TLC

Might not have hurt so much if you'd managed to get yourself fired. Then again, that's its own kind of hurt.

I've tried to consider this several different times or ways, but I still can't seem to make much sense out of it. When you say "it's like a body of water"... does "it" refer to a gift ministry, or to spirit? And if to spirit, which spirit? The Christ? (which is what I would presume.) Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining... and possibly adding some other way to express what you mean. (And thanks for your effort to "flesh it out.")

While I certainly don't agree with your take on the Pauline epistles (as I regard them as scripture), I am inclined to mostly agree with all of the above statements. However, it appears that we also significantly differ on how they use the Bible to endorse (or as you say below, legitimize) these things. Personally, I think the major issue was the failure to recognize Paul's calling as the start of a new dispensation (and not the day of Pentecost - as taught by vpw, twi, and its the offshoots - nor after Acts 28, as taught by hyperdispensationists such as Bullinger.) Consequently, much of the political and authoritarian structure in (modern) Christian denominations and churches appears to initially stem from Judaism and from times long before these new revelations to Paul (which were received directly from the ascended Christ.) The diligent and concerted efforts to meld and blend together the gospel of the kingdom (which primarily concerned Israel) with the gospel of grace (which Paul introduced) resulted in the need to also blend together the message (and ministries) that Paul spoke of with the message (and practice) of the 12 apostles in Acts 2 and following. (And THAT is what I believe to be a major fallacy among what was and is still taught most places.) And yet, you're against dispensationalism. Seems nearly ironic. I should have read further in your post (and seen the above.) That was my basic point. (Though we seem to differ on any beneficial effects of it) Thank you. (And I mostly agree with the rest of your post - though not all. When time allows, perhaps I'll say more.)

Do you know when was this? (Curious on how providential the timing of it was...)

Well, it sure as heck looked (still does, actually) doctrinal to me. (Maybe it's just the way my brain works.)

My perspective on it is one that you will undoubtedly never really know, much less understand, Bolshevik. (So "laugh" about it all you want...)

To a certain degree. But motives of the heart are often (and sometimes easily) hidden, even with those that we have close and/or frequent contact with. So please don't overlook the "posing as if you know much more than you really do" part of what I wrote.

I wouldn't go so far as to say none of it works. But, when you can't (or don't) get changes in the economy identified correctly, you go broke pretty quickly.

Obviously not the right thread to discuss this DWBH, but I am curious as to what your view or opinion is concerning the existence of the devil. Something real? (Or, just some word or figure of speech used to depict our adversity and separation from God?)

Well, that certainly appears (to me) to be doctrinal in nature... and therefore qualifies as something that would be inappropriate for this thread.

Well, I still find those to be very brash statements for you to make about someone that you never really met or knew. (And I'm not saying that he didn't do a number of bad things.) If DWBH (or someone else that has much more experience in the matter) wants to say it, fine. But you? Why are you passing judgment on it and posing as if you know much more than you really do? Careful with Occam's razor, or you might cut off something of yourself.

Wow. A lot posted here in the last day or two. Fair enough. Given that I was the one that first alluded to the doctrinal importance of considering when Jesus became more like God in the post shortly before Rocky's question, I suppose it was my interest to transition more into a doctrinal discussion that compelled me to note the differences in our two questions. But, evidently that is not the preferred direction of discussion. (Me bad in thinking it could or would be.) Which leaves me without much comment on the later portion of WW's diatribe, even though somewhat interesting (from a doctrinal perspective, which I always seem to favor) because it touches on certain much older historical factors or possibilities (in church history) that are evidently outside the intent of this thread.

Well, it's actually more than one word. But, it seemed it would be a bit corny (or something to that effect) to say that you omitted a word, added a word, and changed a word from what my original suggestion (noted below) was. And, for anyone that does not believe that Jesus is God, the way your question is worded - "When did Jesus START being God?" - might be like asking when someone became their own father.

And that's the very part I chose to disagree with. Imagine that!

There's a reason for everything. But it's presumptuous (and not your place) to say that the reasons were evil. In short, you don't know that. And why should they, if the basic essence of it is correct? (Because not everything taught by vpw or twi was all wrong.) Perhaps, but not everyone does, nor does it necessarily mean or make the doctrine itself wrong. (However, it may not have been presented in the best way possible.) Yeah, I suppose. But maybe not so much as how you might think it so.

Well, you omitted a word. (Intentionally, I suppose.)

Because I was quoting you. Did you forget that you had asked me a question? The following, however, is another matter entirely, discussed elsewhere: And this makes no sense at all to me:

probably largely because of this:

You weren't expecting not to be, were you? (Okay, you were probably just testing to see how long it would take them to find your little "canary in the coal mine" voice there, eh?)

Many Christians (not all, but it's likely a majority), and most denominations of Christianity incorporate it (in some form or fashion) as an essential part of church doctrine, and to a somewhat lessor extent, an essential part of salvation. (Or else you might, as I've heard it put, "have the wrong Jesus.") So, there certainly can be - and is at times - a very "caring" aspect to it. Well, that's sure not the kind of "benefit" I would categorize as being a genuine or godly benefit. And if that's not a "compromise the truth just to fit in" with the masses of other people proposition, I don't know what is. Aren't you familiar with these scriptures from Matthew 7? [13] Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in there at: [14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Okay, then maybe this will better communicate what I think. Given that I suspect that it was intentionally devised and propounded by the intelligentsia (for reasons stated in the previous post), I not only see no other sane or sensible reason for it (or for trying to understand it), I also can't find any real reason or benefit to accept it (or, as some might say, try to believe it.)

Bigger than it should have been, no doubt. But I actually think a much better (and more significant) question to ask (at least, doctrinally speaking) should be, "When did Jesus become more like God?" Because I think of lot of the confusion over who he is stems from a failure to see or account for the change that occurred with his resurrection. Honestly speaking, I don't think it can be understood. Matter of fact, I'm inclined to think it may have been intentionally devised and propounded by the intelligentsia of the day to suppress and subject (to their control) any and all folk deemed to be of "lessor intellectual ability." edit: To clarify my perspective, I do not believe in the Trinity. However, by and large, even though certain things are rather clear in my own understanding of the issue, I now mostly avoid discussions or debates on the issue - especially with anyone that views or holds it as being a fundamental and necessary part of salvation. Viewed strictly from a sense knowledge perspective, I really do get how or why people see and think of Jesus Christ as being God, and I don't fault them for it. He is, after all, the visible image of God. But from a more spiritual perspective, I see and think of him as being distinctly different from God. So, I think of it as all boiling down to the perspective he's viewed from.

Yup. An important point worth putting in bold letters, and repeating.

Not necessarily what most folks already believed, but because it was/is essentially impossible to understand the Trinitarian doctrine. Well, it simply made so much more sense. I agree. It's not that hard to overlook (once you decide to.)

Sorry, but I really do not see (nor believe) that this is even remotely close to what was taught. You can disagree with me all you want, but I think I was there early enough, and long enough, to know better. Please don't misunderstand me as saying that I think everything that vpw (or TWI) taught or represented concerning JCING was necessarily done in the best or right way, but I see what you've stated here as being only your own (or somebody's) extrapolation of what you (or somebody) seem(s) to think was taught. I also don't think vpw was "denying that the Lord Jesus has had a hand in anything that's been going on for the last 2,000 years." Come on folks, that's pretty extreme.