Jbarrax

According to the Unitarians Mo, that does happen. I remember LCM saying in an advanced Class teaching that Kareem Abdul Jabbar's biography said the reason he switched to Islam was because he couldn't come to grips with the idea of a Three-in-one God. IF this is true (Consider the source), it may mean that the Trintiy has kept many people from accepting Christ. And because of the passions that surround this topic, I doubt that we could even arrive at an agreement on that issue. Triniarians would no doubt respond with a resume of successful trinitarian evangelists and claim that blaming rejection of the gospel on the triune God is just an excuse. But, it is quite possible that it offends, confuses, or deters people who would otherwise embrace Christ. JerryB

It's a reference to a famous poem by Dylan Thomas. It's called "Do not go gentle into that goodnight" and is probably the best known and most oft-quoted poem about death. Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night. Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way, Do not go gentle into that good night. Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. And you, my father, there on the sad height, Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray. Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. JerryB

Here's the updated version JJ. All the links have bee updated just this evening. PFAL REVIEW Actually, if everyone had the opportunity to really scruitinze the class with an open mind, it would be great learning. As Rafael said, we could separate truth from error more completely and get a better handle on truth without clogging our minds with the half-truths and errors woven throughout PFAL. One of the most beneficial things that happened to me was a Corps couple giving me a copy of the class on VHS. I could never have seen all the errors that were discussed in the PFAL Review by just reading the book. With VHS, I was able to go at my own pace and check the material against the Scriptures. That can be a real eye opening experience. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who will sit through PFAL again do so with their eyes closed mentally and spiritually. Just a pleasant rehash of a long lost utotpia. Kind of sad really. There are good things in the class to be sure, but there are even better things you can find by identifying the wrong doctrines and asking God to show you what the real truth is. JerryB

Actually all you needed back then was AM. Programs like Chuck Harder's For the People were a great source of information, both on consumer advocacy issues and conspiracy theory. Another AM radion star of the era was and G Gordon Liddy. Liddy talked a lot about the ATF conducting clandestine illegal home invasions. His advice: "shoot for the head. They wear bullet proof vests." Of course that was before Congress deregulated broadcasting and allowed mega corporations to buy up radio stations like common stock. That was the death of genuine local ownership and variety. And the loss of most of the AM audience for conspiracy theorists like Harder and Liddy. Coincidence? Peace JerryB

My son is painting a Kabuki mask in the back yard in the dead of night. Sorry I just wanted to try out this nifty new Off Topic emoticon. :-) But I'd say the line that Howard Allen was responsible for VP's demise was a crock designed--like many other weird things CG did-- to cover the Mog's arse. Pax JerryB

This is good stuff Worldwolf. It's enlightening to see the propaganda compared to the reality so thoroughly. The conflicting remarks about Revelation are especially interesting. So much for the Word interpreting itself huh? JerryB

Actually, I have a copy of an article written by a retired USAF General who specialized in demolitoins. He said the Photographic evidence of the aftermath of the bombing indicates that there were explosive charges planted in the columns of the building that were set off by the truck bomb. He petitioned each member of the Senate to delay demolition of the building so that it could be studied in more detail, but they destroyed it--and the evidence--before a thorough forensic investigation could be conducted. And yes, there were BATF offices there. Rumor has it that many ATF employees were told not to go to work that day. And finally, the seismographic records indicate that there were at least two significant blasts before the building collapsed; which reinforces the General's theory about the charges in the building. JerryB

Mark. Good to hear from you. The problem with the argument that we are supposed to bapitze in water and spirit is Paul's stipulation in Ephesians 4:5 that there is one baptism, not two or three. The one baptism of which Paul wrote is the identification with Christ you cited from Romans chapter 6. Being buried with him in baptism into his death has nothing to do with water. It is all about having the work of Christ credited to us by our identification with him. But again, as Raf said, if you want to get dipped, dunked, or splashed, there's no harm done. But if you start teaching that water and spirit are necessary, thus making water baptism necessary for salvation, you're off the map Amigo. Peace JerryB

I sporadically attend a conteporary praise & worship church. Mainly to keep my wife company. I was never keen on pep rallies in high school, and I always feel like I'm at a pep rally for Jesus when I go. But... when I sing in the car, shower, or at home by myself I prefer Martin Luther's classics O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing, and Open My Eyes That I may See. And one of my favorite hymns is a French Christmas Carol I learned in Junior high school. Yes I'm strange. That's how I got here. :-) Peace JerryB

from A Thousand and One Limericks: A Young schzophrenic named Struther, when told of the death of his brother, Said, 'Yes, it's too bad, But I can't feel too sad - After all, I still have each other'.

