Jbarrax

lol! Touche! The triune nature of man is even older than the author of Genesis, eh? I'll have to think on that one a while Todd. I wrongly assumed you were basing that statement on VP's PFAL stuff on body, soul, and spirit. Personally, although there are other verses in the Bible that speak of the triune nature of modern Christian man, I don't find support for a triune man in Genesis. Genesis seems to speak of a body and soul configuration. Body, soul, and spirit as three distinct interwoven elements came after Pentecost, imo. Man version 1.0 and 1.1, to use a modern metaphor. I think that, because of the work of Christ, man becomes body, soul, and spirit after believing to salvation (as VP taught), but that Adam and Eve didn't necessarily start this way. yadda yadda yadda. yadda. Peace JerryB [This message was edited by Jbarrax on September 27, 2003 at 14:56.]

I hate to disappoint you SGA, but the "body, soul, spirit paradigm" in Genesis is a shoddy construct that's not supported by the Scripture. VP's PFAL teaching on body, soul, and spirit is full of holes and at odds with the context and the verses. Peace JerryB

Trefor I'll tell you quite frankly why men like to see women make out. It's based on two simple principals; One--men look for women who are willing to have sex with them. The more randy a woman is, the more interesting she is to men; hence the term "hot babe". Two--Men know that most women are not interested in having sex with other women. So we assume (wrongly perhaps) that if a girl is sooooo randy that she'll have sex with a woman, then surely she'll have sex with us. The unspoken invitation communicated by an image of two women having sex is "Hey big boy, jump in!" So men's acceptance of lesbian erotica is not based on an acceptance of homosexuality; quite the contrary. It's based on the presumption of extreme promiscutiy. I know it makes no sense but that's the emotional dynamic. Sorry if that's too philosophical, Lifted Up, but I don't have any personal illustrations involving menages a trois. :-) You are disputing a statement I did not make and therefore failing to acknowledge the facts. I didn't say homosexuals aren't attacked unless they're demonstrative. What I said was, it has been statistically proven that when homosexuals are publicly demonstrative violence against them increases. My point is, the increase is because the sight of two men kissing (or worse)is revolting to the average man. Being in the company of a man and woman who are too affectionate is embarrassing and may elicit the familiar chide, "Get a room!". But there's an enormous difference between being embarrassed and being disgusted. Here you are putting words in my mouth that support your case. I didn't use the phrase "scare the horses" or anything like it. My whole point is that this behavior causes revulsion not fear. You are not only missing the point, you're obscuring it. Then you are simply dismissing what I'm saying without reason. You asked a question and answered it based on no evidence or reason. Why would you say fear? That's an illogical assumption. If a group of people were sitting in a room visiting and a woman brought a dog in and began to fondle its genitals and try to arouse it, most people would be repulsed. Would they be afraid of the dog? No. Of the girl? No. It's not scary, it's just nasty. Likewise, your point about the difference between the reaction to heterosexual couples merely underscores the basic point about homosexuality being unnatural. We don't react with revulsion when we see a man and a woman hugging and kissing because that's a natural part of life. To see the opposite elicits a gut reaction because it goes against the grain that is our natural sexual identity. Peace JerryB

Don't keep me in suspense Lifted. Who or what is it? Inquiring minds want to know. JB

:D--> This post is not intended to offend. I just happened to be browsing the Onion, saw this pic and thought it was both hilarious and relevant. I don't know if Pawtucket (or whoever moderates GS these days) will allow it or not... [This message was edited by Jbarrax on September 25, 2003 at 20:49.]

Hi Raf. Thanks for the footnote. I didn't mean to imply that homophobia does not exist; merely that not all objections to homosexuality should be dismissed as such. Peace JerryB

