've got. Faith - yes. Yes! We need it, we have it, we live it one day at a time!

Geer was a caricature of the Euro Sneer once he got over there. I met him when we were very young, in New York, long before any of this. I was about 20, he was probably in his teens. He was a dick then too. That's mean to say, I know, but he was insulting to people, looked down on every one of us from the West Coast, for no reason at all. Where all the NY believers were open and loving, in that fun way you are when you're young, he already had taken on the role of the outcast. His family upbringing was less than desirable, I understand. Join the club. The world sucks. We make our way better as we go or we make it worse. For one who had "the Word" at his disposal I suppose he did the best he could. He was always respectful to me, one on one, though. But in a crowd he'd adopt that bulldog scowl and demeanor. I found over the years there that often people would become one way around me, and then another around the larger population of the Way. This often happened around Joyful Noise in general. Not to sound self serving but in a way I think we allowed people to have a space where they didn't have to "be" whatever they thought they were in the Way Nash World and could just be themselves for a while. Sometimes, some people, that's the way it would go. Then later, back to business. Geer - I guess he felt he had to toughen up around "the man of God". I really don't know what went on between them but I suspect VP gave him love and access and Geer lapped it up and stood guard because he treasured that. That's just my arm chair psyche though, nothing more. He ransacked the Way Nash of the U. S. though. Look at Craig, Mr. Believer Himself. Big Shot, Corps Dude #1, the Man, Karl Kratos, Demon Slayer, Satan look out can a man get a witness get on the Good Foot now, it's Craig, he's bad he's bad you know it, yowwww!!!! One day with Geer a year after VP died and Craig turned into a self-doubting whimpering failure, unsure of doing anything under Geer's shadow. That was some strong medicine Geer brought with him, y'know? If ever there was evidence of a spiritually orchestrated affair, that was Dancing with Daimon, those two. But that's long gone now. I just have always had the impression that he was a very heavy soul that needed to be free. And while I may sound harsh here - hey. I wish him deliverance. People change. Both he and his wife have suffered health failures, and no doubt suffer intensely.

Chris Geer was so inept and confused himself - he was really the perfect tool, literally. No one could have bumbled their way through a so called effort to "help" others better than he did. He made a bull in a china shop seem like a ballet dancer in a field of wheat. I am not the only one who felt upon hearing that he had shown up in Craig's lap with a list of posthumous belly aches from VP that we were in for a long, bumpy, ugly and smelly ride. He's not unlike Lynn and others of that ilk - he admits later rather disingenuously that he was "poorly equipped" to carry out the work he was commissioned to do ("Oh woe is me, the burdened inadequate messenger who tried so hard!") while pointing his fat doughy finger of condemnation at anyone who ever had the misfortune to hear his voice. As with Lynn who raked VP and others over the COALS for their misconduct while dusting himself off as the now humbly and newly regenerated and so conveniently reinvented Teacher who had himself done wrong but who was all mo' better, just like that. I think Geer cast himself in a romantic light, all drama and no substance. I never saw - not one - even a single statement - that stated clearly 1. what he thought was "wrong" with the Way and 2. what anyone was supposed to "do" to fix that. There was plenty wrong with the Way and lots that could be done to fix it but he resisted all efforts to nail it down to specific changes and rather kept pushing an agenda of being 1. "on the Word", 2. Following the "man of God", who was now actually dead and 3. returning to "The Word". He turned any opportunity for positive change into a dithering whirlwind of condemnation and confusion, ultimately doing the exact opposite of what he said he wanted to do. Or exactly what he really wanted to do - shove it in the crotch of the Way Nash people he despised so much one last time, for good. Not to be too harsh, just sayin'....

That's good to hear OldSkool. I wouldn't doubt that their lawyers had to step in and clamp a muzzle on those doggies after the lawsuits started. One of the downsides of technology - if you're trying to hide something, or keep off the grid it's much more complicated now. Avoidance and being technology adverse is very difficult today unless you completely control your environment. 20 years ago, people talk, it's just words. Who said what, he said/she said, their word against yours. That's changed today - if the person 50 feet from you can be recording, videoing and capturing what you're doing without you knowing and not be breaking the law when you're in public. I would suspect their current level of paranoia would mean they'd be all but frisking people coming in and out of "closed corporation" meetings. Frankly, Rosie could probably be removed now, much easier than Craig was. I'm sure RR has made public statements as to the when, what and where of her tenure and what constitutes "performance" levels expected. If someone had it out for her they could likely mount a legal case with a platform based on performance. If you had the dough, say 100k, I'll bet you it could be done, knowing how Wayfer Exec's shoot their mouths off when they think no one's listening. In today's world that could initiate an interim replacement that was assigned by the court, not the Way. It's a thought, just sayin'.....or give it time and it will slumber off to sleep in about 20 years, give or take.

