Charity

Hi T-Bone, do you or anyone else know of someone who has had a different experience than the above when they first began to speak in tongues? Do you know of people who spoke in tongues following vp's instructions, but who later realized it wasn't genuine?

The unsettling part of this is that like most people in twi now, I used to believe the GP when I was in twi. Never questioned it once - just complete ignorance on my part that it were teachings like this that were behind the absent Christ in my life, and I wasn't even aware that Christ was absent because of how focused I was on the "man of god for our day and time" aka vp and his teachings while being surrounded by "like-minded believers". How to move on? I think of what Jesus said in John 14:27, "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid." Jesus will set things right, maybe only in part now but one day, in all things.

Exactly and why would God even need to teach, or the spirit of truth need to learn, as stated in the twi's GP while the verses say that the spirit will hear, will take [2x])? Google's definition of "teach" is to show or explain to (someone) how to do something so what's their sick reason for using the word teach? Maybe they just wanted it to flow with the next part of their sick GP that says "Your spirit teaches your mind." (I wish there was a "vomit" emoji.)

Google definition of imply: strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated). Why do they have to imply anything when verses 14 and 15 expressly state the truth. And they do more than just imply when the article later declares what the GP is: The great principle we see from these verses is that God, Who is Spirit, teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit. Your spirit teaches your mind. Then your spiritual power becomes manifested in the senses realm as you act or as you speak out.

Even after being on GSC for months, I am still shocked, deeply saddened and angry by the continued deception twi uses when teaching on scriptures concerning Jesus. The words in purple below are taken from twi's article on the Great Principle (GP), the website for which is shown on page 1 of this thread. (the strikethroughs are mine) Referring to the gift of holy spirit, John 16:13 says, “…for he [it] shall not speak of himself [itself]; but whatsoever he [it] shall hear, that shall he [it] speak….” This implies that your spirit, the gift, hears and learns from God and obeys what He tells it to say. Nowhere in this verse does it say the spirit of truth learns from God! We can see this again in verse 15 - no you do not! Verse 15 tells you exactly who is giving the words to the spirit of truth. Jesus Christ says, “All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he [it, the gift of holy spirit] shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” This is the first part of our basic principle—God, Who is Spirit, teaches your spirit. This verse does not say “God…teaches…!” Jesus says that all the Father has is his (Jesus’), then he says the spirit of truth shall take of mine (Jesus’) and shall shew it unto you – the Spirit of truth takes from Jesus! Jesus just got the ax (discharged, fired, expelled, rejected) deliberately by twi! The next verse – which they left out in their article – confirms verse 13. 14 He will glorify me (Jesus) because it is from me (Jesus) that he will receive what he will make known to you. So much for twi's rightly dividing of God's word.

Thanks OldSkool, Romans 8 is pretty clear about there being a spirit of Christ that is different from the spirit/soul of man. I agree with what you say about vp's teaching on spirit.

Very interesting post T-Bone. Quick question for now. You wrote:, "The spirit…the mind…the soul…are we talking about the same thing?" For soul - are you referring to “soul life” (not sure anymore what this is) or “spirit life?” Your quotes above on the role of the Holy Spirit relates to the Spirit giving life.

As a follow up to what I wrote above, I believe the gift of holy spirit is not an "it" as twi would want us to believe. The spirit in us is alive and life giving. twi might argue that a tree is a living thing and we call it an "it," but the big difference is that you cannot converse with a tree nor have a personal relationship with one. They want to call the gift of holy spirit an "it" (like a car) so that they can insist that the spirit needs to be operated by us. That leaves the Greek pronoun for "the spirit" being interpreted as "he" which it is in most Bible versions. I'm okay with that whether the spirit is a separate entity in addition to God and Jesus or not. What I do know is that because of the gift of holy spirit in us, we can have a 2-way relationship and fellowship with both God and Christ who are the source of all spiritual blessings.

Mike, blame me all you want for not reading my "long posts" (like yours are always short.) I did use footnotes to keep my latest one short and to the point and even said you could ignore them if you wanted. As to "who said what to whom," I told you in one post that I put my words in italics and the next time I used "You wrote" and "I wrote." I'm sorry if all these three aids were too complicated for you to follow. Based on your last two posts to me, I believe you just didn't want to read or think about my post about Christ. As you said, you prefer discussing "more important things" like the Great Principle. No problem, I'm willing to move on too.

