TLC

You're projecting. (Because I'm not.) So, not to any of my posts, merely the posts of others... (you know, if you really wanted to help, it might have actually done so had you offered a bit more clarification on that earlier when replying to my post...) Not sure why or where that came up, but that short little clipped statement most certainly appears to have left any important or otherwise pertinent context far behind (if not lost and removed entirely.) But whatever. It's not an issue that appears to have any relevance in this forum.

So, what exactly is the point of this post, WW, and how do you think it affects or would change anything that was posted here previously? More important than who anyone thinks the gospel of Luke might be addressed to (and yes, it remains very unclear to me why you're putting such emphasis on it or are caring to make an issue of it), is understanding the perspective it communicates on the life of Jesus Christ and his relationship to Israel in the fulfilment of certain promises that were made to the fathers. Miss that, and a whole lot of things that are written in it won't make nearly as much sense.

I'm not about to argue or debate the issue, as I don't place the importance of this as high as some others here evidently do. Plainly any dating of it (or when any of the gospels) were written is somewhat speculative by even the best of scholars, and it's relatively easy to challenge the veracity of your "most modern scholars believe" statement inferring that Mark was written c.70 CE. https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/mark.cfm Regardless of when it was actually written, I don't see that as altering it's value or importance, or why it was included where it is in the Bible. The gospel of Mark (be it written by John Mark, or another Mark) is clearly written from or for a particular perspective on the life of Jesus Christ and his fulfilment of certain promises that were given to Israel, as are the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John. Acts, as I see it, is simply written as a very accurate historical accounting of what actually took place. While it (Acts) obviously doesn't (and can't) detail everything, it does record the things and events that God evidently wanted written - regardless of whether or not everything that happened, or that was said and/or done in Acts perfectly aligned with what we might think of as the will (or directing) of God.

By what or who's authority are you making that incredulous claim? Seriously ? Sounds like pretty wild speculation to me. Where do you come up with such stuff? You do know that's quite debatable, don't you? The church father Eusebius places the date of Matthew's gospel in A.D. 41. (which would undoubtedly predate any of Paul's epistles...)

Still, they are referenced to Israel. Whereas (aside from Hebrews) Paul's are different. And even though it wasn't always spoken of or presented well, it is Paul's gospel (which he received directly from the ascended Lord Jesus Christ) that lays the foundation. You might disagree, but had vpw (and twi) done exactly that - and stayed out of everything else - I suspect that they would have had far fewer issues and problems. Problem is, he didn't.

Yes, agreed, and I really have no problem seeing that they more or less speak of the same thing. The issue I have is that I don't see that any of them are applicable to what is (or ever can be) experienced prior to the passing (i.e., the end, or if alive at the last trump, changed) of life that is in the blood. Furthermore, it appears that Jesus Christ's answer to Nicodemus (look closely at verse 8) was evidenced in Christ after his resurrection. And, as mentioned previously, Acts 13:33 specifically pinpoints his resurrection as the day he was "begotten" of God. So, when OldSkool spoke of "those born from above," the problem I have is with its broad application (right now) to anyone other than Jesus Christ, as I just don't see it used like that anywhere in scripture. Evidently this wasn't clear enough in my previous post, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. (Like I said, sometimes my perspective on certain issues is a real bear to communicate well.)

I don't see or find this phrase in scripture. Neither does it fit with my understanding and perspective on what it means (or might mean) to be "born," so I question its veracity. Seems I've probably moved quite some distance away from what some here have evidently coined as "Way-brained" thinking. (But I'll let you in on something... I was told rather point blank at the first research fellowship of twi that there was absolutely nothing "off the table" or so sacred that it couldn't be questioned. However, that appears to have changed some time after my departure from HQ... so speaking for myself alone, perhaps because of that - and because of my genetic nature - it's undoubtedly been far easier for me to look at and consider certain things from a different perspective than most. Which doesn't necessarily mean I'm more right. However, the effect of it does make it much more challenging for me to communicate how I often times see and/or think of things...) Yeah, I get that. I'm simply not convinced the ministry's lingo was always right on point when referring to or talking about the new creation of Christ in you. Fact is, I heard a lot of variance in it coming out from different corners of the room, without a great deal of depth or understanding behind it. There is one body, and one spirit, and one Lord... right? But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. So where did the idea come from that each of us has our own newly created little "mini-me" of a Christ inside of us?