Gee, I wonder, yes....could it be....SATAN???!!! Ha! Actually this is bringing up a whole range of discussion that was never done in Way circles, to attempt to understand "what" the SIT is. It's one thing to say it's of spiritual origin, God's ways higher than our ways, etc. I get that. Can't analyze it okay, fine. But I think if a person went even a little down the path of receiving=believing they would have become aware that PFAL was teaching that the unseen spiritual realities they attempted to function within and invoke had effects, results, products, artifacts, stuff that was represented in their physical reality. I don't need to anyalyze something to have a verifiable result to admire, at the least. But SIT as johniam noted was defined as "inspired", "inspirational" and brought forth from and by the "spirit" of the individual. That put it in a different category then something like a miracle of healing, for instance. VPW presented it as an operation of an ability that the individual had that was initiated BY THE INDIVIDUAL and under their own control to manage and "do". Probably all of us, anyone who's ever gotten in front of a group of people to speak and gotten off for just a second, lost their place - has gone into "automatic" mode. I certainly have. It's like sliding over an icy floor in wet sneakers. There's no stopping - and little to no "thought" - It can be funny or down right embarrassing. I know if I get into that mode, to stop, collect myself and look at my notes which I hopefully have. If not, I have a method for pegging myself. But it happens. Even the nature of speech - I don't plan every nuance and action of everything I "say". To speak out loud and be reasonably coherent let alone inspirational isn't that difficult to do - without any planning whatsoever. Rivers of wonderful wonderfulness flows out of my mouth, in abundance. Ask my wife, she'll tell you, happens all the time. To do that in a framework of sounds, "words" and become proficient, even facile at it, isn't that difficult to do either. Soooooooooooo. I'm not completely checked out on the free-speech part of this discussion, but that could be what people have done when they say they "SIT" as noted by others here. Yeah, I would say there is more to this than meets the syllabus, IMO.

I agree, it certainly could ways' and Raf yes, if Acts 2 is factual that's what happened then. The Bible references the "of angels", which could be hyperbole ("...or with the tongues of a 1,000 hummingbirds singing in French") or taken face value. Do angels speak? I would say yes, they do, quite well. But I can't speak for all angels all the time. They might have something different to say about that, they'll have to speak for themselves. The cool part to me is that - if I heard a guy speak in something that sounded like another language, certainly not English and someone else said "That's Chinese!" and they understood what was said and that what they understood was similar to - the "same thing practically speaking" - to what an interpretation was that I and they heard - Then that memory is meaningful in this dyad of 50, the me'sies and yousies of communication. I'm buzzing on that because I recently read this article in an unrelated effort, which i found to be interesting - http://www.acrwebsit...gs.aspx?Id=6421 Since no past event is recoverable in it's natural form, only the remnants, artifacts, effects - and memories - of them can represent them. Some "things" exist measurably in the time continuum of past/present to a greater degree than others. Eyewitness testimony being what it is a memory without measurable physical artifacts is probably going to be of lesser value to a large group outside of that event than to me and anyone immediately involved in it. That's just the way it is. (this is my opinion anyway) And if there were more involved, say a 100 people all with that memory, then it might be more meaningful to others not involved, or could be. Depending. Dunno, this stuff fascinates me but doesn't always move the conversations forward much. Just notin' to what ends, not sure.

My pleasure, glad to be of service. You stated it so savory and succinct. That could probably be used to state the entire platform of the Way - If they say it's okay, it's okay, even if it's not okay for others. If they say it isn't okay, etc. Any deviations, apparent contradictions or conflicts are YOUR problem, not theirs.

They were Asian(s), yes. Although in 50 years they may be Polish, and it will have occured in the north yes, northern Alaska, during what will then seem like a normal event, a heat wave in December. Just kidding. As to it occuring, yes indeed. Y. did. I've found that kind of thing to be very unique however. To it can be asked the question that could asked of any event like that when ascribed to Christian faith - why? why then, why them, what that, why there and also why NOT any/where/time else, other than that. There. I don't know. I don't believe that for a "thing" to occur that is "of God" there has to be world wide impact, it doesn't need to fit any kind of parameters that I would set for it to occur. No one's suggesting that overtly here but just sayin', for my part I don't pretend to understand or grasp the enormity of things that are by the nature of what I understand them to be, outside of my complete comprehension. And stuff.

True.

As in Superman's dopellganger "Bizarro", where what he says or does is the opposite of what Superman would say or do. "This is good!" means "That was bad!"

"unity in essentials; charity in inessentials" That's a keeper.

