socks

Lessons in Living: Matthew 5:24 Leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. Mark 11:25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins. Matthew 5:44-45 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Luke 23:34 Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." Whether anyone here forgives anyone else for anything is up to them, the words of Jesus speak for themselves. I believe that forgiveness, including our ourselves and others is the foundation of following The Way of Jesus Christ. Difficult? Yes. Needed? Yes. Apologies? Stick 'em where the sun don't shine, I want none. You can grovel before God Almighty if that be the desire, not me. In the end we all stand to get what's coming to us, in this life and the next. If we don't we can be thankful that we're spared the worst of what life can offer. If we receive it we join the ranks of the millions for whom life itself is a burden with no relief until it's over. If we can offer the smallest of grace to others it bodes well for us, that we may receive at the least that and if more? God be praised. To forgive may indeed be divine - in these graceless times it's in short supply so for all those who don't and won't you're right in there in the norm. Not to worry - I forgive you and if you should stand alone one day with no one to speak for you I will. Dare I ask - do the same for me - that had I known as I am known I would have done better.

Read the Declaration of Independence. I just did. :)in response to another thread. "manifest destiny" comes in many forms. Just pray you're not a Native American or Mexican because God wants your land and he knows who should have it. And it's not you. "Greed is good". As long it's godly.

One thing that comes to mind that hopefully won't produce a sidetrack is that for a large portion of the Christian population Christianity is defined around the belief that Jesus "is" God, as a part or person of God. (read: "trinity"). Muslims will never gather under that recognition. Jews don't accept Jesus as their Messiah or a savior for mankind's sins and certainly don't accept Him as "God" or divine. It's mostly struck me over the last several years that the real definition of Christianity for nearly all the sects of the religion is that Jesus is divine, a person of "the godhead". Accepting Jesus as "the son of God" isn't enough. I'm not suggesting that change in order to come to some kind of resolution, only stating it to illustrate that the differences are many between these three, some basic and fundamental and although there are similarities the differences are stark. I believe that the foundational thoughts put into our "Declaration of Independence" provide a good place to start - it gives the foundational logic and reasoning for why a people can and should exist in harmony while pursuing their own destinies. In it the basis for resisting a hierarchical rule of the individual is clearly stated. It assumes that those declaring independence will collectively govern themselves and that all will be represented. There has to be agreement that this is needed and right. I'm not sure we're ever going to see that concensus though.

Thinking further I'll try to articulate a little clearer - I can't see that "scripture" is deliberately ambiguous or that the "Bible" as a whole meant to be interpreted by each reader. Parts of it are simply records, stories and recounts of events. How can the intention of the retelling of a series of events be deliberately ambiguous, with the intention that the reader come to their own conclusions about what's stated? It doesn't make sense to me. Interpretation has to be assumed as part of the intake process - reading and understanding what's read. Some form of interpretation has to occur, however the idea that each person can have a different conclusion in every instance doesn't stand to reason IMO. Or put another way, each person can have a different interpretation and possibly will, but not all interpretations can be correct. If I assume the "bible" as a whole is meant to allow me to come to my own conclusions it would also assume that all of the records, written at different times by different people in different cultures, all had the same intentions and that one was to allow the reader to have their own interpretation. It would be easier to assume that if there was a single author with that intention. That could be the case. Who would that be? If I say "it's 75 degrees today": One person might say "I feel warm". Another person might say "it's cool, I need a sweater". Are both right? Yes. But it's still 75 degrees. Music can stack a chord thusly: C - F - G Context can determine the chord differently - a C major, an F9, etc. Are all correct? Yes - and this is where I see the ambiguity but only when viewed singley. Based on context a correct "interpretation" of the chord becomes obvious. Disagreement on the conclusion in that sense is ridiculous - there is no disagreement other than on an intellectual level. A chord can be interpreted different ways but based on context there will be one that is correct based on the harmonic flow and movement of all the notes before and after......

