TLC

The difficulty here probably resides in defining (or reaching an agreement on) what "proof" is and isn't. And there's no escaping the subjectivity that's necessarily involved in determining how much evidence is or will be deemed "sufficient" to either establish something as being true, or (perhaps more realistically) to produce a common belief (and acceptance) of it being true. Apart from the word of God, at what point does the impossible ever succumb or capitulate to mere statistical odds of improbability?

yeah, kinda like how the "we don't need or want your money" is merely a part of the salesmanship gig. neither comes into play until you gets a little "warmed up" to the idea...

I disagree, as I do not see this as a mere restoration of something which existed previously. However, I'm not disallowing any possibility for a new Eden, if perceived as the condition of perfection. I just think that any new Garden of God and what He might choose to grow will be different than before.

Easy to say it's not the money (it's a good sales technique - and trust me, I know.) Doesn't mean that it isn't. Maybe try thinking about it another way. It's the power they're addicted to. And, money is a relatively tangible proof of power. ('cause money can gets chit done... lol.)

Frankly, I think it's quite presumptuous to say "they were glad about it." Because if that were really true, then why would "certain men" (note that they are not reference by name) come down from Judea to... what shall we say... "make sure" that these new converts (that were turning to Christ) were actually going to be saved? They obviously had heard something of Paul's work... and evidently, enough to suppose it wasn't quite right. Clearly they weren't so "glad" that they were willing to leave Paul alone to "do his own thing." (So, I'm forced to question how much you honestly "understand" about what was actually going on or happening back then.) When do you see and/or think the 12 apostles moved away from a rather disciplined obedience to the law? Or why do you think such a push came from "some outside influence" rather than it being a directive straight from the heart of leadership in Jerusalem? Furthermore, I'm not one bit convinced that they were all in "full agreement" on much else other than - Paul, you go to the Gentiles, and we will (continue) going to all of Israel (wherever they are, throughout all the world.) Maybe not even that, as it never seems to stop or prevent Paul from going into the local synagogues on his itineraries and (first) preaching to the Jews that there. And they surely DID NOT agree on the gospel message, from what I can see. Which is probably why Paul subsequently referred to his message of the gospel of grace as "my gospel." The leadership in Jerusalem, as far as I can tell, continued attending services in the Temple, and in preaching "the gospel of the Kingdom" to Israelites... but you know... seems Paul never much was really left alone to preach his gospel. (see Acts 17:13; 21:28; 22:21-22.) Well, I vehemently disagree. Fact is, I think it was exactly the same organization that Paul met with early on... which is the real root of the problem evidenced later in Acts. They never honestly changed. Which, to repeat something that I've already made mention of, I see as the reason why God originally told Paul to get of and (for the most part) stay out of Jerusalem. Israel had the opportunity to accept Christ. Twice, as a matter of fact. Before his death, when he ministered to the circumcision, and then again after his ascension, with the testimony of Stephen in Acts 7. Had Israel, as a nation, believed Stephen and accepted Jesus as their Messiah (this is what their salvation was contingent upon), I believe he would have returned and set up his kingdom here on earth. However, they (as a nation) did not believe, and flat out rejected the Christ. So, something new was introduced, starting with Saul's conversion, in Acts 9. Simply put, it was so stunning a "game changer" that the church at Jerusalem never did really accept or get comfortable with it (as plainly attested to in 2 Peter 3:16.) They continued with the law of Moses right up to the bitter end (i.e., the destruction of the temple.) I'm inclined to think that micromanagement can be (probably is) more of an excuse for failure, that merely distracts us from or covers over the real reason for its failure.

The R&R fiasco was just a group effort to "redeploy" (another ploy, if you prefer) and present themselves in a "leadership" position to (hopefully) gain some kind of alternate financial (and maybe some emotional) support - which they just lost from the old system that they were inextricably (mentally speaking) entrenched in.

If it weren't for that word "micromanagement," I'd be inclined to disagree. In other words, I do think there was... well, what should I call it... direction (I'll avoid using the word "control") from the council (aka, the 12) at Jerusalem. Moreover, it was different (and poignant) enough from the guidance from Paul, that it resulted in the confrontation recorded in Acts 15. And frankly, although they plainly shook hands and came to a certain agreement between them, it appears to me that by then there were already two remarkably different "paths" in place - one of which continued with the centralized authority in Jerusalem, and one which... in so many words, should not have. (I think I'll leave it at that.) TWI may have (somewhat) modeled itself after the centralized authoritarianism of the church at Jerusalem. Which, even as it did (under the best leadership and conditions imaginable) in the first century, failed. Why? (Well, not to mention or take into account the dismal difference in leadership... lol.) Simply put, because it didn't exactly match or fit with the new and more appropriate guidance that was given (by the risen and glorified Christ) to Paul. Which is precisely why Paul was told to get out (and pretty much stay out) of Jerusalem.

Thank you, T-Bone. Maybe my memory isn't so bad and I'm not so crazy after all, eh?

Though my recollection of it isn't exact (as in, when and where it was said), there is no mistake in the takeaway from it (at least in my mind.) In fact, the general atmosphere (at least, as I recall it) was fairly well captured in a large billboard that sat out on bend in the corner of Hwy 29 depicting an open bible, with the words "Read it for yourself." Exactly when (or for how long) that sign was up, I don't know. Maybe it was taken down when a basic appreciation for that particular message was lost.

Okay, so you read it. But no, you most assuredly missed the point of it, or you wouldn't have ignored the "if all of that is true, then..." part of the question. Because what it all boils down to is this: when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility. (Just google that, if you don't believe me...)

Obviously you either didn't read, or didn't grasp, the point of my post.