I re read my spiel and what I meant to say was - valid platform to "disprove" (that) You do have valid platforms to question it, of course, many it seems. None will prove it one way or the other and I can't prove it either. If I had a "tape" and photos and two others chiming in Yeah! Like that! .... that wouldn't prove it happened, or what it meant if it did. And for the most part your proposition of a current test instance and environment would be the only way to do that - but I don't know if that would in fact "prove" an explanation but only validate that "it" happened, that something as described happened. In other words, if I was there during Acts 2 and saw and heard what happened, and it happened as described, I might not take it to be any kind of miraculous or unusual event, and perhaps see it as no more than an oddity, as phenomena. Weird things happen all the time and always have. I might have gone home and told the neighbors, "weirdest thing happened, not sure what it meant or if I believe what this guy said about it at the temple, but it sure was crazy, never seen or heard anything like it before...."

Not at all Raf, none taken. I may differ slightly from others as tp why I'm posting in that I'm not writing to prove or convince you or anyone else. if it were me I could be as skeptical of it as you. A skepticism of that means more than one thing, to me anyway - that it happened at all, that it happened that way. What it actually was or wasn't and if it was, what it meant if it meant anything at all. If it wasn't at all, why would I lie about it happening is whole 'nother thing. If it did happen in some form or another what would others that were there say of the same event. Etc. Etc. There's nothing distasteful about questioning another's word for something. "Policing" it reads kind of dense, I don't think you're positioned to take that stance or kind action. I'm probably not alone in feeling that's not expected from you (or anyone else). In fact, you have no valid platform from which to question what I say - which is kind of why I wanted to chime in, it will stand on it's own, same as what others have posted. You can say it didn't happen, that doesn't prove it didn't. You can say it didn't happen that way or that it wasn't what I thought it was - again, that doesn't change my position or have any affect on what I've stated. I just thought I'd chime in. Thread's paid for, this is all gravy. .

I guess I do want to toss in a few thoughts. Greets! Excellent point. The way you think resonates with me brain cells. Scripture, the Bible in it's currently accepted canon doesn't offer descriptions and instructions, as in 'do this', 'don't do that', what this sounds like or feels like and doesn't describe what all the N.T. era people experienced. It does read "I would ye all spake in tongues", etc. but frankly I never have seen in the Bible a cranked shut done and doner case that all "believers" should speak in tongues the Way that PFAL teaches it. I know all the verses that were taught, I know that and get all of that very well, but it's kinda like a well tossed salad, looks a little different each time it's tossed. :) To me. PFAL actually leveraged that reality (or lack of it) in 2 tiers - one being "biblical research' as a reliable method to understand what the Bible says and means and a second tier informing the teaching, that it was being presented in a doctrinal package that hadn't been 'known' since the 1st century, etc. The "not-known-since part of VPW's PFAL isn't required to act on the idea that research and study of the Bible can yield understanding. If the Bible's the source material that we all use it should be the thing that differentiates and decides, ultimately - not 'special revelations'. Reading through this thread and other comments I'd have to say that I don't think Acts 2 should be the sole qualifier to validate speaking in tongues - validate may not be the right word but that to have a legitimate instance of "speaking in tongues" today it would have to be a known human language, as it was in Acts 2 and unknown to the person speaking it. New Testament epistles of Paul describe a broader range of qualities, some that are personal and when "done" (can't think of the right word for that either) are internal, done in the mind/spirit of the person. I don't think - actually I don't think I ever thought - that the unknown/known language incident described in Acts 2 would be normal or even common. It's a good question though - if, big 2 letter word there - if it's never happened since, then why? If it's for any kind of "sign" that would be a good one I'd think, it seemed to serve the purpose in that record. And for the record, file this under 2nd hand story #23,467, I was in a meeting years ago, probably about 1970, with a group of Asian particpants, where a person spoke in tongues, and it was the native language of that group. It wasn't a completely "modern" dialect of Chinese but it was the dialect spoke by these people's family elders, older generation. I guess they said there were a few words that were slightly different that identified it that way to them. And it was a "YIKES!" moment for them in that meeting, they immediately started speaking to each other about it and in English words to the effect of "did you hear that! He's white! He's speaking Chinese!" that kind of thing. Sorry, no tape, I don't know where the people ended up over the years. A few of us are probably still around Northern Cal that were there. I don't expect anyone to bet their morgtage on that. But you wouldn't lose it if you did.

