Mike

Thank you. I appreciate that. If it is any consolation to you, I realize that I come across that way at times. I try my best to avoid it and/or fix it, but the misunderstandings grow faster than I can fix them.

WHY would I want all this negative, insult saturated "attention" ? I feel a duty to bring up things that, to me, are obviously missing to the story that is presented here. I press on with this duty IN SPITE of all the negative attention, not to generate it.

I wasn't BSing there. I was merely saying again (in another way), that if any thoughtful posts on the Bible or what we were taught in PFAL got buried, PLEASE re-post them. I am pretty good at reading and responding to short current posts, but when there is a large flurry of many posts in one hour, or a few long posts overnight, I get way behind and don't mean to ignore so many posts. Many of the long ones lately I have not even had time to carefully and thoroughly read,

Once again, your gotcha filter caused you to be totally wrong here on this point. I do NOT support the Steady State conjecture. If you go back and read for genuine understanding what I wrote, you will see that I was decrying the fraudulent reporting of SURETY attached to the Big Bang, as if it had been proved with all the big guns of sure science. I'm not saying I support Steady State, I'm saying that the "proof" of the Big Bang is shakey, and that uncertainty is hidden for purposes of establishing a State controlled science/religion. Already the science/medical religious kingdom of the adversary is uniting with the globalist government kingdom to someday form a State Religion for cosmology, Earth's history, and of course climate. It is the false surety of the Big Bang that I decry. Please re-read and maybe you will see that. Surety's definition is evolving from counting the significant figures in a match, to counting the votes that will transfer political power. "The People have voted for the Big Bang so it is sure" will be the mindset that embraces false surety, as it already is in some quarters.

Oh, yes, that definitely happened. I am so swamped by posts that keeping track of "who" gets lost in the shuffle, as well as "which thread is which" gets lost. The interesting posts I want to respond to are many, but piled on top of them are posts like yours here, that are basically an investigation of me. I wish we could avoid making me the topic of discussion, but I understand the reasons why. I am too effective at presenting opposing views, and they must be silenced or buried.

No, it has nothing to do with the Bible. Comparing the surety of "...Seems to me..." with the surety some theories in science enjoy is what I am focused at here. My whole set of points here has to do with LEVELS of SURETY that different sciences (and different theories) enjoy. That is a subtle topic. Tyson presents the Big Bang as if it enjoys the extreme surety that Physics in general enjoys compared to the other sciences. But what he hides here is that within Physics, the Big Bang is at the bottom of the SURETY list. It has none of the type of surety many theories in Physics enjoy. Surety is measured by the number of significant figures a theoretically predicted number matches with it's corresponding number, which is measured in a laboratory. And now the derailment of the Absent Christ is REALLY over the line. I was only trying to give a tiny answer to Nathan_Jr. Oh well. I am now overloaded with a large backup of posts on two threads that I really want to respond to, so let's PLEASE leave this off-topic tangent. Actually I have no where near the time for handling them tonight, so I'm just planting my excuse here, for not responding to so many posts.

Tyson is one of the TV stars that I was talking about. He butchers his review of the Steady State conjecture. He avoids the main objection to Big Bang confirmation, that the Red Shift is a pure doppler effect, while claiming to cover the objections. So_crates, that confirms everything I said. Even repeatability is in there, but then, very dishonestly, it is loosely associated with confirming Big Bang. Tyson is a genuine physicist, and doubles as a chief priest in the Big Bang religion. This video confirms, for me and those who remember the Steady State conjecture, everything I said above about the dishonesty in academia being pounded into mass media for population acceptance.

You seem to use the word "theory" there as if it were not real science. It is, when it passes the test of what constitutes a "real" theory in real science. In order to qualify for "real" theory status an idea/conjecture/hypothesis must be falsefiable, repeatable, and controllable. The Big Bang Conjecture does not qualify as a real theory.

I just gave one example to Bolshevik a few minutes ago.

