TLC

I doubt anyone here would seriously object much to any tangential discussion to this particular thread... Besides, I'm curious as to why (or what part) you don't think you can agree with.

Yeah, I didn't actually think that was what you meant; I was merely stating the only way of looking at it that I could possibly agree with it. Although, after re-reading your previous post, I am a bit curious as to your use (and/or expanded meaning) of this phrase: Why the caps, and why the (tm)? Seems I'm missing something there. Because I don't necessarily (i.e., probably don't) claim or believe whatever (and what all) you mean by that. Plainly stated, I do not see the gospel of Paul being exactly the same as the gospel of the Kingdom, which Jesus and the 12 preached. But, before diving deep into that, perhaps you wouldn't mind expounding on what all you mean by that "tm" phrase, and why you think it's the mold that any contradictory scriptures need to be cast into.

If interpreting that to mean man's perception of Yahweh evolved over time, or maybe even how Yahweh chose to reveal Himself, I would likely agree. Well, possibly not. It appears that Israel's relationship with Yahweh was predominately, if not entirely, based upon what was or could be known by the physical senses. Simply put, the relationship that the church of the body of Christ (which Paul introduced) has with God... isn't. Without any understanding of said difference, I'm inclined to agree with you that it's not difficult to see why anyone might think that. Given that I'm inclined more towards the thinking that God may not have anticipated the rebellion prior to God's creation of Lucifer (as it is written that Lucifer was, at the time of his creation, "perfect"), I see that there is probably an element of truth in that statement (regardless of how difficult it might be to pinpoint or precisely define it.) Admittedly, I'm not keenly aware of exactly how either Geer or CES endeavored to address the issue. But, in light of the omniscience and sovereignty of God revealed elsewhere in scripture, I am somewhat aware of the difficulty of it. However, oddly enough, it is the combination (or conundrum) of these two aspects that offers an answer in my mind as to why God may have (re)designed and/or created man the way that He did in Genesis... If given free will (whatever that means), a "perfect creation" can (and/or might at some time in the eternal future) fail... as appears may have happened once already with Lucifer... what or how does God do or create any different? Ah, well... perhaps you see the problem. If it was created perfect the first time, by definition, there can be no improvement on perfection. What there can be, however, was (and is, in my opinion) a "proving" time designed for what is made/created. The first man, Adam, failed... (which God anticipated.) But a redemption plan was already in place. As I see it, this life in the flesh - that Adam had (and that we still have and know) - was, never designed nor intended to be "forever."

And how much of John 6 do you think might also be a parable?

Well, I did not say (and do not think) that the Bible contains the revealed Word of God. Rather, I believe that it is the revealed Word of God. But, seems there is a bit more I would need to explain... No, I do not believe that the Bible is (much less, might contain) ALL the Word of God, as I see the Word of God as Living (and hence, not something limited or bound.) It is only the portion which was revealed to and written by (or perhaps for, if dictated) men (prophets, if you will) chosen by God to do so. Furthermore, if the Bible should be defined (and I'm not saying it is) as ALL of what has God has ever given to said men and intended to be revealed, then it's rather likely that we don't have all the Bible, much less have perfection in what we do have of it.

Well, I don't see that he ever said or revealed much of anything either (if anything) about life in heaven, or man living eternally anywhere other than here on earth. Matter of fact, seems I don't see in anywhere else in scripture, aside from certain things that Paul spoke of. P.S. The parable of Abraham's bosom is just that... a parable.

Given how easy it usually is to learn at least something, it seems rather dumb (and a real waste of time) in one doesn't. At the very least you'd think that you might learn how to better communicate with other people (only) through written words...

Granted, most (in the Way) did... and occasionally (in certain casual conversations), I undoubtedly did also. However, most times (in more thoughtful conversations) I was quite careful to note that the Bible wasn't actually "the Word of God, " but rather, "the revealed Word of God." This was probably due, at least in part, to the much thought I had given trying to wrap by head around what the "logos" of John 1 meant. After concluding that it (i.e., the Word) was spiritual, it only made sense that it wasn't the exact equivalent of "the Bible," which is physical.

Can anyone here actually show how or point to where anything written in the Old Testament speaks of an eternal afterlife, living in heaven (i.e., any place other than on earth)? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think it's there. All I've honestly been able to find or see there is the promise and hope of new (resurrected) life in what might be aptly described as "heaven on earth." And, even if (yea, when) at some point that requires new heavens and a new earth (Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22), there appears to be no indication of man living anywhere aside from here on earth. All of which raises the question... If these prophets of old (and the nation of Israel) didn't actually have or believe in this apparently much latter view of heaven (i.e., inherent within the Pauline epistles), then what logic exists in thinking that they actually had any more of a belief in any sort of eternal life and everlasting torment in hell? The grave was the grave. It was not a place or torment, nor was it a place where man could know or experience anything. There was no conscious or awareness of anything. Thus, as I see it, this "mythology of hell" - as it is referenced in this thread - seems to be a rather pagan invention, and never had any other place in Old Testament scriptures. But, if you think otherwise, please feel free to show me where this is wrong.

As a follow up to that last question, what does the destruction of a soul mean to you? Or what do you make of the destruction of "brute beasts" spoken of in 2Peter 2:!2? Do they "utterly perish," or not?

Well, so happens that I don't. But neither do I agree with that. However, allow me to ask this of you... If you suppose that it can or will purify man's sin nature, do you likewise suppose that it can or will purify the devil? If not, why not?