I speak in tongues. It's somewhat different than what I first experienced in the Way, from PFAL's teaching. It doesn't "sound" the same, if I can put it that way, and it doesn't have a "language sound" the way it was described in PFAL. I consider it private, personal. I talk about it with other Christians and have met those who do, those who don't. The fact that you Raf see it as a false, faked, counterfeit thing doesn't concern me to be honest, not because I don't respect your opinion but rather that I don't consider it my business to be telling you or anyone else that they have to. You've stated your position plainly. It seems clear, to me anyway. I'm glad to see the level of honesty that's here. I think it's better to be honest to ourselves and God and not BS either one, as much as possible. Whatever gets us to being honest and truthful is good. I'm only chiming in here as a side note that I "do" that and I consider it a significant part of my personal prayer life. I wouldn't get into detailed one - to - one on it online, can't think of anything that hasn't been already said to be honest. It is what it is for me.

I do, iPad, ASV. I like touch screen functionality, it's good for certain kinds of stuff. Whiffing around material onscreen is fast 'n' easy. Wanted to add, that I encourage others to read the Bibl. I meet many people who read the latest books and through that read verses of the Bible but don't read the Bible itself much. I recommend starting in the Gospels, though the epistles and then backing up to the Old Testament and then read up again through the N.T.

Thanks, I'll check that out Twinky! OperaBuff, that looks cool. I've seen those but never gotten one. That seems like it would facilitate easier reading. I have trouble with the "black page" as Frank Zappa might have called it - the small print with as many words as possible jammed in. Too hard to read. I had a "good news for modern man" Bible I picked up years ago, soft cover, some kind of woven vinyl or something but it's held up well. It's a larger print and I've used it for years for reading too. I appreciate the software applications that allow me to look at several versions at once, cross reference the Strong's, get some commentary libraries and read things. Online Bible is one I've used the most, it's a free download, although I think they have a complete version you can get on DVD or disk now. Very cool.

A point has been made here in the conversation that bears restating - The Way doctrine taught that the "SIT" could not be counterfeited... We're discussing performances of the "SIT" that were faked... The words seem like they're being used here to state the same result - one that wasn't "real" , as described in PFAL. So a person that "faked" it produced something that could be considered a "counterfeit" - even though the PFAL teaching taught that wasn't possible. Good to note I think although it's not my point - but the idea of a thing that can't be counterfeited is unwieldy at best....? - there are counterfeit paintings of art works, sculpture, books. A spoken language could be counterfeited, fairly easily...if/when the actual words and sounds of the language aren't known as is the case with how SIT was taught. If you don't know what the real thing is supposed to sound like and it can be a sign to the unbeliever and a comfort when interpreted to the believer - who's to say that it's for real or not? And the point there that you've made is valid Raf - the metrics aren't there to validate what was taught in PFAL - while there may be instances that are noted, the overwhelming number of examples have never been validated and won't be if the criteria of "tongues of angels" is used because no one knows what that sounds like. I - think - that VPW meant that if you prayed/believe God for the "real" thing, you couldn't get the "counterfeit" thing, God doesn't "give you" the wrong thing and it couldn't be circumvented by the devil, etc. etc. Ask God for bread, He won't give a box of tacks, that idea. Step out on your ol' believing and claim that bad boy and you won't get snafu'd, you'll be walking big 'n' tall in all power. :B) I get your point Raf - you're saying that there was nothing to receive in this, no SIT at all, and all the effort to do so was nada, zip, not able to deliver SIT as promised. My actual real point though is that I don't see anything wrong or ungodly if I can use that word, with anyone being honest. Better to be honest and go from there than to be dishonest.

Hacking up a lung, not good. I guess it would be okay to point it out - maybe not. "It appears that you may have coughed up something that looks like a lung, to me and I know that doesn't really mean that it's a lung or that you did, I only mean that to me, it does look like that but I don't mean there's anything wrong with it if you did. For you. You may have wanted to do that, and if you did, that's okay. It's okay because if it's okay to you it's okay to me, and that's okay too. And maybe it isn't really a lung maybe it's a cotton candy horsie! Or a big cake! But if you did not intend to cough up that lung and would like some assistance now, I could suggest some. Not because what you did was wrong or bad, or that it might represent a problem for you because I don't want to say that you might have a problem - this is just a friendly and loving observation that if that is a lung, maybe...well - no? It's not a lung? Hmmm, well...okay! Here's a plastic bag just in case it happens again"

I use the Amplified bible a lot for reading. I've got a King James, and several others. The software app's that can load up multiple versions are great. There's several online that are very easy to use. Plus you can make the fonts bigger. I got a page magnifier too, one that I can lay over the pages and read. The Large Print versions are kind of expensive, but I'll probably get one of those one of these days. Easier on the ol' eyes.

Thanks!

Hi Raf - how would you differentiate between these three - TWI, CES/STFI and Pentecostals/non-denominationals? I know what TWI taught/teaches, and am familiar with some of the Pentecostal tradition. I'm fuzzy on CES/STFI details, although I did get an abbreviated hairball from Lynn on it about 20 years ago. What are the differences you see, are there any? Just curious.