Thought provoking topic. DYI has some assorted thoughts that cover a wide range HERE> I think the comparison works but in a limited way. Musical expression takes different forms - scores are meant to reflect exact performance. The sound will always vary performance to performance but the notes, etc. are to be played as written. Music is what it is, written. Performance varies, of course. Having the musical score provides the performer with the material to understand what to play and how to play it. For awhile I studied Paganini's music. Itzhak Perhlman performed his "24 Caprices", and they're recorded. His is arguably considered the best/one of the best renderings. This is credited to his profound grasp of his instrument. "Effortless" describes his performance of them, and they're considered the bench mark, a bench mark certainly, for a violinist's achievement of the music, the instrument and technique. The musical content isn't ambiguous. It's very clear. Interesting to note I think is that the music itself is understandable when performed and heard. The score isn't the end result, the performance is. Looking back in time we don't have recordings of actual performances of a lot of music that has become popular today. Yet if the music is written we do know very close to what the original intent was. All of the historical study around the composer, the history of the instruments, etc. - it's possible to know to a large degree what it should "sound like". A classic example in modern American music would be indeed any one of the well known blues artists. Jimmy Reed comes to mind immediately - written out his music wouldn't communicate at all the way it actually sounded. That requires performance and in his case, JR himself to a great degree. Banjo music also comes to mind. Written out it's ridiculous - the ultimate "black page" of notes. : ) All of the rolls and picking patterns look crazy on a page - played and seen they're easier to understand. The bible isn't a "score" - it's more of a history and collection of writings considered to have significance to the history that's being told. I don't think most of it is difficult to understand in terms of what was intended or meant. F'rinstance "administrations" and their significance is often debated but given that the bible covers a huge range of history - from "in the beginning" to events yet to occur - it only makes sense that there would be change and transition in the history. I doubt anyone in the "Old Testament" could envision me sitting here typing this about what they wrote. God may not change but the realms of His creation do, quite clearly. So I don't see difficulty getting stuck in what was written 100's of years ago not sounding directly applicable to me today. Some things would, something wouldn't. It just takes reading and studying to work through it. There's no way to understand history without, hmmm...reading up on it. In that way music leans more towards the "exacting precision" we heard VPW present IMO. Knowing the music, as best as it can be known, is essential to producing an exacting performance and exacting performance is what compositions intend. There are variances of course but overall music is performed "off the sheet" as written. Is the bible the same? Across the board there are similarites - It has to be sussed out as it were. As a musician would read through a piece, listen to it if possible and get a feel for the overall composition and then dive in a reader of the bible must do the same I believe. When I listen to a song, modern pop, I can hear the harmonic structure pretty quickly and know what's coming up. Doesn't take long to understand "the changes" and relationship of the various parts. Can we do the same with the bible? This brings up a simple fundamental fact though that can't be denied once we focus on it - no two performances are ever the "same" and no single performance is ever definitive as an end in itself. I suppose on some level musicians will hear a rendering that's so perfectly executed they'll sigh and say "Well, that's as good as it gets!" and appreciate it for what it is. Then turn around the next day and go right back to work. Faced with the highest levels of achievement we can be inspired, not defeated. Encouraged, not dismayed. :) edited to add a bunch of crap that might still not make sense.

Christ accepts all but do all accept Christ? No, we know all do not. Would "all" share in Communion? Could all, sinner and "saint" alike? I would think so, although the value of the shared communion meal will have to be held up by those Christians "hosting" it, for want of a better word. We can't (and shouldn't try) to redefine what the event is or what it means but we can share it with all who would be drawn towards it. I don't subscribe to the Roman Catholic Communion, the traditional ritual of the the Eucharist. I was raised and both taught and trained in Catholicism and understand the history of transubstantiation, of the wine and the wafer into Christ's actual body and blood through the priest's consecration. That is a most literal undertaking of Jesus' words at the Last Supper. Jesus also said at one point He was the "door". We can assume that Jesus was never an actual door. Many of His references did not hinge (ahem) on a literal application of the terminoloy and references He used, that we know for sure. I do see biblically that the sharing of the "Communion" table has great significance along the lines of what's already been stated, done "in remembrance" and amongst a community of those who share faith in Christ. Man's tendency to survive at all costs (IMO) is what leads us to ritualize everything we get our hands one, so as to insure it's continuity with us and in that sense the survival of our own selves. We want our identities to endure through the things we ritualize, our stuff. The more we do that though the more we risk losing our very identities, as that which we ritualize takes on it's own significance separate from ourselves. So we cycle back and forth, on and on and the harder we hold on to our stuff the faster it comes to rule us. But I digress. I would assume that the things we do in faith towards God and Jesus Christ act as agents of that shared identity we have as "Christians". So there is significance and value to tradition, properly executed. I gotta say Pax and I do this kindly and gently as I assume your best intentions, I'm put off personally these days by the term "radical" in religious circles. It's become trendy (and you I'm sure are not using it that way) but every time I turn around there's some radical this or that in some church. "Radical Christianity" - it's a loaded term to my ears. "Extreme" is another. Extreme Christianity. It's become a kind of youth banner or something, if it's Christian and there's kids involved, it's extreme. Uh, yeah man. Lastly and I'll stop - I was in a church a few years ago when the pastor declared this - he wanted their church to be a "dangerous" church. Dangerous. Risk takers. I had to choke back laughing. I don't go to church to be dangerous. When it gets dangerous I'll be packin' heat. Till then, easy does it, y'know? Anyway, yeah.

