TLC

I'm of the persuasion that God did (get it right), as evidenced in (or by) man's freedom of choice (or freewill, if you prefer to call it that.) However, I also think that man has a very limited perspective, and thus, falls short in whatever objectivity you are (or seem to be) referring to. Perhaps the morality you're talking about is too easily tainted (or confused) with mortality. Hence, causing one to only see and focus on whatever affects this life (in the flesh), and not on the (spiritual) life that God ultimately intended and planned for man.

Translations/versions aside, so do most genuine Christians. I think you're grossly overstating your case. Unless things have radically changed from years ago, they do acknowledge they were written by Paul (even as other scripture was written by men.) Your point, I suppose, is that you don't believe they were written by revelation (or by however else one might care to express or communicate divine inspiration.) Then again, at this point in your life 1Thess. 2:13 probably doesn't carry much significance or bear any weight with you either. (Please don't take this as anything but that which is intended - to draw out your personal perspective on all scripture, not just what is Pauline, nor something which is exclusive to TWI.)

Then I don't see what or why you think Israel is either being favored or being prepared for anything (however you care to think of it.) Well, there's probably several reasons, but what follows here is probably the best I can think of. For starters, keep in mind that Daniel (and the other prophets of old) didn't have a complete picture or understanding of what was to come. Dan. 12:8; 1Pet.1:11,12. From a distance of many hundreds of miles (years, in the case of these prophets) away, it would be impossible to see a valley between the mountain peaks (one behind the other.) Furthermore, were it (i.e., a valley, or a large gap between the distant mountains) clearly seen and prophesied beforehand, then Israel's rejection of their Messiah would be set in stone... which, I don't think necessarily was. (However, I also believe that God knew they would.) In other words, the door was left open for Israel to accept Jesus Christ (as the Messiah) at his first coming. But they refused. Not only before the crucifixion, but also after his resurrection and ascension (see Acts 7, especially verse 56, when Christ stood up, as if ready to return.) Even after his resurrection, had Israel as a nation not rejected him (as they so plainly did, as evidenced in the killing of Stephen), I believe it would have set the stage for Christ's eminent return to earth (I.e., within seven years), to reign as King of kings and Lord of lords. Therefore, the offer that God had made and promised to Israel was indeed valid. And, in short... it was Israel's failure to believe (even after he was raised from the dead) that lead to Saul's conversion, and his being sent forth as the (not "an") apostle to the Gentiles that blew open the door to the gospel of the grace of God, and the great valley of time between the second and third temples that you've asked about. What are your views on the return of Christ?

You sound undecided, which seems quite unusual even for a "partial Preterist." And, I can't follow the reasoning behind why you think the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled must happen exactly 29 years after the start of the restoration of the nation of Israel. Evidently you think that God is now dealing with Israel favorably. While I might be inclined to agree with the "now dealing with Israel favorably" part of your statement, I'd be interested to hear what sort of justification or further explanation(s) you think goes along with that. Furthermore, if you retain the nation of Israel as being essential to the fulfillment of certain prophecies, what aspect(s) of your "partial Preterist" position do you see as being incompatible with mid Acts dispensationism?

So are you amillennialist, and think that Israel has been replaced, or do you think that Israel (as an earthly nation) will yet enter into a 1000 years of peace? Also, are you aware that it is really not that uncommon for scriptural prophecies to appear to have both a near term and a much more robust (more distant) fulfillment?

Unfortunately, that seems to happen a lot around here. Perhaps one of the deepest, most damaging, and most difficult attribute to correct or cover up (or even mitigate) is the egotism that bred and flourished at TWI.

You surely know that you did, so why ask me? Fact is, you were (and still think yourself) such the savant, you quickly and completely blew off anything of substance that I might have said in my first post on the matter (which is undoubtedly why you're now claiming that I never offered anything of substance.) Nothing I said had any substance, and showed lack any seriousness because I didn't provide links to somebody else's work or thoughts on it? (Which, if they did exist and I did reference, you would - even as you have done with others - fault my ability to see or think for myself about the issue.) At least get real and honest with yourself, WW.

Except for my words, you don't know me. Does that somehow make my words another part of me, that I could then have a "face-to-face" with? So much confusion has resulted from the appearance and use of the word logos. Evidently the work of the intelligentsia, out to dumb us down.