Maybe this has sat here too long for anyone to have given it any more thought or take issue with it, but if so, then so be it. Then I will. Because if that encapsulates the conclusions of his study, then it's obviously a downright shoddy piece of work. How so, you ask? Okay then, since you asked (or, were surely going to)... right out of the gate it is spun towards and reeks of uncertainty. Who thinks or says that the best that anyone ever has or can receive is "the promise" of salvation? So, you're not really saved. Nope, not yet. That's why that word promise is in there. It means you don't have it yet, as it's only something that can or will happen in the future. But... is that right? Nope. Without defining what one is saved from or to, I think not. And not according to Paul either (unless he's talking about or referring to Israel, or the change yet to come, or the wrath that is yet to come, or something else yet to come.) Why else would these next few verses say that we are saved? 1 Cor 1 [18]For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 2 Cor 2 [15] For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish. Eph 2 [5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) [8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 2 Tim 2 [9] Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, Tit 3 [5] Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost When and where does he point out and plainly say that (or how) we have already been saved and/or ARE saved now? In other words, it greatly smacks of having an idea already in mind that he's going to find and use certain selected scriptures to prove, rather than honestly looking for what the truth here might be (or really is)...

There are plenty of references you being made alive who were dead in trespasses and sins. Made alive spiritually with freedom to walk in newness of life as we become confirmed to the image of his son who is the firstborn from among the dead Yes, but dead unto sin and alive from the dead or alive unto God isn't necessarily the same as being "born again." In other words, I'm suggesting that "born again" carries with it a different and very distinct nuance of meaning that (merely) being made alive doesn't have or carry with it. Birth implies a bringing forth into existence something new. Interestingly, not only is the Lord Jesus Christ noted as being "the only begotten," it's pointed out in Acts 13:33 the exact day when it is said he was begotten. So, I'm inclined towards thinking that "born again" might actually be one of the least understood and most overused phrases in all Christendom. None of us have experienced death (i.e., the end of the life that is in the blood) and resurrection (the start of new life, which is spirit.) Christ did, and now lives within us - something that we mostly know far, far too little of. Some day, yes, the life that we now have in the flesh shall pass or be changed, when we too, shall experience something similar to what he that is firstborn from the dead did. But, until then... it's his new (eternal) life that's the quickening within us. Which is undoubtedly why the scriptures speak of our (real, but still future) life as being hid with Christ (in God.) There is nothing that can be known or learned of it aside from that which can be learned and known of (the risen) Christ.

yeah, well... you weren't (or aren't) alone with that issue. Perhaps this will help (or at least, ease your mind.) There is something incredibly powerful that a sufficiently disciplined mind appears to touch upon. (So it should not be without caution that words and thoughts are brought to bear on such matters.) However, if no clear distinction is made or drawn between the works of the law (which encompasses the totality of anything that you, me or any man can do) and the grace of God (which none of us really understand the fullness of), then how is anyone ever very sure or how much their life (however it's being lived) is in harmony with God? So what if "your believing" (call it whatever you will) gets you to what you might think is a better position or place in this life, if it's only wood, hay or stubble that all ends up going away one day? Those are tough shoes for anyone to walk in (and I sure can't.) What I can share, though, is the perspective I see that Paul would have on this and ... well, on most everything, actually. Philippians 4 [6] Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. [7] And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. That pretty much covers how I think prayer (and believing) should be taught. We make our requests known to God, and the answer (to say it in those terms) back to us is this --> that the peace of God, which passes all understanding, keeps our hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. (So, we let it go at that. Let go, and let God... for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. That's just something that no one else can dictate to you. )

Furthermore, aside from a brief (and probably misunderstood) reference to being as of one born out of due time, I have yet to find any mention of anyone being "born again" (of anything) anywhere in Paul's writings.

I'm mostly inclined to agree with that, as it may not be perfectly clear just exactly what "seed" refers to here. I'm actually less inclined to think it refers to the seed which is Christ (Gal.3:16), as what appears to fit best is simply "the Word of God" (as so plainly stated in the very verse this is taken from.)

Given how little you know or understand about me, my background, or what I know, think and believe about dispensationalism (and why) , that comment is obviously a product of gross ignorance. Not the first time I've said it here, but my (collegiate) study of the scriptures began well in front of ever hearing about vpw or pfal.