The fact that Peter didn't remember Jesus words until he got to the household of Cornelius actually undermines VP's dogmatic assertion that there was no water baptism in the First Century Church. Lots and lots of people were baptized in water. That doesn't mean that God wanted that done, but it was done nevertheless. Imo, VP knew this, but figured that it would be easier to argue (falsely) that there wasn't any water baptism after Pentecost than to convince people that the Apostles didn't know what they were supposed to be doing. If you tell a hard core Baptist that Jesus didn't want anyone baptized in water, but the Apostles didn't understand that until years later, he or she is simply going to say, "Oh so YOU know more about what Jesus taught than Peter John, and James eh? Sure you do." End of argument. So, as his manner was, VP just brushed the inconvenient Scriptural details aside and stuck to the assertion that it didn't happen. According to Acts 1:5, Jesus did say John truly baptized in water, but ye shall be baptized in holy spirit not many days hence. And, according to Matthew 28:19, he told them to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (or if you're a Unitarian, "in my name"). It is very likely that Jesus' intention was to have people baptized in his name instead of in water. The Aposltles either never understood that or forgot it, as Peter indicated after the Cornelius incident, and went around dousing and sprinkling people "in the name of the Lord". There is reason to believe, that Saul of Tarsus was baptized by Ananias because it was the accepted practice at the time. Consider the twin records from Acts; Luke's account of the event, and Luke's accont of Paul's eyewitness account told to the Jews at Jerusalem. I've put the "and"s in bold type to illustrate the use of the figure of speech polysyndeton (many and's). According to Bullinger and TWI, the purpose of this figure is to draw attention to each item in the list. So we shouldn't see the phrase "and was baptized" as the result of all that came before it, or as a summary of Paul's conversion, but rather as a separate act that occurred after Ananias entered, laid hands on Saul, Saul's sight was restored, and he arose. And, if VP was correct about the import of Ananias greeting "Brother Saul", Paul was already born again when Ananias came on the scene. So the phrase " and was baptized" doesn't refer to that, but to a separate act. That separate act is presented in more detail in Paul's account of the story. from Acts 22:12-16. There you have it. Ananias baptized Paul in water, 'in the name of the Lord'. Again, this is not to say that that's what the Lord intended, but, according to the book of Acts, that's what was done. And despite the fact that Peter apparently "got it" before he doused Cornelius, there's no evidence that his revelation caught on and that the Church's practice changed because of Peter's declaration. As to what Paul referred to when he says that the Lord sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel, I would guess from the above that Paul took up where Peter left off and made a practice of not dousing, sprinkling, or dunking his converts. Paul wrote of baptism as a unifying reality in which a believer is identified with or credited with an aspect of the work of Christ. (Romans 6:3, I Cor 10:2, 12:13, Galatians 3:27 etc) He understood that what was received spiritually was completely sufficient and that there was no need for the physical ceremony. Peace JerryB

See? See? There you have it friends. Garth fell for the secular humanist line and now, not only is he playing checkers with Commies, he's guzzling beer! Come to think of it, I kinda like beer and checkers. Maybe I'll take another look at that allegory thing. MGD anyone? JerryB

Happy belated birthday! Hope you were "the belle of the ball!"

Good quesion. I'm not sure. I suppose I assume that If I look at it as myth or allegory ,then I will stop looking for practical or spiritually powerful truths therein--or be accused of doing so and categorized as a faith blaster. I'm certainly moving in that direction. I've seen and cited plenty of evidence in the last two years that undermines the Fundie outlook, but I still have powerful experiences asslociated with Scripture, so I have to find an understanding of it that allows for the reality of those experiences. Oops. Never thought about that one. Good question. Well the only thing Genesis has in its favor is the fact that all of the eyewitnesses are dead. In other words, if if was set in Jerusalem 250 B.C. I'd say it's nonsense. But since it describes the beginning of Creation, and I believe that God created all of this, who am I to say what it originally looked like. Although the idea of a sweaty tired Cherubim somehere in the Middle East is a hoot. And I have asked myself before, when reading Genesis, "Where is this place now?". But of course, it would have been wiped out in the Flood, relieving the Cherubim of duty. But you do make some very good points, both about the WAY and Genesis. I suppose part of the reason I'm hesitant to classify Genesis as anything but literal truth is because I've been told by several Bible teachers (including the Answers in Genesis folks) that it's the foundation of Christian truth and that if you get rid of Genesis, Christianity crumbles, corruption ensues, hedonists run rampant, and Commies play checkers in the sunlight. I don't want to be counted as a Commie checker player. I got enough problems already. Peace JerryB