It's very difficult to know to any depth to what degree the character flaws - and strengths - of another person effect their decisions, choices, behavior. We ourselves often have difficulty coming to grips with who we really are and admitting why we really do the things we do. Some choices, although "good", even admirable, are the result of peer pressure, a desire for recognition. Anger, resentment, bitterness - these aren't just accusations to bring to bear against someone else, they're real emotions and feelings that effect we experience. "Fear" - not as dirty a word as we may have once been led to believe but clearly the protective mechanisms we have can go into overdrive and lead us to do all sorts of things for no other reason than the perception we have that we're somehow protecting ourselves, our stuff, those close to us, even when we're not and even when it's counter productive. Similarly bad choices, things people would judge wrong, can be done for any and all of the same reasons and others as well. The scale tips at every turn. Why is the question and that's something that isn't always clear even when we think it is. We just have to make the best determination we can when we need to, I think. I once did a study on "worship" and God. The question was "why does God require worship, and what is that - really? In the relationship I have with God, what does it amount to, in real time, in anticipation of the future and what I'll do tomorrow? I was surprised at the conclusions, and still see it as a topic of investigation for myself. Anyhoo - I see King as a man of many admirable qualities, who was far from perfect but who in fact never had the burden of such a claim to live up or down to, who vigorously pursued his life's work and in so doing left a legacy of inspiration in his actions - what he did - as much or more than with what he said. It's not an easy road he chose. Life can be hard, even when it's easy.

I don't see great value with comparing anything or anyone without weighting both correctly, agreed. In fact given the overall attitude towards VPW here, I can't see why he's compared to anyone or anything anymore except for the sake of conversation. Like I said, yearly recycle. King's plagiarism's been noted here before and the comparison's always drawn the same. Everyone generally recognizes King's contribution as greater and his plagiarism as a lesser issue of smaller impact. I gather that the perception of results scales the morality and ethics of the act committed based on what I'm reading here. Can't say I agree with that approach morally or ethically but in either case there's no great loss at this point how you view it. King's gone as is Weirwille and their respective legacies speak for themselves.

This topic gets recycled every year or so. Must be time again, get the newbeez thinking? Wake 'em up time? Everyone's verrrry careful around King's legacy, even though this is indeed very similar to what VPW did, King's borrowing heavily from others, similar language, phrases and ideas turned to different phrase, etc. Some is undoubtedly the product of reading, study, and thought where the ideas grew and became King's "own". Where to draw the line? Good question. Allowing (or glossing over) King's habits and manner because he was what, a good man who wanted to do good and who is loved and respected by millions isn't fair to him or anyone else. No one should be afraid of being critiical of King if they are, or speaking honestly about the lack of rigor and discpline around citations and crediting, etc. In his day information wasn't distributed near as widely as today and the products of an education weren't as easily accessible to all as they are today. I'm sure at the time he may have assumed he was within academic boundaries, his own at least. Maybe he just figured to get 'er done and hope no one would ever find out. Maybe he didn't care. Public Speaking is slightly looser in the crediting - it can clog up a presentation to quote ever reference and near refererence, but transcripts and distribution of information around the topic is always available. Anyway - lots of people will lie to your face and not even act disturbed if caught right smack dab in the lie. Lies upon lies upon lies upon lies. Doesn't phase 'em at all.

There may be a language hurdle to make here TMVP. I believe you said english isn't your first language. Whatever your native language is, you're doing better with english than I would with yours or any other for that matter english is all I know, a few words and phrases of Spanish, German and French. Enough to get me kicked out of any decent restaurant if I go too far trying. So I'm not much help in that area, but you're doing fine, friend. This is pretty side tracked off the "mansions" topic, like I said I don't know much about that, those, whatever. The life topic is pretty simple to my mind. I'm getting we aren't coming to the same conclusion which is fine. Hopefully what I'm positing has made some sense, but I'm not sure from your responses what you mean, which may go both ways, if so, don't sweat it. . Many religions have imaged their deities as persons, with names, physical features and what are more or less "super powers", compared to humans. They live somewhere and fuss and fight amongst themselves and occasionally it spills over into human affairs, not always a good thing by their accounts. Although "Jehovah" came and went at times, and visited and dwelt and spoke and heard, the God of the O.T. made it clear He's not one among many, He's it. No names, no dwelling place of human construction holds or frames Him. I might conjecture that the gods of ancient religions (and more current ones too) reflect the creations of Jehovah, angels and the like, and their affairs throughout time that have intersected with man. "gods" may be ways to tell the piecemeal stories of what's gone on throughout time in God's realm. I really don't know, just a thought. Jehovah - the name alone constructs the framing of how He's understood by that name - God in covenant relationship with people, "His" people. God's people are apparently very important to HIm but not the only business He's involved in or with, seems fairly clear. My point is what the bible says - God doesn't dwell in temples made by us. God's dwelling place is described as with - "in" - His people. Christianity describes the role of Jesus Christ, Yeshuah in that. For many years I think I struggled with "visualizing" God - I spoke about him in very human physical terms, and yet I really had no understanding of what that was really like or might be, in reality. I knew something was going on though and it wasn't hmmm, "this", what I see and hear of the physical. I hesitate to go much further than that because, at the risk of sounding like a goof, I believe that "true reality" must reveal itself to each one of us and it will become clear as it does. Some will see it differently, that's normal. We aren't all right but we can all try. If I come to find I'm completely wrong, nuts and crazy, that's okay too. Shoot us for trying, right?