So, that's the extent of your take away from it? If there wasn't much effort in it, then perhaps it was your implied expertise on the matter and - not your saying "they're related-but-different words" (which you didn't say), but rather - your rather crass reference to phileo and coitas (as though speaking to Forrest Gump) that shortened it. At least I said what it appeared as, even hedging it with if you actually believe that (not, as accused, "you're wrong and you're stupid".) Fact is, I've made more than my share of mistakes before, for sure. Been told I'm wrong and stupid for them, too... which might have been what gave me enough pause to re-think the matter a bit more thoroughly, and more carefully. Frankly, I'm disappointed that you couldn't (or didn't want to) see past it and reflect on something of greater value or deeper substance. If you portray yourself as (or pretend to be) an expert on a particular matter (as you plainly did), is it some big surprise if or when someone of another opinion fingers you, rather than the doctrine itself? Stand in front of the target, if you want. But please, don't play the pity me, you're not nice, card if or when you take a hit. For the hours of my life I've previously already thought about this issue, I skipped the links for the sake of time (and lack of interest in chasing down more secular thoughts on the matter)... and, as stated in my last post, I'm done trying to present an alternate viewpoint here. But show me where anyone (scholar or not) has given good, honest, and serious effort to research and discuss exact biblical distinctions between the words agapeo and phileo, and yeah... I'll go read it. Because quite frankly, most of what I've seen or read (including the scholarly stuff) is incredibly selective, and leaves out certain "problem" verses, where they appear to be used interchangeably.

As I really just don't have the energy (nor concern) to wade any deeper into the weeds of it (...and that we'd probably end up simply having to disagree), I'll try to keep this as brief and as succinct as possible. WW: Ultimately, what any "expert" claims (and many DISAGREE regardless of subject, for any number of reasons) is not important compared to what the Bible actually SAYS. In the case of phileo and agape, they're as dissimilar as phileo and coitas. Your first sentence might seem reasonable and sufficient enough, if only everyone knew (and could agree on) what the Bible actually says . But, from what appears in your next sentence, we don't. Is there any polite or proper way to say that if you actually believe that, evidently you may not know chit from shinola when it comes to that particular issue? WW: Further, I've noticed supposed "experts" base their understanding on what a word in Koine Greek is taken to mean 2000 years later, and ignore the usage in the book itself, when we know meanings change radically over a few HUNDRED years (language drift and specialization.) Given my own experience and observations of TWI culture, there was (and largely still is) such a heavy emphasis and dependency on dissecting and "nitpicking" the words of a verse apart, and so relatively very little on how it might genuinely align with the rest of scripture (and life), it is typically impossible to find the truth, whether with a pick and shovel, a block and hammer, or through the lens of the most powerful microscope. If the Lord doesn't open it up and reveal it to you, then you just ain't going to know, no matter how hard you beat your head against it, and regardless of how dang smart or intelligent you are or aren't. It's simply the nature of scripture. WW: The thing is, there are animal authorities, experts and resources that can explain any fine distinctions (such as when a dog or is not a mutt), but if we consider The Bible as authoritative, then the source for what the Bible means is-the Bible itself. I had hoped that the previous analogy would have communicated that two people can hear the exact same thing, yet because of what their interest is or was at the time, their take away from it varies. Your claim (or belief) is that because different words used by two different writers to describe the exact same event, the words must mean and communicate the exact same thing. But, I see that as a mistake. Hence, we disagree. Why does the gospel of Matthew open with a declaration of him as the son of (king) David, the son of Abraham, and only record his genealogy from them, while the gospel of Luke traces it all the way back to Adam? Why make the distinction? Well, enough here. If you can figure out where I'm coming from, and how or why I see it differently, fine. But if not, then so be it. I don't know that I can (or want to) say it much differently.

BTW, perhaps you're not familiar with D. Bader's work on the (lack of) difference between phileo and agape.