I wouldn't dream of it. I'm sorry about the death of the WOW who witnessed to you. Now that my memory is jogged, I recall that there was a whole family of WOW's who died at the very beginning of the year I went. Bob M told us about in in our first meeting. They were travelling to their area and were hit head-on by a drunk driver and were all killed. He just said that somebody must have missed revelation. We were all shaken by the news, and I never really understood it at the time. Of course, I put it in the back of my mind and went on....I suppose those poor souls and people like them are the martyrs of The Way Ministry. Sad doesn't begin to describe such tragedies... Peace JerryB

Rascal: It is a thorny issue. I suspect there was a lot of behind the scenes consultation involved in deciding who got sent where. Kind of like at political convention. The earlier you declare, the better connected your local leaders are, the more they campaingn for you, the better assignment you get. I was indeed blessed, but looking at it from an impirical perspective, perhaps I can see why and fill in some blanks. I went W.O.W. because my fiance (now wife of almost 21 years) went first. She took the class first, then, while I was taking it, she was preparing to go WOW. She told me I couldn't marry her unless I could be her spiritual leader. She already had a one year head start and then she went WOW. I figured the only way I could catch up was to try to do the same thing at home, so I started witnessing like crazy on campus. I couldn't do the 20 hours a week or whatever it was at the time because I was a full time student, so I think I tried for 8 or 10. Can't quite remember now. Aaanny way, I spent a lot of time witnessing on campus, got some people saved and signed up for the Class. That endeared me to the local "Twig area coordinator" (we were too small for a branch) and twig coordinators. Then, in spring of my senior year I decided to go W.O.W. myself. There was plenty of time for me to prepare and plenty of time for my local twig area coordinator, a great guy by the name of Dan M, to maybe put in a good word for me with the higher ups in New Knoxville. I say maybe because I have never asked him if he did. It's more likely that that recommendation came from the limb coordinator, who was and is also a genuinely great guy who has been a blessing to many for a long time. (GLC). So, I got a great assignment. Maybe if I had only decided to go WOW the week before ROA, and didn't have anyone from my area who would vouch for me as an upstanding Wayfer, I would have gotten sent to Fargo and been paired with some psycho. maybe. So I don't think I had a great year because I'm special, or that God loves me more, but perhaps the human politics of the ministry worked in my favor because I was serious about outreach and had already proved that I could "undershepherd" people. What's that old saying about luck and preparation? Peace JerryB

Well, for the record... Since we're telling W.O.W. stories, I'd just like to say that I had a wonderful W.OW. year in Houston, TX. (1983-84) My family coordinator was a great guy. He was on his interim year and was deeply committed to God and His Word, had a heart of gold, and was wise beyond his years. We ran a couple of classes, won about a dozen converts, learned a lot about living and people and spiritual oddities, and generally had a good time. For me it was a year of great personal and spiritual growth. I think it was too for Jacques, who is, I believe still in TWI. I don't know if our sisters Linda and Frances enjoyed it as much as we did, but we had no major problems. I know other people had crappy W.O.W. experiences, and some were unspeakable. I think it had a lot to do with the quality of the leadership. I had a great coordinator and he had one too. The first half of the year, all the W.O.W.'s were overseen by Bob M***bito, who seemed to be a down to earth guy interested in teaching us how to walk in love. For me at least, the W.O.W. program lived up to its billing and I'm glad I went. There were doors opened that year that I failed to walk through, and I will always regret that. But it was still the best year of my life thus far. Peace JerryB