Based on these summarizations, evidently there was no thought or concern given to explaining or defining what "salvation" either is, can be, or might be. Given a (false) premise (i.e., presumption) that salvation is and means the same thing to everyone regardless of how it is perceived or understood immediately impairs or nullifies any conclusion, regardless of how "logical" the tenets of the proposition might be. How do you suppose Israel (who were given the promises of God) viewed salvation, and what did it mean to them? Rather than simply guess at it, I'd suggest looking at the words spoken by Zacharias in Luke 1:67ff. Think he was mistaken? Then so must have been all his apostles in Acts 1:6. Furthermore, just what is a "wicked heart of unbelief"? Or how is it that anyone thinks that once joined to Christ they can do anything of their own volition to divorce themselves from the one that it's plainly written (1 Cor. 3:23) that they belong to?

Sounds exactly like you're salvation is dependent upon obeying God (with respect and reverence.) Just how is that any different from what Israel had before, with the law?

No need to design any such contraptions, or pretend anything. However, what does need to be done (or understood) is the identification and recognition of the differences between them. Jesus Christ was a minister to the circumcision. Period. (see Romans 15:8.) Paul, on the other hand, spoke at a different time, under different circumstances, for a different purpose, and (aside from Hebrews) to a different people. (Romans 11:13.) And as for the 12, exactly when or where is it presumed the commandment given them in Matthew 10:5 was ever rescinded and/or replaced? Or, perhaps more to the point, when did the 12 ever see it as being rescinded or replaced? Okay, I'm aware of the situation with Peter and the house of Cornelius... for which Peter was evidently "called out on the carpet for" by the others once he was back in Jerusalem. When was the next time any of them stepped inside the house of a Gentile (much less eat with any of these that were typically referred to as dogs)? Seems not again, at least up through to Acts 11:19, not like anytime again up through to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, nor anytime after that, if they really meant what they said in Gal.2:9. But, fail to see or make any distinction in who various passages are addressed (or refer) to... and yeah, seems it becomes impossible to make good sense out it.

Aside from attributing the originality of it to different men, I would agree that the conditions (requirement, if you prefer) for salvation appear to be different at certain times or places in scripture, and forcing them (or trying to push them) all through the same mold simply doesn't work.

Well, I doubt many could dispute the last part of that... but it seems unfortunate to think that some (any, really) degree of uncertainty would seem to be necessary (or even useful) in staying humble and respectful towards God and others. However, if forced to choose between the two, it's easy to see why anyone would choose to go that route.

any chance of also being one of the most egotistical? (which may very well be one of the most - if not the most - difficult vestiges of TWI to either eradicate or cover over...)

Agreed, though maybe not so much with the "just posturing" aspect of it. 'Cause from the pulpit it can be (and is incessantly) used by so many as a means of control - which goes far beyond making your own self look more knowledgeable or spiritual. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that unless (or until) it's known or understood or beyond the limitations of personal reward(s), it all too easily results in works that are mere wood, hay and/or stubble - not to mention the small sliver of uncertainty that can rear its ugly head at the most awkward, stressful or otherwise inopportune times in life. In other words, once we are Christ's, the life we live now is not for ourselves - in any sense of the word (future inclusive) - even if we don't know or believe it.

Okay, seems you want to go there, so let's talk about Paul for a sec or two. Consider this, if you will. As for touching the righteousness which is in the law, he declared (see Phil.3:6) that he was blameless. That was before his experience on the road to Damascus. But get this... how much value did he place on that afterwards? Well, I suppose how ever much dung is worth. (Phil.3:8.) Now... which of these modern day, look-at-me-I'm-like-Paul folks do you suppose can honestly say that they were (in their former days) blameless (by any standard or stretch of the imagination), and/or is currently willing (much less disposed) to count much (if any) of their former life as dung? Kindly let me know what your thoughts are after you chew that over a little...

...like members in the body of Christ, of which Christ (and Christ alone) is the head. Paul spoke of the church with a comparison to the living human body, not some easily fossilizable structure fashioned after a tree.

Is it even possible to speak more condescendingly? Maybe... but I doubt it, given the context of how it was said (and why.) The difference? Might have a thing or two to do with the word reprobate. It's one thing to name drop Paul into the equation... but quite another to live a life anything even remotely close to what he did.

As mathematics defines itself by (or within) intrinsic rules, our subjective interpretation is not only unnecessary, it removes it from the category of mathematics.

So, I take it that you've (subjectively) chosen to disassociation yourself with any and all subjective aspects of what "proof" can mean or how it is defined... nice. or, perhaps I should say... how convenient. Well, maybe this will add a bit more objectivity to the mix: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#58d86edf2fb1