I could be wrong, but it appears that something in rrobs last post on this page screwed the pooch (I'm guessing some open ended html code) and not only requires you to go to an earlier page to reply, but also required me to do a bit of improvising to make my post "visible." __________________________ Now, back to the issue... __________________________ I'm well aware of the fact that Matthew was (most likely) first written in Aramaic before being translated to Greek. However, the phrase "kingdom of God" (which also appear there) ought to make it a bit more difficult to pass both off as being "identical." Sure, you can gloss over it if you want. Just like I can see a dog and call it a mutt, while you see a mutt and call it a dog. Is the mutt a dog? Sure. But, is the dog a mutt? And would (or does) it make any difference whether it is or isn't? No doubt there's plenty (perhaps the vast majority) of situations where it makes absolutely no difference. So, it might depend on your perspective, whether you think (or would ever care) that they have any difference whatsoever in meaning. If you know that a young family's father has promised to one day give them a puppy, and one day he comes home holding a puppy... do you care or give a blink anything more than the simple fact of the matter, that he fulfilled his promise? Yet, if YOU were one of the kids, and you knew much more intricate details of the promise, and happen to be greatly looking forward to papa bringing home a golden doodle puppy... is any ol' puppy going to do? Your brother might be tickled pink, 'cause what he cares most about is that it's a dog, and that's all he's been talking or thinking about for years. But what's your talk and focus going to be? There's a plethora of prophecies that were given to Israel about a promised "earthly" kingdom, that as of yet, have not been fulfilled. Maybe it depends on how you want to look at it, or maybe it depends on how (given what you do or don't know) you can look at it. Some people just can't see the 6 and the 8, while to other people they're as plain as the nose on your face.

(formatting and links removed, so that the previous post doesn't remain invisible) ________________________________ On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 11:51 PM, WordWolf said: ...The oddest part is WHO spilled the beans on this one originally. That was CHR1S G33R of all people... _________________________________ much like the illustration below, makes no difference who can or can't see the difference. __________________________________________

lol... neither does (nor can) a colorblind person see much of any difference between these: Say or explain to them whatever you want, they will never "get" or see the difference that you do.

Is that so... Then, by all means, why not go ahead (it's been 3 days) and offer up your "painfully easy to state" answer (to something, which evidently puzzled TWI's research team for years)? Or, did you not receive many PM's on this, and still want or need more time for a better answer to show up?

Israel was (always was), and from what I can tell, always will be, focused on the material realm. In fact, so much so, that it seems reasonable to think and say that it was and is (at least in part) the natural result of their being "chosen" (i.e., favored) by God above all other nations on earth. It was even evidenced in the Mosaic law. Do this, and you will prosper. Do that, and I will multiply you. Don't do this, or you will have sickness and disease. Etc., etc... "Show us a sign..." And God did. Over, and over, and over... What did, or could, they believe without signs, miracles, and wonders? (hint: not a dang thing.) Shoot, only a very small few (a remnant) scraped by, believing (or partly believing) that God was the reason behind whatever signs and wonders did happen. The promises of prosperity, right along with every other promise that the prophets, or that Jesus Christ himself spoke, were ALL (without exception) directed towards (dispensed to) Israel. So, just think about that for a while. And while you're at it, why is it that these manifestations of the spirit, if they're all so darn important to have or see every single day in every one of our lives, are really only discussed and brought to prominence in the epistle addressed to these carnally minded Corinthians... who undoubted sought and chased hard after them in order to "prove" their spirituality to those around them? Yes, manifestations of the spirit can and do occur. Yes, they can and do benefit the church of the body. Yes, it is good that we can recognize and properly acknowledge them when they do occur. Yet, is it not primarily God's prerogative when and where they occur, and not our great "mission" in life to find or experience them? Though experiencing any of them can indeed be a blessing, I've become more inclined to think believing that it's God at work within us to will and to do of His good pleasure (even though we might not actually see or recognize it as such) is more peaceful, and even more rewarding.

The difference between having only heard, read of, or talked about different dispensations, and knowing, understanding or believing what those exact differences really are and mean (on a practical level)... are miles apart. And whether you do or don't suppose that VPW (and hence, TWI) somehow falls into the later part of that statement (as I once upon a time did), well... you may still want to consider the possibility that you're still miles apart from what the truth might on these things actually be. Some here are unabashedly convinced that dispensations are a farce, the imaginations of one or two scholars from an earlier century or so. Anybody that's ever been on prescription medication ought to know the dangers of swallowing down that which is plainly prescribed to (i.e., dispensed) and intended for the benefit of somebody. Yet, when it concerns God and the scriptures, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to them that Jesus Christ was a minister to the circumcision. Jesus was a great healer... so I'll take a mighty strong dose of whatever he gave them there people, Surely won't have any ill effects on us, will it?

why not? Kingdom of heaven is predominately spoken of in the gospel of Mathew, and quite specifically refers to the reign of Christ (here on earth.) Kingdom of God kicks it up a notch and should be considered or viewed from a broader perspective. (not that TWI's research dept. ever came up with a simple way to differentiate between the two...)