Tents, mansions - makes sense Twinky. Temporar versus permanent. I agree Twinky, the Life of God isn't something we're going to grasp at this point. We struggle (good naturedly at times, with vigor and enthusiam) just to understand our own lives even as we live them. Whether we do or not, life goes on as we say. Once the train's left the station, it's moving. The understanding of it is due to what I would see as clear differences. We observe things outside ourselves but we can't really know what it's like to be a tree because we're not the tree or a tree. The essence, the definition of our existence is different, yet we both "live". It's obvious to me that we won't truly have a grip on the "life" or pneuma of God until we're completely living that "life". We can't really, in a subjective way. Yet, and this goes to TMVP's point on the "spirit" teaching being bogus - we go from a point in our lives where we don't have any real grasp of God or the things of His realm, to a point where we do being "born again". This singular instance of one-to-one generation (or regeneration if that's the drill someone chooses) is a game changer. "New Life" - born again, children, "sons", in a familial relationship then with God. New nature, incorruptible, etc. etc. These terms provide contrasts, differences we can see. This appears to be more than hmmm....say a new list of stuff we get or have. Promises, all of that. There is a difference we read about but the primary difference is the core essence, the "nature" of that new life, being born again. All of the terminology of the N.T. leads me to believe that and understand it to a teensy bit as the "holy spirit", the hagion pneuma, as being different than the pneuma of man. Just as the tree is alive but different in quality of life, so this. I don't subscribe to the idea that the N.T. was hijacked by people over history to completely impose a new view, a "superiority" teaching that creates a spiritual realm where there is none. Simple but intense viewing of life as it is leads me to understand that the overall perspective the Old and New Testaments give on God, man, the present and future are tenable. We know the bible's been messed with over and over throughout history, however there are clear basic strains of thought and expression that carry through. Speaking of which - got some life to carry on myself this fine weekend, gotta get to it! Be back.

Well, the "spirit", pneuma, the life, breath, etc. etc.......I see the difficulty in visualising these things. When I say "spirit" what am I really talking about? What does that mean, what is the foundation for understanding what it means? Life has existence, what I call "continuity". Once a life begins it doesn't start and stop or cease to exist and then exist again. An instance of life can be recognized by it's qualities. I see a rock - it's not "alive". I see a cat - it's alive. What's the difference? There are differences. Life occurs in individual instances. God is - God. There's one, Jehovah. I'm me - that's one. You're you, another. A cat - there's an instance of life. A fish - life. A rose - life. A tree - alive. A piece of wood from the tree cut and held a year later - not alive. Interesting. And the biological processes that produce and keep life going, that are "life", are present in individual instances. We know there are differences in qualities but there are basic similarities for anything that's "alive" and from our conscious recognition of it, it occurs in individual instances. . I know this sounds very basic but it's not something I assume as being the only way that life could occur or exist but from our view, it is. That we are the way we are and life is as we observe it isn't a "gimme". And the fact that we don't observe or have any knowledge of it occuring in any other way is hugely significant, far more than we realize I think. We wake up every morning the way we are and the essence of that life never changes - there's a reason for that I think. For you and I consciousness is a quality of life - we know who we are, recognize ourselves from others and accumulate memories and anticipate the future from the present. Memory is another critical quality of our consciousness. If God had no beginning I'd have to ponder what His consciousness is, the "mind of God". We can analyze the quality of our "life" by certain deficiencies - we "forget", lose pieces of information that our brains mix up or confuse and we can't recall. and we do that not with only 80-90 years under our belts. Does God do that? A "perfect" God would never forget, never have anything He couldn't recall, presumably immediately. How does one know everything, all the time, and have the ability to recall it at anytime? My point is that when I look at "life" and compare say - a plant, a cat, and myself and then God - I see differences in quality. Serious differences. I do believe that there's a difference in the pneuma, the "spirit" of God and the spirit of man, simply and for no other reason than that. There are similarities like singular, non-repetitive instances, individual consciousness, and memory and anticipation. Other qualities, like continuity are vastly different. I can't assume that the life of man, my life, will in and of itself ever be the same as God's from this perspective that I have of life as I know it. This isn't an imposed "superiority" teaching or viewpoint, it's simply a recognition of what I read in the bible and what I can see of life as we all know it. If I accept the God Jehovah as real, I have to accept the differences. I think God's pretty clear about those too, in the O.T., whatever version we use.