A few stray comments; Sir Guessalot: The idea of spiritual beings having sexual orientation and desire is a bit far-fetched. While I am no longer of the "It is Written!" persuasion, I do think there's a lot of truth in the Bible. Most of it depicts spiritual beings as sexless. Jesus said that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of heaven. Paul said that in Christ, there is neither male nor female. So it seems gender and sexuality are physical, not spiritual Although, there is the controversial record in Genesis chapter six about the sons of God making whoopy with the daughers of men, which some interpret as an instance of fallen angels impregnating women. And I know of someone who has had a very weird experience with spirits wanting to have sex with her. BUT those would both fall into the category of demonic spirits, and so wouldn't necessarily apply to angelic beings or the spirit of Christ in you. KnowwhatImean? Trefor: I disagree that men are afraid of "queers". That's a myth used to ridicule those who object to homosexuality. The term "homophobic" is dishonest and elitist. Most men are not so much afraid of male homosexuals as they are repulsed by them. Sorry, it's true. Now let me make a distinction. It's not the very presence of a homosexual male that's repulsive, but the idea of two men actually having sex, or the presence of an effeminate male. Allow me elaborate on both of those if you please. Demonstrative male homosexuality: Studies have shown that when gay men are demonstratively affectionate, anti-gay violence rises. We don't mind the fact that some men like to kiss other men, but if we're forced to witness such an event, it's just as disgusting a spectacle as...well, as bestiality. The reason Johniam mentioned incest, rape, and other "perversions" in his initial post is that the sight of male homosexual behaviour produces the same gut reaction as those acts. So it's not that we're afraid of male homosexuals, we just find their behaviour incredibly appalling. Effeminate men: I've been considering this point as I watche this converation develop and I think perhaps this should be considered as a separat issue. In I Corintians, Paul lists effeminate as a separate vice from homosexuality ("abusers of themselves with mankind"). I used to think these temrs meant the same thing, but everything else in the list is a specific vice, so it makes more sense to think of these things as seperate too. One of the reasons I think this may be the case is related to the point above. When male homosexuals are not being demonstratively affectionate towards each other, I have no problem being around them if they're not effeminate. The mere presence of an effeminate man is almost as unsettling; uncomfortable, unpleasant,etc, as the sight of two men kissing. Don't know why. Even my wife hates being around effeminate men. And as we all know, not all homosexuals are effeminate and not all effeminat men are homosexuals. So I posit that being around a homosexual man who is not effeminate and is not demonstratively gay is not upsetting for most guys. But being around men kissing men or men who walk and talk like women is just really unpleasant and unsettling. It's not fear, it's just basic repulsion. Please try not to take offence to this. I'm just being honest and trying to set the record straight about the difference between "homophobia" and objectionable behaviour. Peace JerryB

You're Welcome Dot! Yeah, the Way was the perfect pitch to those of us who were raised in the permissiveness of the sexual revolution and wanted to love God without entirely leaving the world. The inclusion of little known and beneficial teachings like speaking in tongues and healing gave whatever VP taught a very real sense of authenticity. So it made it very easy for lecherous leaders to ride on God's coattails so to speak. Pretty weasely stuff dontcha think? Peace JerryB

Geez what a travesty! What a disgraceful sham that program became. It reminds me of my wonderful WOW brother Jacques Kersaint. Jacques loved God and love to share the Bible with people whenever and wherever he could. He went into the 16th Corps. He told me he quickly developped a reputation as "the one who speaks the Word all the time". He found that the men, his Corps brothers didn't want to hear it, so he started dating a lot, just so he could get quality time with meeker hearts. Then he got a reputation for dating too much. He was saddened and surprised that he could stand out for talking about the Bible at what was supposed to be a Bible college. Peace JerryB