How something so simple got (or can get) so screwed up in people's head and heart is mind boggling. My apologies, if the following sounds a bit preachy (because it is, and I'm not a preacher)... but the stupidity of some of the things said in this thread seem to have stirred me in a way to say some things that I normally wouldn't. After Adam screwed the pooch and coalesced his mind to the world, what men (mankind) could (and did) believe became dependent on the world around them. Hence, the need for (and promise of) Christ, to reveal God (who is spirit) to senses oriented mankind. First given to Adam, of course, but... pretty much lost and/or ignored by the time of Noah & sons. So, God calls out one man (Abram), who eventually reaches the point of believing the impossible (according to anything and everything that can typically be known by your senses), that God can and will raise (the promised) one from the dead. Being the first, he (Abraham) is therefore called the father of all that believe. And, as you know, he was the patriarch of a nation (Israel.) A nation set "above all nations that are upon the earth." Shown many great signs, miracles, and wonders... which, if possible, should have moved them closer to believing God. But did it? Despite spelling out in rather intricate detail the coming of the Messiah, the nation of Israel failed to recognize and accept Jesus as the Christ. "Show us a sign" was their cry. Evidently they were at one with the world, and couldn't believe anything other than what could be shown them. (Know anyone else like that?) Why would God do that? Favor an entire nation, that when it came right down to it, could no more or better believe God than the rest of mankind. Well, maybe it was simply to prove that by your senses (the norm of all men) it can't be done. Christ was crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. Did the original apostles, hand picked by Jesus Christ, believe it? Oh, they knew he was dead. There was no problem believing that. But alive? Nope, Not without seeing it "for real." So, after his resurrection he presented himself 40 days to his disciples, "by many infallible proofs" . (Seems like a rather tough bunch to convince. But such was/is the nature of man, and this was designed to convince the lot of them ,) Now, just exactly what "went away" on the day of the Ascension? Well, so much for "the infallible proofs" that were given to some. Maybe it was time to see if the nation of Israel could be weaned from its addiction to the world, and its need for "signs" to believe that the promised Messiah had come. But, by the conclusion of Act 7, that too, was a no go. And low and behold, it was time to give anyone else in the rest of the world a shot at it. The fundamental barrier? Can (or do) you believe that Jesus Christ died, was buried, and was raised from the dead (and lives now)? Well, that's impossible, right? What "proof" is there for that? Probably none whatsoever. (By design, if you want my opinion.) Yet, I know to the uttermost depths of my heart and soul, it's true. Perhaps my brain is simply hardwired to believe it; I can't say for sure. But at this point in time, all of life and learning fits and flows together with it, and I'm fully aware that there is neither a disconnect or a reversibility that exists (or ever will) for it. Being seated at the right hand of God, Christ is definitely not "absent" from the presence of God. Maybe you don't see it the same way, but if you had a right hand man, wouldn't he be right there with you where ever you were? (Especially after telling him, Stick right here close beside me until some stuff gets set in order...) Or, would you send him off to relax on some island whilst you went along and about your merry way? So, wherever God is present, Christ is also (regardless of whether or not you think so.) If you think that meeting the Lord "in the air" somehow or in some way refers to him coming to the stratosphere of the earth from some far way place, maybe it's worth giving a little more thought to what else that might mean. Because there's a "change" spoken of that goes along with that. There is not going to be any "less personal presence" of Christ beforehand and "more presence" of him afterwards. Currently, the spiritual world remains invisible to the naked eye. Might that ever change? Probably not, but change the naked eye... and its ability to perceive reality will change. Where does "spirit" live or exist? In the air, perhaps? (compare that to Eph.2:2.) We are "the body of Christ." The difficulty in understanding that is that we just can't now see and don't yet know what a spiritual body is or looks like. All that said, I do not believe that we (who are Christ's) need (nor will we ever get) something/anything else extra "coming into evidence" (i.e., revealed) - be it written, signed, sealed, or delivered - prior to our gathering together unto him. What was given, written in scripture nearly 2000 years ago, is sufficient, and will remain a powerful testimony to the grace, and manifold wisdom of God until the fullness of times for it is come. (Which, on a personal note, I believe is indeed very close at hand.) Those who can and do choose to believe it, will live this life (until changed) accordingly.