I don't know a great deal about this topic, sorry. Some questions come to mind, reading, as a result: "North"....north of what? and then how far north? "Mansions" - abodes, dwelling places. In what state, meaning a physical or a "spiritual" one, that being let's say for the sake of discussion, another state than one that's solely physical....although I guess it could be some conbination of anything or everything. Although it will give some conniptions VPW represented a basic piece of defining "spirit" as we call it and the bible uses it - as "life", that is all life is spirit, and I suppose the reverse would be true. It can be metaphorical too, although the way pneuma is used in literature, and the bible, it leads towards "life" or a quality of being that we'd associate with that word life. Life is - what? I was about to write "intelligent" but that's a very broad word and some of us might not quality as being "alive" then. (joke) Self aware - nope not consistently - although I've got some plants that can look kind of mischievous at times - but awareness might not be true in all cases, specifically the ability or state of knowing that I am me and that I exist and that I'm not you or someone or something else. Two qualities that I might then place in the basket of Life - growth (hmmm....tabbing for further research) and continuity as in life continues till it doesn't, or doesn't appear to. Growth Continuity Maybe (for humans and others) Self awareness Change - the capacity to recalibrate or attenuate our state - not sure if that's true of Life but possibly. Maybe. "Life" in relation to these "mansion" - how are you seeing that? "lived" in may not be the right word for Jehovah and tents - I'm thinking of Exodus chap. 40 or so - I don't know that it's suggesting God "lived" in the constructed tents they built. Or that we would therefore have a vested relatiionship in something like a "tent" unless it's figurative and Lord knows the bible is a playground for Figurative thinking. Should I invest in Coleman stock? (joke)

"How exactly do you determine those needs without sticking your nose into private financial matters where it doesn't belong?" When I was on staff at the Way Nash, it was easy. "need basis" means "what do you need, moneywise, for a salary?" It was no more complicated than that. '74/'75 the Way was still fairly young in it's need for full time staff employees so the hiring process was done mostly one-on-one with VPW first, then Howard Allen. Basically VPW didn't get involved in the details of "what do you need and why", we just worked it out with Howard. No one asked "why do you need that" or "you don't need that". Applied, "needs basis" allows for flexible year-to-year budgeting. It can both work and not work in your best interests.

"Nor did they ever have to move themselves." The cure for "getting complacent" was to move. If you moved every year or few you started over, renewed and rekindled purpose, resolve and expectations. Kinda drastic medicine looking back, you'd thnk there'd be a better way, no? The tradeoff is that you won't get the kind of fruit that comes from long term planting and sowing. That requires time and attention. "Seasons". By constantly turning the field over for new seed it prevented the Way from becoming a mature plant. Or tree might be a more fitting metaphor. The current state of the Way Nash perfectly demonstrates this - there's no large scale growth, no huge numbers of anyone new doing anything, only the ones they still have turning it over to their children and a few added as they go along. Those heavily committed aren't doing anything even close to what The Way was doing 20 30 years ago if they're succeeding and I know at least some who are. They've settled into a place, a home, an area, have connections with family and community and spend ample amounts of time working, as anyone would. Those who live that way are very happy, as you'd expect. It's more effective to see what's really happening when everyone and everything isn't moving all the time and can be observed and evaluated over a period of time. When The Way had 100's of "WOW" and lots of Corps people moving around, coming and going, etc. etc. it gave the impression of growth in both quality and quantity.

Oh yeah! Maybe an 80's style "Whoa...dude!...that's like, totally heinous and all but, no way am I like, that judge dude for you. And stuff. But I can completely relate, definitely dude, that sucks! " Mullets? No, DEFinitely not a mullet. Condemned, right out of the gate. Proceed to Super Cuts Purgatory till your mind is right. Garth, hard to know what to say. A moment of silence for polyester weave. SS, that's the ticket! For all those who have struggled with deciding what to wear, finally the answer - Jesus was pro-nudity. The records speak for themselves. We came into this world with nothing, leave with nothing - clearly nothing is the New Paradigm and what a game changer it is! The gravity of this realization requires our most serious attention. Pursuant to such work - I'd have to ponder the human condition overall in relation to the general topic of homosexuality. I don't see the attraction so to speak so it's a very difficult topic to consider practically or otherwise. It's the opposite of what I find normal and for that I make no apologies, I'm me and for me, normal is well - normal. The bible overall doesn't ever sound like it's supportive of the idea, in fact if I took out any specific references that Goetz refers to as the "slam" sections, I'd still have a long view of history that's decidedly heterosexual. Course who knows what anyone does on their own time but the read of it reads like that. If it's the bible that's the point of reference it seems pretty obvious, to me, others may feel differently. If the two were set as opposites and we make them 1-2...consider the biology then. If there's "man" = 1 and "woman" = 2 (ladies, no harm meant, 2 as we all know is the New 1) it seems we could have a 1.2, or 1.9. Perhaps even an Uber 2.9 or a .93......? Y'know, guys - guy digs football, the manly sport for all men. (Imagine the Fantasy Football team Jesus would have had! Ka-ching!!!) Football -check. Hunting - check. Rambo Part 1 - check. Gas guzzler truck (with monster tires, of course) - check. John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever - che-ch-che-cheeee..... Hold up there bud-ski. Try Bruce Willis - Die Hard...check. Aaaaah. Better. Variances - normal or an age gone haywire? And what were they taking back in the day if that's the case? Metro Man - the New Stud or the Stud Buster?