Hi Def. Well the topic is a fair question and ChattyKathy has pretty much said what I was going to say. We in Wayworld get to thinking it's a big deal because VP wrote a book called Jesus Christ is Not God. But that's myopic. It's a big deal because the mainstream Church makes it so. I worked at a gospel radio station during my early years in TWI. I got to talk with a lot of ministers and their associates who came in to do their broadcasts. Great people for the most part. There was one particular fellow whom I befriended who was perhaps just as zealous a Christian as any WC grad. He was very broadminded about "The Kingdom" and did his best to love Christians of every stripe. His mentor was a wonderfully charismatic man who used to play the piano in a brothel. But as loving and liberal as he was, he drew the line at Unitarians. When confronted with a new doctrine, he would often quip, "if it doesn't violate the Trinity, it doesn't violate me". I was discussing the Constitiution and the Christian aspects of our governrment once with another minister with whom I worked a few years later (selling hearing aids). Mr. Smith, who is a graduate of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, dismissed the idea of the U.S. as a Christian nation and somewhat derisively said of the Founding Fathers, "They weren't Christians. They were Deists." And I'm sure I'm not the only one who's tried to join a mainstream Christian web discussion forum only to be told at the virtual door that if I don't believe in the Trinity, I'm not welcome. The Trinity is a big deal because the established Churches are run by Trinitarians and they don't like having people question it. They have succeeded in establishing the Triune God as the sacred cow of modern Christianity. You're allowed to ask a question once or twice, but if you really challenge it, you will eventually get tossed out on your ear and branded a heretic. JerryB

Well Sunesis, thank you for the kind words. Beyond that, i'm not sure what to say. Since this is supposed to be a thread on the trinity, I don't think this is the right place to put a link to the PFAL review or the "False Hope" article. The PFAL review (and Raf's Blue Book articles) are online at my webspace on insight broadband, but I thnk the hope article isn't there; not enough bandwidth. But, if it will help newcomers get some background on what's been jointly discussed in the extwi community about piffle, I suppose a link would be of some value. There are good posts there by quite a few people: Evan, Rafael, Sunesis, Steve Lortz OC, and others, Let's see if I can find it....Here you go. Ye Olde PFAL Review. And frankly, I'm not sure about posting much further. I had said last Thursday night that I would start a thread about the eternal life issues, but the more I think about it the less I'm inclined to go down that road. I think I'd rather leave something that big and that critical to the professionals. It goes way beyond VP and "The Class" and I just don't have a good grip on the topic. I'm afraid I'll just muck it up. So for now, I'm going to leave it be. Peace JerryB

You make a good point Laleo. There are elements of this passage that certainly make it look like fable. The idea that eating a piece of fruit can give one knowledge of good and evil for instance. It may very well be an allegory or myth, but I'm just not ready to look at Scripture that way-- not yet anyhow. Actually, I have no idea who the "us" is. I just think it's an important question to ask. I doubt that a pantheon, either the Greek or Gnostics version, is responsible for the putting man on earth. But it's a possible interpretation and has adherents within and outside Christianity, so I included it as a possibility. It could just as easily be a reference to God and the eternal Christ (Colossians 1:16ff) Actually, I think the fact that the serpent speaks to Eve disqualifies it as just an animal. And the first verse of the passage differentiates it from the other critters. "1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. " Whether the Serpent was Lucifer in some other form, as Revelation 12:9 indicates, or just the embodiment of Eve's insatiable curiosity and eventual disobedience, I don't know. If you see the passage as a myth, then certainly the serpent can be seen as an extension of man's tendency to want that which we can't have. If we take it literally, or at least look at it as inspired truth, it's hard to view the serpent as just a reptile in a tree. Well said. If we realize that man is inherently capable of evil, we are going to be more serious about devising govenmental systems that hold it in check and less likely to give unlimited power to men. The American Constitution is a great example of a governing document that was written with a view to curb the excesses of human heart. The checks and balances between the three branches of government, the freedom of the press and the people's right to bear arms are all designed to keep one corrupt individual, or a cabal of evil people, from establishing tyranny in these United States. How well that has worked to date depends on your perspective. :-) Peace JerryB