I think Mike might have given up on me since I've become a "wrangler" in his mind. This could be a , a , a or just plain sad for which I could use a (and a hot chocolate)!

Good point!

How was Paul portrayed? Wasn't this when vp said Paul was out of fellowship with God because he had not listened to some prophecies telling him not to go but he went anyway so vp said the most Paul could do was almost convince Agrippa to become a Christian? I can't remember for sure but vp might even have said that Paul never won anyone to the Lord after this. I have to question if he was accurate about this.

Sorry, this post is long but mostly because of the footnotes below (which can be ignored), but I am trying to be thorough and accurate. You wrote: I spotted the pattern after Twinky and Nathan's wrangle, so when Charity set me up for a third time I asked her if she was going to do the same wrangle, before I answered to her setup. My question sailed right over her head… My corrections Mike: · You did not ask me that question at all. You asked me, “Why do you ask, Charity?” in response to 1my reply to you on a different thread. · Your question did not sail right over my head. 2I answered it. · I did not set you up and my questions were not a setup – this idea was in your head - it was not in my heart. You would have realized this if you had read the 3beginning of my post. Instead you sent me a 4snarky response to it. You wrote: …and she immediately found my answer falling short. Then WHY do you go back and forth for pages about "intellectual" topics (e.g., the "go-cart" analogy) when the posters obviously find your answers “falling short.” I did get personal in my reply to your answers because the topic was about having a personal relationship with Christ, our Lord and Savior. I suggest you use the disclaimer "Do not reply!" in the future if you want to end a topic prematurely. 1I wrote, “It would be nice to hear you talk more about the "ever present Christ, spiritually within us." What does this mean to you? Other than being inside us, how do you fellowship with Christ throughout the day? 2I am interested in hearing about Christ in your life without any mention of the collaterals. 3Hi, my replies are in italics. I am asking Christ for guidance as I respond. Looking back on what you wrote Mike, I see a pattern of you saying and doing things that sound and look godly but without a sense of warmth, affection, comfort or friendliness in how you speak about Christ in your life. You will see what I mean when/if you read my replies. It makes me think about my relationships with others throughout my life. Except for my very best friend in childhood, I kept an emotional distance from others. Even though my mother took good care of me, I never experienced a close relationship with her (except at her death bed) because most of her true self was oppressed because of my father's treatment of her. My relationship with my father was a desperate need for his love and trying to please him enough so that he would stop drinking (i.e., codependent). Only my children could opened up my heart to feel, give and receive such warmth. I have no idea if this describes any part of your life, but if it does, I can honestly say that within the past few months from being on GSC, my relationship with God and Christ has begun to change from an intellectual knowledge of them to a personal one. 4How'd I do on that, not mentioning the collaterals, ma'am? I haven't gone back to read my post yet [the one I sent you], so I'm hearing TV game show music in my head as I prepare to go read it. If you were my English Comp. 101 professor, and considering the brevity of my requested essay, what grade would you give me? Try to keep that grade separate from the grade you'd give me as a Theology professor would, reading the same mini essay.

Were any facts given by vp to support this assertion that “Christian” is a derogatory term given by the persecutors. Because they talked about the “Christ in” stuff they were ridiculed with the name."? According to Acts 11:26, "and when he (Barnabas) had found him (Saul), he brought him to Antioch. And so it came to pass that for a whole year they met with the church and taught a great number of people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." The word "Christian" has been used respectfully for centuries as a name for those who love and follow Christ. So even if there was a grain of truth behind what vp said, he could easily have chosen to continue honoring the name instead. His real reason for doing what he did had nothing to do with the origin of the name. I believe his intent was to derogate the name himself for self-serving, cult-like purposes like the ones chockfull shared above.

Sounds very similar to the things Harvey Weinstein did and he's in jail now.