Whew. I just found this thread this evening and it's taken over three hours to catch up. And alas, I feel that I don't have much to contribute. But I'll toss out a crumb or two just for the fun of it. Although I didn't make it into the "Corpse", I did get to run a CF&S Class. I still don't know why they picked me to run it, but I was honored at the time. I had already taken the class at least once as a student. I think I've been through it three times in all. And there were pictures in the video class; pictures of what VP called the seven basic positions for sexual intercourse. And I remember him specifying which ones provided the deepest penetration. All in all, it was a rather, strange experience. The rationale for the slang was, as has been offered, to enable us to counsel common folk without getting embarrassed or seeming to be 'out of touch'. Whether there was an ulterior motive is obviously a matter of debate, but , imho, there was some good in the class for those who came from a very strict background and just didn't know much about pleasing their spouses. For those of us who were young and single, as I was when I first took it, it was also very supportive of non-traditional, licentious behaviour. VP did say that he couldn't flatly say that premarital sex is a sin, because of the vast differences between our culture and the 'biblical culture' Maybe I'm still brainwashed but I think that's a valid point. However I must say that Mike's rantings about how we are culturally conditioned to be feel outrage at sexual molestation is pure insantiy. There's an enormous difference between consentual premarital sex and molestation. Any rational person knows this. nuff said. So what was CF&S about? Dot put it best with her brilliant A, B, and C analogy. It was a class offered with multiple purposes. For the A group, it was designed to alleviate some stress, anxiety, ignorance that may have plagued some of the ministry's followers and hampered their marial bliss. For the B group, it was a recruiting drive, designed to soften people's inhibitions to make it easier for the C group to recruit people to the motorcoach. For the record, I was an "A" heading for "B" when the whole thing collapsed. So I don't know for a fact that there was malicious intent, but, based on the ample testimony of people like Dot and Excathedra, I have come to reluctantly believe that a man I once revered was actually a lurid sexual predator. I'm still trying to figure out how much damage was done to my attitudes and relationships with women, most notably my longsuffering wifey by some of VP's teaching. I accepted the "angel in the kitchen devil in the bedroom" maxim, partly because I like the sound of it and partly because I've heard it repeated in slightly different terms from others, including women. But my wife has never felt comfortable with it, so maybe it's just another sublt form of mysogyny. (Did I spell that right?) Some of what VP taught in the class was both controversial and contradictory. He did say that flesh is flesh, so there's no difference between touching a breast or a nose. But he also said--and I believe these are direct quotes--"all touch is spiritual", and "sexual passion is deeply spiritual" If touch is spiritual, it really doesnt' matter where you touch someone, it's going to have an impact. By that logic, if you touch a woman's shoulder with salacious intent, it's just as bad, just as upsetting, as touching her breast. Well maybe not, but it's still wrong and upsetting. :-) This is especially confusing because one of the things he taught from I Corinthians 7 was that it's wrong to touch a woman because women are aroused by touch. You can arouse a woman with a backrub. (I've done this by accident; it was kind of fun.) So the mixed messages in the class about touch may be due to the conflicting motives of presenting a class that would maintain relative decency at the twig level while preparing people for debauchery at the root level. Peace JerryB

Thanks Steve. JerryB

Here's another one Steve. I was reading I John yesterday and when I came across the verse that says, "it is the last time" I thought of you. You've often mentioned that there's no aspect of times in the meaning of the word oikonomiaand I agree. But there are quite a few verses in the NT epistles that mention that this is "the last time". If the only divisions of time in the Bible are this age and the age to come, what do you suppose I John refer to with the declaration that this is the last time? Peace JerryB

This is my favorite topic, but alas, I have no time this week. Suffice to say PFAL started to unravel for me when I tried to use it to confront someone about the "faith of Jesus Christ" doctrine. I checked PFAL as my source and in the process, found that it contradicted Hebrews chapter 11. I decided to take a closer look at it, and it went downhill from there. By the way, there's an updated version of the PFAL Review, with a linked index, on my current homepage. The url is http://home.insightbb.com/~gbarraxjr. One of the great things about the PFAL Review is it was a collaborative effort. Many people contributed, including Outin88, Evan, Rafael, Orange Cat, steve Lortz, Sunlight8, and even a couple of Smikeolian detractors who set a great example of how limiting "Waybrain" can be. Peace JerryB

HI RAFAEL!! Good to see ya! I hope all is well with you. I'm in Raleigh, NC now, still quite busy opening a new office & warehouse, but I try to keep abreast of a few threads. I just got internet access back yesterday, so I've got some catching up to do. And I'm pleased that you restored the David stuff to the list. There are several things wrong with Wierwille's presentation of that material, imo.

I didn't notice that Neo and Trinity were answering oaths. That's kind of annoying, although not surprising. Definitely gotta watch it again. JerryB

Interesting observations Nosh. SPOILERS HERE;;;; In the end I agree, it's just entertainment. But I think the philosophical and religious elements make it more interesting. I interpreted the meeting with "Col. Sanders" as you call him, (The Architect) as a representation of God. He said his first matrix was perfect and was doomed because of the flaws inherent in man. Sounds like Eden and the flood to me. God made paradise, man rejected it. God gave them another chance and man became so evil, God repented of having made him, and wiped em out and started over with Noah and family. I agree the realization that the Oracle was just another aspect of the matrix and that the prophecy was a lie is analagous to the experiences of "cult" members like us who have been deceived, but I see aspects of mainstream Christianity, not just cults. The discussion of choice versus predetermination is still raging to this day. CES has adopted the belief that God really isn't ommiscient because they reject the idea that God would knowingly subject mankind to so much suffering in order to create a perfect family. If Neo were John Lynn, he would be one of the Neo's in the monitors in the mainframe room saying, "Bullsh!t!". I thought there was an element of the more mainstream struggle with the return of Christ in the film's "resolution". Neo said to Morpheus, that if the prophecy was true, the war would be over. Correspondingly, one could say that if the Bible were true, this age would be over. It is common knowledge that the first century Christians beleived Jesus would return in their lifetimes. The reason for this belief lingers in the scriptures. There are statements in the gospels and a few in the Pauline epistles that indicate that salvation included rescue from the coming of the Great Tribulation. (Romans 5:9). Well, if the wrath doesn't come were you really saved from it by your choice of faith or not? From the perpsective of the first Christians and the Scriptures written to them, if the prophecy were true, the war should be over by now. (Revelation 1:1, 22:6-12). Peace JerryB