No, it doesn't. That was the point of my post (which was evidently lost in translation.)

If so, I must have missed (or ignored) that. And plainly, I heard it taught differently elsewhere. (Maybe it was the Corpse)

Perhaps you'll allow me to say that is an assumption on your part. But you're not alone, by any means. It's just not my view of it.

Okay, I'll drop it.

Genesis 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

When did this nonsense come about? Perhaps it's said in jest, as it wasn't so back in the day. Nearest I can recall anything to that was a mention to put all reading material aside other than Romans thru Thessalonians for 3 months...

Perhaps they are (on my part.) However, in light of there having been quite different directives given to man at different points in history, on what basis do you chose which ones to keep and which ones to replace?

Look a bit more carefully at exactly what I had asked. I didn't actually claim there was "scientific proof" for it, as I'm aware that it's rather debatable what scientific proof of anything really is. Some will contend that "science" can't really prove or disprove anything, and say that scientific proof is a myth. Yet, based on some great abundance of empirical evidence, it seems there arrives a point where enough of a majority will agree on that there is "enough" of a constant or consistency in the evidence to say that something is (scientifically) proven. Now, if all of that is true (perhaps you can convince me that it's not true... but, I doubt it... lol), then why and/or why would anyone draw a line and say that no life after death isn't just as "scientifically proven" as anything else that you seem to think is?

That particular directive was given to Adam, at a time when Adam was properly equipped and able to have dominion over all the earth. When Adam failed to maintain his original state of mind, such a directive was impossible to fulfill. So anyone's effort to do so afterward is... well, like relieving one's bladder in the wind.

So when do you decide when to, or when not to, apply this particular formula to your interpretation of the Bible? Because.... hasn't all the evidence of science proven to you that there is no life after death?

This undoubtedly strays from "the topic" of the thread (which will invariably offend some,)... so, I guess I either ignore the entirety of your post, or respond in snippets and endure the rebuffs they stir up... Actually, I don't recall that exact thing being said or taught in PFAL. (If so, my memory must be bad.) I have (for longer than I care to remember) always made a very precise distinction in my mind between "the Bible" and "the Word of God." Enough of a distinction, that I when I see or think "the Word of God," it is (in my mind) relegated to something that: 1.) is of (i.e., originates from) God; 2.) is perfect; 3.) is spiritual; and 4.) is invisible (and therefore, unknown to the senses.) Perhaps in other words, it is "the breath of God." (...which is a figure of speech, obviously.) On the other hand, I see and think of the Bible as being "the revealed Word and Will of God." (which also happens to match how I recall it being taught in PFAL.) Furthermore, taking it one step further (and I know not all agree this perspective), I think of the Bible as a collection of scripture -- things which "can not be broken." Regardless of the fact they were written by less than perfect men (who may indeed have some of those "warts and all" that you speak of.) The difference between what was/is given by revelation (which is perfect) and that which results from inspiration (which isn't always perfect), I've spoken on elsewhere. Simply put, I think that difference allows for a certain (and often times rather distinct) perfection being evidenced within various imperfect versions of the Bible.

sorry, but I can't follow any pattern of logic, reasoning or coherency in your post.

hmmm... in spite of any similarities, it appears my start was actually quite different. Not in always have a love for science (which I did from a VERY young age... and still do), but rather, in when it (forever) took a back seat (so to speak) to learning about God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Suffice it to say, it was most certainly before I ever knew or heard anything of the Way Ministry. There is a point (or gap, if you prefer) at which (sooner or later) there is an unfathomable chasm reached between what is (and can or ever will be) knowable through the senses and what is (or can be) knowable through the spirit. Want it more specifically? Think of life after death. Science neither can, nor will it ever, get you there. There, meaning, genuinely believing it. And quite frankly, as hard as "religion" tries to get you there, neither do I think that it (name any religion you want) is capable of it (i.e., getting anyone "there") - although some will undoubtedly think and contend otherwise. The way I see it, there's one (and only one) way that anybody can ever truly believe "it" (that there is life after death.) The precursors to anyone's arrival at the way (not meaning TWI or "the Way Ministry") can vary greatly, but it seems that invariably it envelopes some innate recognition and acceptance of one's own failure, or falling short. (However you want to look at or phrase Rom. 3:23.) But, in a manner of speaking, when the reality of the perfect man(Christ)'s death subsequently hits us between the eyes... and our own shortcomings and failures are rendered as being insignificant... the only (totally overwhelming) thing that makes sense is that God raised him from the dead. At that point in time (for me... and I suspect that I am not alone), there was nothing else that mattered nor made any sense. The "loose pieces" clicked... and I understood... well, in so many words, .. that he loved me, and laid down his life for me. It suddenly became very "personal..." and there was absolutely no doubt (nor has there ever been since then) that God raised him from the dead, and that he lives forevermore. So, like I said previously... science has (and will forever) take a back seat to something which I know in my heart is true beyond any and all doubt. While it may not be said of many things, on that, I suppose one might say that I am "fully persuaded." Yet, from a purely "scientific" perspective, I am well aware that it is quite "impossible" to prove it, or perhaps, even more logically explain it. What is unfortunate, is that it appears you (and some untold number of others) may have muddled this... how should I say it... fundamental aspect of Christianity with something learned or associated with TWI, rather than with the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Or maybe I just misunderstood something written in your post that only made it seem like you were putting science back in the drivers seat . If so, perhaps you wouldn't mind clarifying your position on it.

What difference does it make? Evidently you want to fight about it, and I don't. Define things however you want. Perhaps there was a kindness in Elena that somehow eluded you, or that you can't relate to.