So, you've said absolutely nothing about what you believe, or that makes any sense whatsoever.

You want undisputable, concrete, verifiable by the senses "proof," Raf, before you can believe it? Ha! You will never have or get it, until it's too late. Why? Because that methodology or approach just doesn't work. Never has and apparently, it never would. God has already tried it for hundred and hundreds of years with Israel - yet, here you are, thinking you're so much better, smarter, or less stiff necked than they were. Believe it or not, the law was actually given to convict Israel (separated and elevated above all other nations of the world), that they - at best - were still... well, in your words, outright stupid and in need of a diaper change. Ya, you go, Raf. Have your fun here. You's (and so many others nowadays) are all so much smarter and more intelligent than all them back then were!

Likewise, I don't find much reason to believe in some sort of eternal torment, as fire eventually consumes whatever is fueling it. However, I do read that at, or after, the end (i.e., the great white throne judgement), those that are not saved or "whosoever is not written in the book of life" are cast into the lake of fire. What do you suppose that means, Mark?

Not that you said this, Twinky, but I trust that you know they didn't strangely or suddenly just "become" legalistic overnight. Hindsight being what it is, the roots of legalism within twi were well developed long before any of us (old timers included) were involved. So much so, that frankly speaking, it can be somewhat shocking when you really start digging around beneath the surface. How else do you think ego's became so easily puffed up and bloated, if not through legalism? You ever see grace do that?

You know, the more I think about this statement, the more troubling it becomes. Why? Well, primarily because of the deceptiveness of it. Here it is in a nutshell: 1) Intricately associate TWI with dispensationalism and "the gospel of grace" (which has been so easily done by so many, for many, many, many years.) 2) Discredit TWI (which has also become rather easy to do.) 3) Point to dispensationalism as being one of the main, root problems of TWI. 4) Conclude that dispensationlism itself is all f'd up and must be avoided at all costs. (And you might as well toss Paul's epistles in with it while you're at it.) To one degree or another (some more, some less), it's been happening here at GSC for as long as I can recall reading here. (and previously, I've been rather viciously maligned or slandered for even daring to bring up the issue or speak out on such matters...)

yeah, so what. lots of repetition and/or being more popular doesn't necessarily make it any more right or more scientific. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47vDpY3eMXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd5-dHxOQhg go ahead and call them fake, it's your choice to think whatever you want to. I just think it's unfortunate that you think others looking at this from a different perspective than what you're accustomed to is so incredibly "stupid." (although you seem to define arrogance differently, that appears to me to fit the mold for it quite well.) anyways, I'm done with this thread. it's obvious that you're not here to honestly discuss, but rather, just to garner more support for and/or promote your own religious (purported to be "more intelligent") beliefs.

If you were more concerned with finding or learning how it's possible than you've been with finding or learning how it's not possible, perhaps you'd end up with something closer to the truth. But, not only might that conflict with some of your other beliefs, it would undoubtedly take a lot more time and effort, which you evidently don't have nor care for. And, given your rather obvious disdain for much of anything that I might think or have to say on this thread, neither do I care to butt heads over it. However, I think there actually are some plausible answers to these issues that can be found on the Internet, IF one is sufficiently motivated and intelligent enough to know how to look for them. This is the result of a two minute search on google, so it's probably barely scratching the surface of what's out there: http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Chaldeans.html#.W8UET2nn-Uk And as for the length of years they lived, evidently you've never looked at or consider the possible (and probable) effect of the hyperbaric condition that likely existed prior to the flood (which, of course, you suppose and say never happened...)

Oh, I'm quite aware of what was and wasn't taught "back in the day," which is why I rather specifically referred to what was practiced. You can talk about the apostle Paul and the grace administration all you want. But, if you miss both why and when it started, and fail to adhere to it on a practical level... how well "aligned" with it do you honestly think that is? (Perhaps you might try reading my previous post a bit more carefully.) Quite frankly, I suppose anyone that thinks that vpw (or twi) aligned themselves with Paul's gospel, evidently doesn't know one or the other of them very well. That said, if one isn't capable of making a clear distinction and separation between the gospel of the kingdom and the Paul's gospel of grace, what do they really know or understand about dispensationalism?

Was probably like that stuff used in coffee... half and half.

Oh, it's biblical enough. Comes right straight from Exodus 18. You didn't know that?

Not true. Just where do you think or suppose the "Way Tree" teachings came from? Truth is that in practice (even if not as obvious in its doctrinal teachings), twi never actually aligned itself all that well with dispensationalism. So, so many things (some being much more disguised than others) were right straight out of the old testament...

Yeah, truth is, I wasn't trying to derail the conversation, and have no motive or reason for being upset, as I'm not trying to make you "fall" for anything. So, call my reasoning flawed, or whatever else you care or want to. It comes as no surprise that a two dimensional approach to a three dimensional problem might only see any three dimensional thinking as not only an insult to their way of looking at it, but as "outright stupidity."

Very well then, be happy and content with your own smartness and smugness, Raf. This will all wash out in the end, when there will be no excuses for what we thought and how we have lived. https://www.wanttoknow.info/i/what-is-reality

Science and genetics have and are built upon certain premises, which presume certain constants... which neither you nor any of your other "super smart" friends can absolutely prove. My previous post and statements are neither BS nor a bluff, and the only thing you really appear to be calling out is your own arrogance.