Not the day and hour, for sure. But, as for the signs of the times... that merits a little more consideration. It appears that things are lining up rather rapidly for the fulfillment of some number of old testament prophecies (concerning Israel.) However, prior to their completion, the church of the body of Christ will need to be taken up (i.e., out of the way.)

What planet are you on? Did you forget that the Word was already made flesh ~2000 years ago? Was it somehow undone or made "not flesh" sometime after that? Or maybe the meaning of that phrase never actually found it's way into your head and heart. Question it all you want. It's pretty much straight from scripture (1Cor.15:52;1Thess 4:17.) By "almost everyone," I take it you mean "almost all Israel," which had been given the promise of the coming Messiah. (As the rest of the world's populace was quite intentionally left clueless.) But, true, almost all Israel did not recognize him (though, they probably should have given the abundance of prophecies that had been given to them.) Not unlike the failure of Joseph's brothers to recognize Joseph the first time they went to Egypt to buy grain. However, for Israel's second time around, it wasn't (and won't be) left to chance. Oh,,, you want to talk about us? Or Israel? Make up your mind, please. (Lest anyone gets confused about the difference.) Yikes! e's knocked over my rook and now there's crap on the board!

Evidently you're not able to accept it no matter how it's said. If the writing of scripture is neither planned (by man) ahead of time, nor edited by man (including the man writing it) afterwards, then it makes not a spit worth of difference which way you want to figure it. The PFAL class & book were both planned, and later, both were edited. Didn't think it took a rocket scientist to see the difference here...

You think that, because it's what you want to believe, so it becomes the only way you can see it. But, as mentioned in an earlier post, I have personally heard (probably on more than one occasion) vpw plainly and very clearly say (to paraphrase) that when it was written, there was no editing of it. None whatsoever. Paul didn't start to write it one way, then back up, change a word, then continue writing. It flowed out, and that was it. Which is dang near the opposite of what you are supposing. Personally, I think it makes no difference how long before any bits and pieces (or chunks) of truth were revealed and made known to Paul. I suspect most (if not all) of what is later referred to as "his gospel" was revealed to him over a course of time spent in Arabia after his escape from Damascus, years before the school of Tyrannus, which also was years before what was written to the Thessalonians. And to put it bluntly, VPW said a lot of things in WC teachings that were just his opinion, and should be as viewed nothing more... or you'll miss things (concerning the truth) a lifetime, and never know it. For instance, Paul taught at the school of Tyrannus (prior to his trip to Thessalonians.) He also taught in Thessalonica (duh...) Why would anyone think that much of what is written in Thessalonians was "brand new" to them, or that they had never heard any of it before? So, why "limit" the truths in it to just having been taught to Timothy and Silas prior to it being written? Makes no sense. Neither do I think that Paul was diligently practicing, rehearsing, or in any other way deliberately "getting ready" to write Thessalonians ahead of time. Was God preparing him ahead of time? Of course. That doesn't say or mean that Paul knew what (all) God was prepping him for. After all, who ever does? But when it was time... write! And, there it was.

Didn't have time for the tapes, but, out of curiosity I did go pull an old copy of the transcript for it. (You can knock yourself out on 2Thess if you want, but I did a quick check there as well.) Want it verbatim? Before anything is written, basically (it isn't an iron clad law by revelation, but generally speaking) it is first taught. The men of God of the Old Testament, as well as the New, usually shared the truth with one or two larger groups of people before it was written. In this particular epistle, I believe that Silas and Timothy were the one's taught, to whom he shared and with whom he discussed the revelation regarding this truth or these truths that are in Thessalonians. Then, sometime after that (and I do not believe later than 52 AD, around 50 AD maybe) it was put in writing. Was it a slap in the face, or kick in the head that rang your bell?

so... when do you get to the part about your revelation?