Yeah, I can understand that. I never really finished, but I wanted to at least say something in the short time I had for it. I was on my way to work at the time. I thought of about 4 specific examples of the general description I gave. What I was describing in general was what some people are now calling "scientism." It is the quasi-religious belief that science is the only way to know for sure. Here is one example. The Big Bang is presented as a sure thing. It is anything but that. They never proved that the Red Shift is a Doppler Effect and ONLY a Doppler Effect. A lot of Physicists knew this in the mid 60s, but the only competing theory at the time, Steady State, was not as dramatic and as sexy as the Big Bang. There was a point in the late 60s where Science TV shows started competing with each other and the Big Bang became the favorite for Nielsen ratings purposes. The limited range that Doppler verification was forgotten, the Steady State Theory become forgotten, and the Big Bang became the "official" science religion. Also lost in all this is the fact that science was not designed to handle non-repeatable phenomena. Repeatability in several forms is always sought when a pretty good theory is being tested for validity. To be really sure in science, repeatability is a MUST. The problem with the Big Bang theory is that it is un-repeatable. Science cannot "run" the Universe one more time to see it the Big Bang happens again. This means the Big Bang is unverifiable, and falsifiable. That means it can't even qualify as a scientific theory. I call it a scientific conjecture. It is like a religion that otherwise genuine scientists engage in with faith in the Big Bang. Cosmology is a genuine science with real scientists engaging in it. But when they go on TV and talk about the Big Bang as if it really happened and science proves it is a total lie, and very well covered up. I hope this answers your awe at not understanding, Bolshevik. The reason I answered your post is the same reason I answered Nathan_Jr's post earlier: I'm so behind in reading and responding it is ridiculous, so I could only pick one to respond to. Wish me luck in finding time to respond to the others eventually.

I was out the door to work when you posted that; just got back and read a lot of your long list of scriptures. Some I can handle fast, some I need a refresher, having put them down decades ago, satisfied I understood them. Explaining them to others is another deal. I saw the pattern to the questions, though, and can try to “mass answer” them with a few words. Then, when time permits, I can go into each individual scripture. */*/*/* Now, let’s get up front about something. No matter what I write as a summary of handling that list, and no matter what amount of text I devote to each scripture, you will find SOMETHING(s) about it to totally reject it, and even if lose the argument with me, you’ll find another set of arguments to maintain your position. Isn’t that so? In other words you don’t have ANY odd feeling right now like you did with the Moody Bible people, right? You aren’t thinking, “What am I going to do if Mike unravels my anti-idol that I’ve built my religious service faith on protecting people from?” I just want you to know that I know that. And of course, you will (and have often) accuse me of the exact same; isn’t that right? You were sure you were right when you slaved for TWI, but now your are sure you are right, again. But THIS time you are really right…. */*/*/* So now I will begin my first attempt to answer you that will surely be rejected for something. I have noticed that God uses angels to do a lot of things. In one account of the burning bush it looks like it is God himself, inside the bush talking to Moses. (Let’s keep the topic unde-railed by Great Principle talk here. Moses probably got spirit before this.) In another account it talks about an angel in the bush operating the Ham Radio for God to speak to Moses. (or something like that) */*/*/* On the Mount of the Transfiguration, there was a vision of Moses and Elijah, but we don’t hear that it was a vision until after it’s over and Jesus told them to be quiet about it. But that vision must have done a lot for them. It was for their believing, and Jesus’ also. But it wasn’t really Moses and Elijah present and alive and conscious. It looked that way to teach them something. */*/*/* I have long tracked with “what is Jesus doing up there” ever since before that 1970s Way Magazine article appeared with that title. I was very eager to read it, but thought it did not go far enough, so I kept studying. I came to realize that Jesus took Lucifer’s place as a leader (or coordinator) of angels. God used angels in the OT a lot. There is an interesting account in the OT about this; I think in Daniel. If that is right, Daniel was praying and praying for some help with something, and nothing happens for a long time. Suddenly one day an angel shows up, and says something like “I’m here to help. Sorry I’m so late. I was detained for weeks struggling with some “big guy” out there.” So, I get the impression that, though God has infinite power, He has limited it for various reasons, and must work within His own constructed framework. The spiritual battle in the OT is often one of God just barely winning, but often very cleverly. I get the impression He limits Himself to some kind of Intervention Budget, SO THAT He can limit the devil to the same one. I should start a thread on this someday. So, where is this heading? God’s budget in the spiritual battle got a big boost when Jesus joined Him on His right hand. Jesus now co-ordinates the angels and gets more done than God was able to in the OT. I don't know where this "Let's forget Jesus, since he's absent" heresy came from, but I never got it from the collaterals or classes or SNT tapes or mag articles. I think it is a Corps related TVT that I never was hit with. I heard it in whisps at times, but I thought it was just people trying to "think it through." I know lots got bizzarre after 1986, and that heresy may have grown a lot then. */*/*/*/* Ok, I think that above are the basic pieces to start to put together an understanding of all the scriptures of personal visits by Jesus in the scriptures, and in modern testimonies of healings as well. Some of them could be the “real” Jesus showing up, just like angels would sometimes show up in OT situations. Some of them could be a “projected” Jesus for the believing of the recipient, like the way Peter, James, John, and Jesus were shown a teaching vision of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration. Maybe some of the scriptures’ grammar configurations can tell us which type of “visit” the scripture is reporting on; maybe not. **/*/*/*/*/* Ok that is the short version. I gave you an hour. writing and polishing. I will look at the long list of scriptures you posted again, because some already have notes. I can respond more; but not now. I just wanted to give you this preview summary, so that you could give me your preview summary of rejection. */*/*/* And now for the excuses: I have neglected all the other boys and girls here, so I want to pay attention to them also. You can wait for me, just like they have been patiently waiting. I know you can do it. I also want to read Penworks’ book more, and work on my PFAL-T report for my TWI-4 friends. AND one last big excuse: I am going dancing in a half hour. And I have a super early Believer Breakfast at Denny’s tomorrow (interdenominational). And then I have to work again, but I will bring a note from my boss (me), excusing me from blame.

