TLC

Incidentally, the following are exclusively your words and thoughts, and do not in any way come anywhere even remotely close to mine: In a broad and generally sense of the word, yes, I do not think humility is anyone here's longsuit. (Myself included.) So there...

Well, if adapting (for lack of a better word) one's fundamental basis for reality (i.e., what is true) so as to allow for "help from above" (as another way to say it) is (as seems to be in your mind) only perceived as some sort of abandonment of (or disregard for) genuine intelligence or sound reasoning, then that appears to be the perspective of someone that has never actually (or genuinely) experienced help from above.

Frankly, I don't see why (or how) believing in the resurrection of Christ would ever result from the intellectual processing of "evidence," for some number of reasons. Perhaps this is a bit repetitive, but any and all experiential (or, experimental - if you prefer) evidence (as commonly defined) actually leads to the opposite conclusion - there isn't any resurrection from death. The simple fact is, the ONLY reason anyone nowadays (really) believes that Christ was raised from the dead and lives forevermore, is that they have opened themselves up to the possibility that they won't (rather, that they just can't) make it - or "make sense of it" (... I'm hesitant to think this can be strictly defined, or narrowed down to certain few words) - with their own limited and/or failed abilities. If it (i.e., believing in the resurrection of Christ, which equates to salvation) were dependent on man's intellectual prowess or ability to "put together the evidence" (however you care to say or think of it)... then there is little doubt that those that were smarter or endowed with more intellectual or reasoning ability (or maybe even just "better access" to evidence) would be at the front of the line for salvation. Making God a respecter of persons, don't you think? Why so advantage some, if that were the case, when it comes to salvation?

call it what you will, it doesn't make it any less true.

You do know and realize that this is the real crux of true (i.e., genuine) Christianity, don't you? I've contended elsewhere on this site (I forget where, or in exactly what manner) that believing in the death and resurrection of Christ is (in this day and time) intrinsic to believing anything aside from or beyond what is (or can be) received and known only by our physical senses. In other words, it is what breaks the bondage to our physical senses of what can be believed. And, in light of that, there is presently no valid material "proof" of his resurrection... for if there were any, believing God would remain bound to the material reality of our senses. This is why no one ever REALLY believes in the resurrection of Christ unless their heart is opened to it. And only when the inherent hardness of a man(or woman)'s heart is softened, does it ever allow room for it. Furthermore, I personally believe that a real softening of the heart starts with the recognition and acknowledgment of something written in Rom. 3:23. And when we "get" the reason (i.e., the heartfelt need) for our own redemption, verse 24 (of Rom. 3) springs to life within us... as it's understood why Christ is (and has to be) alive. Anything else no longer makes sense. Thus, leaving Rom. 3:23 (or its equivalent) out of the picture seems to stop anyone at the cross of Christ

Sure... just like you'd ask a blind man for directions. (see Rom.5:25, written by one that was, in fact, a Pharisee of the Pharisees. ) both end up in a ditch.

If you were as well versed in scripture as you seemingly suppose yourself to be (a rather ubiquitous attribute here at GSC), I'm curious as to why you would so glibly fail to mention or otherwise account for Luke 18:31-34 or John 20:9. However, that said, maybe the most sensible reason is like the plain and obvious reason they (all) missed it back then. It was hid from them. Yep. Like it or not, God is sovereign, and can (and does) do things like that.... p.s. Perhaps you already have an argument prepared against the meaning (and clarity) of Dan.9:26. Wouldn't really surprise me any at this point, given your stated position on the matter.

Well, if you (or anyone else reading this) honestly want a serious answer to what those two gospels are (and some comparisons between them), then I think this old farmer's explanation of it (from scripture) actually does it in a way that is about as clear and simple as I could find in a relatively short amount of time searching the Internet:

Not true. What part of worship/serve do you not understand? Given the clear context of "everyone" doing this, the slash represents the allowance of a choice between between whichever word was/is/would be the most appropriate or applicable to any given situation. But you, along with Raf, and God knows who else, prefer to choose to read/hear only the words that you want to read or hear, and then proceed to speak/write/rant in much the same judgmental and condescending manner that twi and the wc was/is so notoriously adept at, while totally ignoring or purposefully obscuring the actual heart and intent of what was originally said. What is rude? Perhaps some here might want to ask themselves that same question. So many are so easily offended anymore, seems it;s not just the younger generation that are "snowflakes." Furthermore, I'm not mad or upset with anyone here. I'm far from a professional writer or "communicator" of sorts, but neither do I consider myself as useless or totally incompetent in that arena. I'll simply say that my thinking is obviously on a far different wavelength than others here, and for that reason, I am out.