Goog question Socks. That's the most critical and problematic aspect of the whole story. God did say, according to Genesis 2:17 "17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." But of course, chapter three says only that, when they ate, "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." That's a far cry from "thou shalt surely die". This is perhaps the first contradiction in the Bible. Much has been made of it, and it always prompts an explanation from Fundamentalist preachers. VP's choice of fixes was adding holy spirit to Adam and Eve so he could take it away at the point of the foul and declare that they died spiritually. If you want to say that the Serpent contradicting God makes him a liar, that's fine. But since what God said was going to happen didn't, and what the Serpent said was going to happen did, I don't see it that way. The way I see it, Genesis three isn't about liars vs. truthtellers, it's about disobedience and consequence. Adam and Eve were told not to do something. They chose to do it and suffered. That basic premise is, I think, the underpinning, the fundamental lesson of the entire Bible. The bulk of the Old Testament is about the lives of people who either obeyed God and prospered (Abraham, Job, Joseph, David) and those who disobeyed God and suffered (Adam, Cain, the nephilim, Sodom & Gomorrah, etc) The Law is all about obedience. Do this, don't do that, receive this benefit, suffer this consequence. There are other virtues added to be sure, including faith, charity, courage, and perseverance, but most of these are manifest in part, or grounded in part, in simply doing what God says to do. Which is reflected also, as you said, in Romans chapter two about the difference between non-observant Jews and naturally pious Gentiles. Peace JerryB

Well just to clarify something for you; I have appropriated it. What I'm trying to do is arrive at a consistent Biblical explanation for what it is I've received. You know there are other perspectives regarding the Bible beyond VP's simplistic teachings. Brilliant, decent people read the same Bible and come to opposing interpretations of what eternal life is and how its' received. Rather than picking sides and ridiculing those who disagree, some of us try to get a comprehensive understanding of the various aspects of the argument. I can hardly believe you would say something so stupid and narrowminded. Sounds like a faint echo of Weirwille's "It's either all God's Word or none of it!" Says WHO? Such simplistic, dogmatic, and idiotic approaches to something as complex and important as Scripture serve no purpose but to embarrass you and discourage honest discourse. Did you never read in Joshua 1:8, Psalms, and I Timothy 4:15 that we're supposed to meditate on the scriptures? II Timothy 2: 7 says "Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things." If it's that simple, what is there to think about? What is there to consider? Perhaps if you spent some time meditating on these issues or considering the meaning of what's in the Bible, you would grow beyond taking cheap shots at your brethren in Christ. JerryB

Nice post Socks. Much food for thought there. Laleo said: Sorry Laleo, I didn't explain that well. To some extent, there is some interpretive overlay involved. TWI taught that man was perfect in Eden and that, as a result of Adam's disobedience, man's very nature was corrupted. In essence, Adam and Eve were changed by the original sin and became the sorry, morally corrupt creatures whose offsrping became thieves, murderers, idolators, and Democrats. So when I read Genesis, I look for evidence of this change and I don't see it. According to Genesis, Adam and Eve were not changed in any way by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (hereinafer referred to as FOTKG&E). They were naked already, but they weren't ashamed of their nakedness because they were innocent or ignorant thereof. They ate of the FOTKG&E, they realized they were naked, and the started loking for clothing. When God surveyed the situation. He didn't say, "sure you're naked, silly. I made you that way, and there's nothing wrong with it." Rather than telling them to take off those silly fig leaves and be proud of being naked, He gave them better coverings. I know about the implied connection with blood sacrifice in God's provison of animal skins, but what I'm getting at is the underlying principle of nakedness. If God created them naked and that was fine and dandy before they ate of the FOTKG&E, why was it not okay to be naked afterward? Why the fursuits? The context indicates that it wasn't okay to be naked before they ate. They just didn't know it. Once their eyes were opened, they realized they were fundamentally flawed and tried to do something about it. They hid from God. They discovered shame. It is logical to conclude then that, had they known what God and the Serpent knew, they would have been hinding in shame from the very beginning. Therefore, whatever state that they sunk to that was so bad that God couldn't allow them to remain in Eden, was the very state in which He created them. The only difference, at least in the pages of Genesis, is their awareness of it. Now let's return to the FOTKG&E. We always hear pastors, preachers say that before Eve took the bait, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of evil, only good. The text doesn't say that nor does it support that. The pastors talk as if they ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Evil. They teach as if there were three trees in the garden; the Tree of Life, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Evil. Not so. According to a strict reading of the text, Adam and Eve, had no knowledge of Good or Evil. They had complete innocence, complete ignorance of morality. They just lived and enjoyed what God gave them. God knew what was good and what was evil, and gave them only good. The Serpent knew what was good and what was evil, and, eventually, gave them nothing but evil. But Adam and Eve were a blank slate. They had no morality at all. The idea that living without morals was God's original plan may sound heretical, but it is somewhat supportd by what Paul wrote of the Law in Romans chapter 7. The law was good, but the knowledge of it brought lust, sin, and death to mankind. likewise, Adam and Eve in the garden had the benefit of God's goodness, but no knowledge of good--or evil. Once their eyes were opened, they received the knowledge of good and evil and their lives were ruined. So what does all of this malarkey have to do with immorality? Genesis doesn't really say exactly what nakedness is, beside the absence of clothing. But they didn't eat of the tree of the knowlege of silk and cotton, now did they? The fact that it was the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that uncovered their nakedness makes the connection between their physical state and their moral state. They realized that their basic character was flawed and that their urges were both good (giving Eve a mango when she's hungry) and evil (taking her comquat when she's not looking). Socks referred to the natural order that includes predation by carnivores. Lions eat gazelles and we don't condemn them for it. This is perhaps because the animals didn't eat of the FOTKG&E, as man did, and so they have no awareness of the morality or immorality of their actions. They just do what's natural to them. I know that's not the only difference between man and animals, but perhaps it is one big difference that relates to what we're discussing here. The really intriguing thing to me about this whole topic is God's summation in Genesis 3:22. "Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." From this statement, we can conclude 1) that Satan didn't actually lie to them. They did in one sense at least, become like gods. He just set them up for something they were woefully unprepared to deal with. 2) That God knows both good and evil, not just good. That fits with Deuteronomy 30:15. God presented both to Israel. Which one they got depended on their actions. The question that Genesis 3:22 raises in my mind is, "Who is us?" Was God referring to Himself alone, in that Queen of England idiom, Himself and the angels, Himself and the Serpent, Himself and Faith, Truth, and Virtue, as the gnostics wrote, or Himself as part of a Triune deity or even a pantheon of some kind? Any thoughts? Peace JerryB