Okay, the family and I went to see the Matrix Reloaded this evening. It sparked a nice debate about film and theology. Deb disliked the film's treatment of faith, but I think it was a pretty intelligent approach to some of the most persistent theological debates about predetermination and freewill. "The problem is choice" as Neo put it. I also enjoyed the allusions to Genesis in the conversation with "The Architect" near the end of the movie. What do you all think? "Whoa!" JerryB

I thnk we've strayed back into the field of interpretational errors. We should probably move this discussion to Steve's Even Deeper Do-Do thread. Despite the fact that Rafael has been called away to higher priorities, we should try to keep this thread on track. So, I move we table this discussion and decide whether VP's statements on this matter should be counted as an Actual Error. Way back on April 16, Wordwolf voted that the statement in PFAL that a human soul goes nowhere at death should be counted as an actual error, based on the passage in Ecclesiastes 3:19-21. Do we have a consensus on that one? JerryB

I know how you feel Steve. I'm kind of down tonight myself, but I'm not sure why. Nor do I have much interest in continuing this particular discussion. I'd like to get back to sorting out the particulars of eternal life and the hope. But I'll make one more point before retiring. This distinction doesn't seem to fit some of the earliest usages of the word ruach, particularly those recounting the flood. And of course, the verses we've already tossed back and forth in Ecclesiastes 3 use the word ruach in the context of death. So I don't see the distinction between spirit and soul being made by mortality. I tend to agree with VP on this point. "Spirit of life" is simply another term for soul life indicating that a soul is not part of the physical realm. The problem, as I see it, in defining Old Testament terms such as soul and spirit is the great variety of ways in which they're used. If we followed VP's example and came up with a different usage for each Biblical variant of nephesh or ruach depending on its context, we'd probably have a list of at least 12 distinct usages for each word. That makes it rather difficult to nail down what these terms mean in any specific sense. Concerning Ezekiel, I see where you are making the connection between wind and spirit, but I see this as figurative. The purpose of the prophesy, in my humble opinion, is not to teach us that spirit means moving air, but to compare the wind reanimating dead people to the spirit of God giving life in the resurrection. This comparison is seen in Jesus statement to Nicodemus. Just as we see the effects of the wind, but not the wind itself, we see the effects of spirit, but cannot see spirit itself. So, as I see it, wind is a figure of speech representing the intangible power of spirit. One of the intersesting aspects of Ezekiel that is echoed in I Corinthians 15:50 and Luke 24:39. All of these verses refer to resurrected, spiritual bodies and all of them imply bloodless flesh. I Corinthians 15:50 says flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven. It seems to me that blood, which is associated with the tainted souls we inherited from Big Daddy Adam, will not be carried into the Kingdom of Heaven. The body will be purified by spirit and we who are living souls will become beings of spirit and flesh. Maybe tomorrow? JerryB [This message was edited by Jbarrax on April 29, 2003 at 0:28.]