It's possible to conclude that, waysider. Such a line of clothing and the very name implies something's amiss. Perhaps He would have cursed such a suit, causing wrinkling that no iron could soften, leaving the wearer to wear the shame for the life of the suit (and leisure suits last). Or perhaps He'd come up with His own line of "Day of Rest" clothing. One never knows. It's difficult to imagine Jesus in the world today, but I'm sure He'd have management, a large mega-facility for broadcasting to the world, book deals for days and a package of business-ready contracts for endorsement opportunities. Snappy slogans - "Put the name that's above all names to work. Jesus is ready to go - for you!!" Forget turning lemons into lemonade - The Son is a vintner's marketing dream come true. I'd suspect He'd dabble in politics but only for a time, why be President when you're already The King of Kings? Makes no sense. The possiblities are endless. The mind reels.

Well, there ya go. For the record, having never read Goetz's book (finally got the name right) and having virtually no first hand knowledge of it or time in investigating what he's written I can say without a doubt, he's wrong. Aaaah....smell that? That's American Pie baby!! But I can say for sure that those verses forming his "Triptych" (Triple A used to have Trip Tiks - whole 'nother deal but they were cool map spiral binder thingies, great for mapping out a route on the road) are not referring to Jesus talking about, mentioning, accepting or otherwise endorsing homosexuals. I'm not suggesting Jesus hated homosexuals. I don't know that he hated Italians either, short people or bald men or people who dressed badly. He never really addresses correct fashion sense although I suspect He was a snappy dresser. Functional, current, good fit, that sort of thing. One of my favorite gospel records is the guy who came to him to get him to settle an inheritance squabble. Apparently the guy'd gotten screwed by his family, a sad situation to be sure but Jesus returns his request by saying "who made me a judge or divider over you?" Surprising to many ministers today no doubt as I'm sure he could have claimed a hefty percentage as a fee for just a few hours work, thus capitalizing who knows how many Good Works. But he seems to have stopped short on civil matters. Same deal on Roman taxes, which one of the gospels says he handled with Peter, privately, paying the tax. I yearn to know the forms that were involved but I'm sure I could postulate that out to support the use of Quick Books as the only true godly way to calculate your taxes, given enough time. So I dunno - the "equality of marriage"....? Is anything in life ever equal?

Cool Pax, please give some of the pertinent points from that book if you would, so I can get a better grip on it. Figuratively speaking. Works both ways - hypocrisy is like pie - no matter how you cut it, it's still really good with ice cream. Everyone likes to use the bible - well, not Garth, but everyone else likes to use it to justify something - isn't presenting Jesus in the way Goethe does a form of that? Why use Jesus to promote anything? It's a little odd. I hope He gets a percentage of a cut on all the things He's used to endorse. He-be a rich dude then.I mean, the Roman Catholic concessions alone would have to be mega. Add in all the issues from this aeon - that's gonna be a big stack.

Another comment on how you're doing this - it''s up to you how you choose to work with the material in the bible. I disagree with your approach. You would not do it that way with any other finished literary work, simply remove the parts that to you as the reader don't make sense to you in the storyline, plot development, character development, etc. Well, you could but it would be obvious that you'd end up with a different work than the original, literally a different book. If the Bible contains important, essential information for you to know, is it the wisest path to take to arbitrarily remove parts that you assume had to be added because they don't fit with what you think should be there? If there's a historical path to follow based on variant texts that can show sections coming and going there's a basis to examine the validity of the content - that's a reasonable approach where you can at the least establish what should or most likely be there. For an example, look at Thomas Jefferson. You wrote earlier that it's "important for the story to tell the story about Yeshua being raised from among the dead", and to not take that out, as opposed to removing verses in John 1 that you assume were added to tell a "Trinity" story. Jefferson complied his own bible, the "Jefferson Bible", based on his own assumption that the life record of Jesus Christ had been reconstructed to make him the "son of God", and to deify Him. He believed in a Jesus Christ and what he considered the teachings of Jesus. He had the highest regard for the morality and ethics he felt were contained in those teachings. He denied that any miracles or "spiritual" events ever took place. So he simply removed them and compiled a story line of his own making. Doing that he completely removed the resurrection of Jesus and ended it with his burial and his followers leaving it at that. He believed the resurrection (and therefore the events of the first part of Acts) simply didn't happen so he left them out. His reading of the bible led him to believe that the moral and ethical teachings and lessons were the story - the rest he considered legends, myths and outright forgeries to create another "Jesus", a false one. He compiled a "harmony" of the gospels based on an idea similar to yours - he determined what fit and what didn't and rewrote the story to accomodate what he felt was true. His effort was so effective that even still today many Christian's claim Jefferson as one of their own - yet he removed the single most essential reality of Christian faith from this bible - the resurrection. I admire Jefferson. I've read all of his writings, political and personal that have been collected and published, some many times and have read biographies, commentaries to his works, annalysis and histories. IMO Jefferson was one of the most significant thinkers and writers in history. I believe he had his reasons for what he believed - his life experience with religion and the church wasn't altogether that different than that of others. He was clearly a man of deep thoughts, convictions and compassion. I think I understand what he did with the bible, but I don't think it's correct.