Okay, so both the Lord [God] used in Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 in the article refer to the Old Testament verse, Joel 2:32 - "And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved." (NIV) The NASB Lexicon shows "LORD" as the word Yah·weh which is the proper name of the God of Israel. Here's the thing though - when you read the above 2 verses in the Bible, the context of each tells you that they are OT quotes. For Acts 2:21 - the context begins with Acts 2:16 which says, "But this is that which has been spoken through the prophet Joel." For Romans 12:13 - the contexts begins with Romans 10:11 which says, "For the Scripture says, Whoever believes in him will not be put to shame. The article, however, does not do this and that's why it drove me nuts. Sentence #1 refers to Romans 10:9 (NT) - "because if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from among the dead, you will be saved." BUT sentence #2 joins both the New Testament (NT) and OT together - "This salvation ( NT) is available through Jesus Christ (NT) to whoever calls on the name of the Lord our God (OT) and believes (NT)." I believe this is confusing, inaccurate and misleading - a big Sentence #3 then quotes Acts 2:21 but does not reveal it's an OT quote - "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord [God] shall be saved." Whether these 3 sentences were intentional in order to mislead the reader, I don't know. All I do know, is that while it drove me nuts. only with the help of the website Twinky sent, as well as me looking at the Hebrew lexicon and going back and forth from the new and old testaments multiple times, was I able to figure it out. Some others, however, might have simply accepted sentences #2 and 3 as a NT truth without realizing it just so happened to leave Jesus out. Did I just make a mountain out a molehill? Maybe, but for me personally, I was not a happy camper when I first read it.

Thanks Twinky, I just saw your reply and am reading the website now.

Not to belabor the point, but I don't remember it being this blatant before I left twi in 1986. Did it or did it begin with lcm some time after the "fog years? I mean, they've added [God] after the word "Lord" in Acts 2:21! ("And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord [God] shall be saved.") A simple check on Bible Hub's interlinear site, not to mention every version out there, shows this to be wrong. Sorry, but I'm just in a state of unbelief, but I'll get over it - where's my hot chocolate?!!!

I just haven't seen this type of blatant deceit before but then again, I haven't read anything by twi in decades. So this Lord [God] isn't new for them?

What the heck? Never seen this before. I spied something in the article "Reconciliation is Available to Whosoever Believes" (pg. 8 twi's latest mag). When did the Lord become "the Lord [God] in twi? The author wrote, "This salvation is available through Jesus Christ to whoever calls on the name of the Lord our God and believes." Then he quotes Acts 2:21 as, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord [God] shall be saved." Soon after he quotes Romans 10:13 as, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord [God] shall be saved." Is this a recent fabrication from twi's new research team? Later on, the article says, "Ananias initially had some concerns about reaching out to Saul as he had heard of his terrible reconciliation. But God reassured Ananias, and he responded obediently to God. This is then immediately contradicted when Acts 9:17 is quoted correctly, "And Ananias went his way and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, has sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost [holy spirit].” God is not the author of confusion, so what the h*ll is this?

I admit I have never watched The Blues Brothers but that is an incredibly entertaining scene!

I don't know if I'm just mentally tired , but I can't wrap my head around the above at the moment. Comparing it, however, to the simplicity with which twi sneaks their erroneous doctrine into the article "Abraham and Sarah" (found on pg. 18 of their latest mag) is interesting. In a number of verses, they give the definition of "faith" (which is a noun) as meaning "believing" (which is a verb). Examples: regarding Abraham in Rom 4:19, the author writes, "And being not weak in faith [believing], he considered not..." In Hebrews 11:11, the articles says, "Through faith [manifestation of believing] also Sarah herself received strength..." (bold lettering is mine) It's so subtle that I didn't even catch it until I got near to the end of the article where the author concludes, "Abraham and Sarah established a legacy of believing that continues to this day - both their names are recorded in Hebrew, chapter 11, which has been referred to 'The Believers' Hall of Fame.' You and I continue that legacy in our time as the children of Abraham by believing." (underlining is mine) Faith (or trust), as a noun, is something we have and our faith is in God who is faithful (reliable). Believing, however, is an action that focuses on us and according to twi's law of believing, it is what we must do in order to receive the promises of God. So twi's doctrinal error about "pistis" continues to pollute people's minds as in the old days.

Thank you OldSkool.

I agree wholeheartedly. Way to go Christ and OldSkool .

I think you are very uncomfortable with reading my post because you are very uncomfortable with intimacy even when that intimacy is with the one who suffered and died personally for you, the one who understands all the crap we hide ourselves in. This deep discomfort is because of fear Mike - it is what I lived so much in throughout my entire life - before, during and after twi. It took Christ a long time to be able to reach him, but praise God he has.