Okay, if you want to distinguish between spirit and soul, that's understandable. Personally, I think they're often used synonymously in the Old Testament, but let's that aside for a moment. Verse 21 clearly says that the spirit of the beast and the spirit of man do not go to the same place. There is a distinction made between the fate of the spirit of man and that of the spirit of an animal. I think this makes perfect sense because, from the beginning, God made a distinction between them, giving Adam dominion over animals. This hierarchy of soul life is seen in the first chapters of Genesis in God's reaction to bloodshed. Genesis 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: How does one offer fat of the flock but by slaying an animal? God accepted this offering, indicating that Abel's taking of the life of an innocent creature was a good thing. Compare that with His reaction to the taking of a human life. In contrast to Abel's offering, which was pleasing to the Lord, Cain was rebuked by the Lord and told that the ground was cursed by the shedding of Abel's blood. I think this makes a clear and compelling argument that there is an enormous difference in God's eyes betwen the soul lif of men and animals. Hence the declaration in Ecclesiastes that they both go to one place (dust), but the spirit of man goes back to God who gave it, while the spirit of the beast goes downward to the earth. In my--I say, in my opinion, this is part of what it means to be "created in the image of God." God gave the human spirit certain elements of His creative nature, self-awareness, shame and pride, compassion, etc. Animals have the same basic physical elements as people, and have breath life, like people, but are vastly different in the nature of that life; in the character of that life, an intangible which the Bible refers to as "spirit". Peace JerryB [This message was edited by Jbarrax on April 28, 2003 at 23:53.]

This one isn't in the Superhero category, but I remember being told that VP prayed for each W.O.W. Ambassador each day. The year I went, there were over 3,000! I remember wondering how the heck he could find time to pray for 3,000 individuals each day. It was because he was SUPERspiritual, no doubt. JerryB PS. Love the revised Capt. America theme song, Zix!

What about the story that it was a Corps Prayer meeting lead by VP that resulted in the death of Vice President Nelson Rockefeller. The story goes that he was the lead conspirator in the drive to replace the Constitution and that the prayers of VP and the Corps (Superman and the Justic League) brought the hand of the Lord down upon him. JerryB

Hi Steve. I'll be out of town on business for a few days, so I wont' be able to address your posts. I'm still mulling them over, though. And yes--I say, Yes I AM taking diction lessons from Foghorn Leghorn. What was your first clue? Stay with me boy! I keep pitchin `em and you keep duckin'!(Nice boy, but he's about as sharp as a bowlin' ball) :)--> Peace! JerryB

Hey Steve. Glad you're feeling better. I'm not sure what you're saying with regard to the meaning of the Biblical terms, soul and spirit. You mentioned that the word "spirit" is used to refer to air in motion and connected it with an occurence of nephesh in Genesis 2:7, but you say they're not synonymous. So if spirit means air in motion, and sould and spirit aren't the same, what term would you use to describe the gift God put on Moses (by which he prophesied) and how does that differ from nephesh? As for the apparent problem, in Ecclesiastes, it's explained in the verse itself. The meaning of the declaration "they all go unto one place" is that they all retun to dust. The very next verse places a distinction between them in that men and animals both return to dust, but human souls go back to God and animals' don't. Further--I say, Furthermore, Mr. Lortz, Ecclesiastes 11:5 reiterates that this is something of a mystery. The Bible doesn't reveal all there is to know about soul life. God made it, God gives it, God reclaims it, and only God understands it.

Hi Steve, God bless! Good to see ya back in the fray. I hate to be contentious, but I must point out a potentially important difference between the verse you quoted and the statement you made. Um....that's not actually what the verse says. What the KJV says is, "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward..." You changed the position of the article "that", effectively changing the object of the question from "Who knows the SPIRIT that goeth upward?" to "Who knows THAT the spirit goes upward?" I don't have access to the original Hebrew texts to see where the article belongs, so I may be way off base. But I don't think the verse is questioning the assertion that the spirit of man goes upward, especially since elsewhere in Ecclesiastes (12:6&7) it says plainly that the spirit goes back to God who gave it. I think it is questioning the depth of our knowledge of spiritual matters, which is kind of the whole point of this discussion. But I do agree with you that the soul is in the category of the spiritual realm,( as DOCTOR also asserted in this section of the class). And I agree that the PFAL teaching that Adam was body, soul, and spirit is not supported by Genesis. The reason for this doctrine, which is also taught by Kenneth Hagin & Co., is the apparent contradiction in the "thou shalt surely die" statement of Genesis 2:17 and the post-paradise longevity of Adam and Eve. If you interpret Gen 2:17 literally, then God told Adam that if he ate fo the treeoftheknowledgeofgoodandevil he would die that very day. Even Smikeol knows they both lived for centuries after their transgression. VP and Hagin get around this by adding an element of life to Adam's original makeup so they can say it died on the day they sinned. In my humble opinion, these are the kinds of mind games one has to play in order to come up with an inerrant Bible. But that's a topic for another thread. Peace JerryB