So, after plainly opining I think Raf would stipulate to "obeying and serving himself," you're now going to turn around and call my same statement of that incorrect? Care to explain that, WW? And for the record, I never accused Raf (or anyone else) of worshiping anything - though evidently, he was exceedingly quick to presume what I wrote meant that, and in such haste to be offended, missed entirely the basic meaning and heartfelt message of what was really said (and intended.) Fact is, there was a purpose (which seems to have eluded others here) for my writing worship/serve in that post, as I am well aware that servitude doesn't necessarily equate to worship. But if you, or anyone else, finds and takes what I wrote to be rude, then so be it. I am more than done with this. (And as rude as Raf takes others to be, he is surely no less rude himself.)

Evidently you're still having difficulty making any sort of distinction between the gospel of the Kingdom, which Jesus and the 12 preached, and the gospel of grace, which Paul taught.

It's truer than you think, Raf. Regardless of whether or not you care to admit it, you obey and serve yourself.

There's something referenced in scripture as being "utterance," and more specifically in one place as being, "a door of utterance." It's not rocket science to realize that all communication (like a radio wave between two walkie-talkies) involves senders and receivers. But if one isn't tuned in to the other and each are talking on different wavelengths, the message - at best, if any noise is even heard - is garbled. If the goal is to communicate... then some sort of commonality (or synchronization) has to be in place between the sender and receiver. But if there isn't... well, to me that would appear to be a rather tightly closed door. I lean towards the belief that everyone worships/serves one sort of god or another, regardless of who or what they call it, even if it appears to be nothing more than themselves. Frankly, I don't know that it's possible not to. However, seems fundamental ignorance of who or what anyone serves or is captivated by (or addicted to, if you prefer) is also very commonplace. (And in light of that, maybe the "keep your religion to yourself" is fairy sound advice, as it might run parallel to the old adage, "better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.") Given some of what you have indicated was said to you, I suppose I'd be inclined to question and dig rather deeply into how well they really know what they say they believe. (...'cause there appears to be some real flaws there.) Which, by the way (if you haven't noticed already), is pretty much the direction I was headed with that posting of "What do you think of schmoe and schmoe" who played such a significant role in the miracle working ministry of Rev. Healed-A-Lot?

Do you understand that His ministry was to Israel (not to the Gentiles) and that those words were spoken to those (of Israel) that were with him that day? see Matt. 10:5; Rom. 15:8. Aside from Mark 16:17 (which, once again, appears to be specifically given only to Israel), what scriptural references or basis, if any, might you have for that being suitable or applicable to the church of the body that Paul ushered in? Just because that was said or taught in twi doesn't make or mean it's true. So says... James? Ah, ha. Another of the Israelites, and a rather obvious adherent to the law. Faith without works is dead, is it? Why adulterate or otherwise (in any way) frustrate the grace of God? It's clearly and plainly written that faith is counted for righteousness (Rom. 4:5), and no where in the church epistles does it require some sort of activation or proof or validation by "works" in order for it to be genuine and real. Perhaps you think that little statement from James and the Pauline doctrines of grace are symbiotic, and can peacefully cohabit the same space in your mind. Well, they aren't... and they don't. Though they may not be diametrically opposed, fight against each other they will, and do. And unless (and/or until) you grasp and understand that subtle difference between the two, I suspect it would be (probably is) virtually impossible not to boast a little (in one way or another) of whatever works result from your own (or anyone else's) believing. Or, on the other hand, pass a bit of judgment and/or reproof (i.e., condemnation) upon oneself (or others) when "it ain't there." Maybe you've never seen or heard of anyone (or yourself) give witness to or carry on about what a great job (or great failure) of believing happened or took place somewhere. But, I doubt that too, if you really want to be honest about it. Yeah, take the blame for it yourself when it fails... but at least "mouth" the praises to God when it does works. Think you do one half of that only, but not the other? Really? So easy it is to pretend, and deceive ourselves.

Agreed... though I've already tipped my hand as to my perspective on the matter. Feel free to have my previous post moved to doctrinal if there is any continued discussion or interest in doing so.