LinZa said: "...in a year, maybe two." Indeed. I confess I struggle with the original proposition as put forth. Not a lot to be honest, it just sounds far fetched, not because of the subject matter but because after just a cursory reading of the verses in question - well, I just don't "get it", figuratively speaking of course and present subject matter aside and with no metaphorical aspersions implied and therefore denied. I simply don't see the necessary foundations for the conclusion. Lacking further information as well as the 15 bucks to buy the book I can go no further. That's never stopped me before though so have no fear, I have additional personal insight to share. Read on, it's well worth the time. It's not uniquely American but it's definitely an aspect of our national personality to treat each other like crap. "Crap" being badly. This is easy to do - if I have something you want I already know the answer to immediately exercise my god given right to Be Crappy - "No." See? It's just that easy. Again, in the greek: "Nope". Transliterated: "Go fly a kite!" French: "Non!" Danish: "Nej!" Work it kids - it works. People have died for our freedoms and what better way to express them? To further Mssr. Aar's comments I would add then, what better institution than marriage to exercise this freedom? It's legal, it's binding, it's a contract. Marriage Inc. - the ultimate petri plate for perfecting our proclivities and performance of this, our most prestigious constitutionally guaranteed right - the right to make others less right. Who am I, nay we, to say no? Well, we are the ones to say no but here we can take the high road and build for the future. Let's not waste a minute of it. Crappy - it's the new Good. Someone has to be right. Who better than me? If elected, I promise to solemnly and with great vigor fulfull this post! No one will be ignored or denied and all can rest peacefully know that their time will sure come and quickly! No - amend that statement - I assume the post. Thank you! You're welcome! Repeat after me, please: "I Do!" Indeed and moreover, doing this reflects that most basic of human rights, the right to tell anyone at any time exactly what I think of them It's as if we sit with the Founding Fathers themselves, pens in hand and looking over their shoulders - "We hold these truths to be self-evident: you suck. I don't, as much." Freedom in action, doesn't get any better. We recognize with laser like acuity and surgical precision that most common of all human qualities - we all like some things and don't like others. There may be reasons, good reasons, biblical reasons, logical reasons, reasons so plain they don't require but will get all the explanation they can hold and more but either way there is one last reason that stands true and proud, oak-like in it's strength - if I don't like it that's reason enough. That may not be scientific or reasonable or travel the high road on anyone's moral map but it is, in fact, a basic impulse of our human nature. We have favorite colors, favorite Beatle songs, favorite pairs of jeans. The other end of the spectrum needs recognition too and we do it well, although not nearly as well as we think or as others - the French come to mind - they're Black Belts at birth I think. We still have work to do therefore and fortunately the freedom and time to do it. If we never become truly the Best At It, that's still okay though because we know exactly what to tell whoever is. There, see? Tol' ya.

Thanks - it's difficult for me dropping in at mid point and not knowing any background so I appreciate your patience. ( I once spent a year working on a specific topic and it's biblical history - tithing - and when I gave the presentaiton of it to some local folks, it only lasted a 1/2 hour and was fairly simple in outline form. One of the people that attended told me good naturedly afterwards - "So what did you do with the other 11 months?" I managed to come up with a good retort - I said "I thought about what it meant - have fun!" ) Time is....our friend. I do not believe in the term "Trinity", lock stock and barrel. I do not believe in a 3 fold God of 3 persons, distinct and co-equal yet "one". That Jesus Christ "Is" God, I don't believe that. Nor that He existed in a distinct, co-equal "person" of God since the "beginning" or eternity or whatever. The doctrine of the Trinity is IMO (and this is how I view it while not believing it's premise) an attempt at a philisophical abstract rendering of the qualities of God's existence and the activities that represent His intents. Not a particularly good one, I'd add but still a verbal rendering of something that is close to impossible to render in words. We have words to work with though and they do tend to go round and round when grappling with any attempt to grasp "God" and articulate Him in whole. I don't think the specifics of it, and Jesus actually literally "being" God is true however. I do think His followers were taken wholly by being with Him, hearing and seeing Him and as they aged and became more aware of what was truly happening in their own lives continued to their last day on earth with the passion we read about both in the bible and afterwards. That first generation of "believers" burned bright, some longer than others but left their mark. The next generation and on continued and in the development struggled with knowing and understanding, no different than we. It's no surprise to me that there have been wide divergences in what's come down through time, now, to us. But I do believe in Jesus Christ, Messiah and savior, risen Lord and at the right hand of God, our intercessor and Way. And like the song says - I know the Messiah, He will come again. I tread lightly when I am in the presence of the thoughts of God however and when dealing with what I would call holy and sacred matters, and certainly His hature and being is one of those. Understandably I'm a little ham-fisted and tongue tied in this life when dealing with such things but I consider it a duty of man to try. In some ways it's easier done than said. And others have said it better than I, in their inspiration. JB's got the goods on John, IMO. And the history of the word "logos" is a factor in this discussion and the "why" of it appearing so uniquely in John, as it does. Your translation of "logos" as wisdom is certainly one of the meanings logos has. At that point we're talking about what those verses mean, not if they should be there. I get that approach. Calls to "scratch it out" however don't work for me personally - if it's there it's there. We do well to tread lightly in the things of God, even when they're only the things that others hold sacred before Him. Those things are invested with the faith of their believers and deserve respect if offered with humility and love and all the more if in service to others to promote Life. - The Apocryphal writings and books - I don't see a lot of added value in most of those either - generally speaking they may be actual letters written, the recorded comments of people - that's fine. The epistles to/etc. writings don't add to the doctrinal picture, from what I've seen and many of the "B List" writings never passed muster on knowing their history. They may be "real", maybe not. There are no doubt 1000's of such letters and writs throughout history that would a certain significance for their day and the people involved. Dunno.