Hi Dan. Always a pleasure to read your insights. :-) Actually, I started with Matthew because it's at the beginning of the NT. And, having gotten a sense of what Matthew taught--which, as you pointed out, is very legalistic--I went from there, step by step comparing each subsequent book to it. Luke is a bit of a puzzle. I know Luke travelled with Paul, but if you look at the four gospels, it's not Luke, but John that most closely resembles Paul's gospel. Luke mimics most fo Matthew's statements about eternal life being conditional based on faithfulness and keeping the Law. In fact, Luke even quotes a verse from Matthew and presents it as if Jesus was referring to an Old Testament Scripture. (Luke 11:49, Matthew 23:34). If that doesn't support Source Criticism, I don't know what does. But I digress. Luke has a somewhat patchwork, disjointed feel to it, as if Luke cobbled it together from different sources. (Acts is much more harmonious). The gospel of John, on the other hand, almost exclusively presents eternal life as a gift by grace received simply by believing on Christ. Furthermore, John presents Jesus as the saviour of the World, whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke present Jesus as speaking specifically, and sometimes exclusively to Israel. (John 3:15-18 4:42, 5:24, 6:35, etc). Add to that the fact that John almost alwasy speaks of Jesus and the Jews as if they were from different communities. Jesus is presented in John referring to "the Jews" in the second or third person, which is kind of weird since Jesus was a Judaean. (6:47,7:1, 7:19, 7:22, 8:17, etc.). It's almost as if John was written for the consumption of Paul's converts to give them a biography of Jesus that distanced him from their Jewish persecutors. A gospel for the Gentiles, if you will. So if I had to pick one of the four gospels that supports Paul's apostleship, it would be John, not Luke. And that's confusing because Luke travelled with Paul and John is not known to have been one of Paul's supporters. But, as I said, the whole thing's a big puzzle. I don't mind at all Belle. Thank you, that's very kind. I'm not sure what to make of your question Allen. Are your seriously asking what I see as contradictory, or merely implying that I'm too carnal to understand it? lol To present the contradictions to your satisfaction may be impossible but it would surely throw the whole thread off topic. But since the can has been opened, I'll start a new thread and try to summarize the problem as I see it. But not tonight. I'm still tired from being up too late last night and I still have cookies to buy for a company cookout tomorrow. :-) Peace JerryB

What's "The Rat"? Oh, nevemind, Magic Kingdom huh? Well now, that's not exactly your average American workplace, now is it?