So... why all the concern and so much focus on healing, or "healing miracles"? Have you ever stopped yourself, and very carefully (and honestly) thought that question through? Given the nature and tone of so many of your postings here, I doubt it. Maybe you haven't (or can't) because it's simply beyond your own knowledge and understanding of various signs and miracles that are recorded in the scriptures. But, rather than rain too much or too hard on your parade here... maybe I better just leave it at that. And if you can eventually figure it out, then great. But if not... well, it'll all wash out in the end. So what if healings and miracles make a few things in this (temporal) life easier and/or more pleasant. If that's all what it's about... why be so impressed by it? Who or what does it draw attention to? However, I'll leave you with these few little thoughts. THIS life (in the flesh, that we have now) was really never intended to be "forever." And if you believe that, then is it so difficult to also believe that maybe... just maybe... all that really matters is how anything and everything in this life might or can (and does) best prepare us for our (eternal) life that is yet to come? Israel (the best of the best of all humanity) experienced more (genuine) signs, miracles, and wonders than you can shake a stick at. Yet, think carefully what it did (moreover, what it didn't) do for them, on a lasting (or eternal) basis. And we're not talking about fake stuff or quackery. Those were "the real deal." Yet, in the much larger and broader scope of things, seems it didn't much matter. And God Almighty knows that, too.

TLC........as I understand it, Momentus was a short, intense experience. If you read the entire thread, Steve Lortz... Yes, I recognize Steve's name from earlier postings... and also recall reading a number of previous postings regarding Momentus. However, it appears that you may have missed the intent of my post. Given the magnitude of elitism so deeply fostered within and (somewhat permanently) engrained into the WC, anyone referring to that as mere "Mickey Mouse Club" stuff evidently either wasn't close enough, familiar enough, or perceptive enough to see or recognize the extent of its effectiveness. No matter how intense and/or provocative Momentus (or any other) experience might be, any comparison to years of WC training might (at best) be likened to throwing frogs into a pot of boiling water (a certain number of which are sure to jump out) versus putting them in cold water and slowing turning the heat up (which surely cooks them, one and all.) ... in other words, no matter what size your ego was going into the WC, the programing process ensured that it was enhanced and thoroughly "baked in" to your life and walk with God.

Wasn't Momentus training a relatively short experience? Frankly, that simply strikes me as something said and claimed by someone quite distant from (and well outside the pale of) early (or earlier) wc training, or perhaps even HQ staff...

Comatose for 15 days? Thought he went to heaven? Okay, could be... Dead (no breathing, no heart beat) for 15 days? yeah... what Raf said.

not a problem - it's why I asked for some clarification. well, not sure how you're relating this to anything in this (or much of any other doctrinal) thread, but... just for the record, I was at HQ in 84, and at the time... 1) I took "needs and wants parallel" as meaning "parallel with scripture" (not "needs and wants" parallel to or in alignment with each other) 2) I didn't actually hear, take or acknowledge the "tithe" as being either appropriate or applicable. Being on staff, neither was "abundant sharing" taken to mean a giving of monies - aside from the rather rare (and odd feeling) request to contribute a few dollars towards some "special occasion" gift here or there. Giving time and services? Well, that's another issue altogether, but without a doubt falling under the umbrage of "God will bless you back for it..." Probably would have been far easier just to "give money," but probably less rewarding in other ways. Nowadays, I'm not so persuaded that we really know much of the why's and wherefores of God's goodness and blessings. Seems best just to accept them as being "free" whenever we're tuned in enough to even recognize them as such... and finally, 3) I was (along with quite a few others) quite oblivious to the numerous sexual shenanigans (and crimes) that happened in and around HQ. Sorry to hear that you experienced it as much as you apparently did. It should've never happened.

I'm not following what you're trying to say. How all what got "got over our heads"? And I'm not sure what you mean by quoting "Revelation is not for us"? Yeah, (aside from what Paul wrote) I think it's written to Israel. Doesn't mean that we aren't supposed to (or don't) learn anything from it... Perhaps you could explain what you mean a bit more.

...as surely as the serpent will bite without enchantment... it's simply the nature of the beast.

Ask whatever you want. Perhaps it'll stir up some new thought or perspective on something old...

Ha! He didn't get the moniker "round windows" for no reason...

So, do you think Paul contradicted himself in any of his writings, Raf?