" ...claim that John 1:1-1:14 does not fit into the harmony of the four gospels, it must be a Trinity forgery, who else would put it in the text?" I was thinking on this topic and wanted to add - this is where I would disagree with what seems to be the essence of your idea here....that some verses don't fit in your "harmony" or harmonizing of the four gospels. I'm not clear on how you use "harmony" but I'm taking it to mean that when compiling the records in all 4 gospels there are parts that stick out to you as not being correct contextually. The 4 gospels don't include all of the same events in order, as I'm sure you know. John 1 is an example, it starts out with a series of statements that aren't inherent to the record of someone telling the life story of Jesus Christ and the events and people involved. Or - it does, in such a way that it sets the context for understanding what's about to be read. It's often described as a "prologue"....as if it were added but I really don't think that accurately describes that section of the book. I may be wrong about this, someone can add insight, I think the first verses of John have always been included in the book as it's been known and nothing indicates they were added, as if at a later point, to the beginning of the gospel. If always been there then it's a question of what it means, not if it should be there. But if you put the content of each in a chronological order and laid them out end to end into one record you don't have a gospel "harmony", you have a new record made of the 4. A "harmony" might be stacking the 4 on top of each other - some records will fill spots where others have no content - these verses in John would be an example. Much like a musical score, some instruments play where others are silent. There's no contradiction in the score, all instruments and all parts form the music. That may not apply to everything in the 4 gospels, but it's a way to describe the approach I prefer. I don't see an intrinsic problem with the beginning of John in that light.

Well, some kind of criteria has to be used to determine what does belong and what does not belong, and you seem to have a means of determining that. I'm still not clear on what your criteria is or how you go about determining what stays or goes. The bible is a book, in that form it has to be read. Reading, one will come to find there are many different translations and versions. Not all have the same wording or even the same books, order, etc. etc. If you're using the King James version (or translations based on the same set of books), how did you come to the deciion to use that bible and that collection of books? What is the means of excluding other books and why? If you've determined only to use KJV and to exclude anything else, on what authority then do you accept that the KJV (or any other) is the primary source? Are you familiar with how it was compiled and came to be? And if you are, what is it about that historical process that leads you to accept it as the only construct for information about Yehovah and Yeshuah? How do you understand your Yehovah and Yeshua to be, today? What are they and what is their nature, their form and how do they exist? How do you relate to them and they to you? And I guess I'm also curious now if that relationship is represented to you in the Bible where you can see it written about? If you're working in biblical languages, which ones and which texts do you use in determining what the King James english means? Do you already completely know what it means, if so how? Do you read for context and assume you understand? How many times have you read the bible itself then? 10, 20, 100 times? I'm not asking these questions to bug you, only to understand. I am a Christian, although I may find out here by your standards I'm not, or not "really", which is fine but I'm not approaching this from a perspective of disrespect, I'm just interested.

Thanks, that helps. Can we also identify who "they" are, the ones that have added this, I guess they're "trinitarians"....? But do we know who, and when? Harmonizing the gospels - I don't try to determine what doesn't seem to "fit" or appears contradictory and then take it out. The gospels themselves were never written to be harmonized, although it's beneficial to compare and align the 4 books since they cover the same era and events, more or less. There are parts that don't add up that Christians believe 100% on all sides is true. Parts like Jesus being "raised" from the dead. Why is that less controversial than The Word/Christ being "in the beginning". Yet nearly all Christians accept that Christ rose from the dead and would never take it out or rewrite it. It's a basic essential part of the "faith". I wouldn't remove John 1:1 or any other part on the basis that it appears contradictory to other sections, verses or books. I'm not even sure it is contradictory, to be honest. Can you list a few ways that you've seen it doesn't fit with the other gospels and the verses and context you're thinking of? My only problem with your approach teach me, is that you're crafting the gospel accounts into what you think they should be, based on what you read and what makes sense to you. Here's a question fer ya - what "if" the first few verses of John 1 WERE there, exactly as they were "originally' written. Like it or not, fit or not - those sentences are supposed to be there. Then what?