Because I have to think MUCH HARDER on those more difficult topics. I speak from experience.

Sorry, I have only time to answer one item in your post. I am already about 2 or maybe responses behind with OldSkool, and i REALLY have to get to work soon. It's mostly in the sciences I see it clearly. I only got a tiny taste of how it works in Biblical academia 50 years ago. But in general, academia is one of those "kingdoms" that the adversary divvies out to whom he wills. What I saw happen in Physics at the University level from 1970 to 1995 was appalling to me. It was whole changeover of attitudes on what they tolerate regarding the spiritual realm. I know it has gotten oodles worse since then. It was like extreme atheism is the new State Religion. It resembled what I studied about in Physics history back in the mid 1800s when they thought they were real close to "knowing it all." The "all knowing" attitude extends into the spiritual only a tiny bit back then, almost 200 years ago. But this time, in the 2000s, the successes of modern science has propelled the leaders of academia to be judges of God for the students, and they judge Him guilty.

I spent that much time on these very subtle matters in the 1970s. Truth is simple, but error can get VERY complicated, especially when people's most cherished concepts are emotionally involved, which happens a lot in these matters. I have known Christians and even a few grads who have gone off the deep end with their emotions and wrong doctrines of all sorts involving their personal experiences with what they think is Jesus, but is a counterfeit. It really happens, but not to a lot of people. Most Christians seem to be mildly confused by all this and don't get that extreme, but a few do. I think it is important to keep in mind that the adversary wants us to NOT know and understand why God changed SOMETHING BIG on the day of the Ascension. I feel most work in the field of relationships with Christ are trying (maybe unconsciously) to undo what God did on the day of the Ascension. It is a wide open door for confusion to ignore the reality that something big happened on the day of the Ascension. If you don't like the word "absent" then I suggest finding another, so that that big change on the day of the Ascension isn't forgotten. I tried "hidden" and you didn't like that. Are you subconsciously trying to nullify that change God made on the day of the Ascension?

Scripture supports a BIG CHANGE on the day of the Ascension.

scripture plainly shows he isnt PRESENT like he was before the Ascension. That is the thrust of all my efforts in this thread. I think that was the thrust of VPW's also. It is in examining WHAT God made different and WHY He made it different on the day of the Ascension that interests me most. I am not that interested in defending VPW's use of that one word, one time in the curriculum. But WHY did God make something different that day is the key.

By "very large discussion" I mean hours of writing and polishing

NO. When I feel forced or rushed into a very large discussion I start looking at my clock to see how much time I have for it. You interpret that wrongly. **/*/* "I posted the verses and comments for people reading along. I never expected anything from you except to be you and you didnt disappoint." Ohhhhhhh! Oops! I never thought of that. I forgot we are on stage. OK. Then me saving the list for a rainy day should be cool with you?

No. I am reading these things as I wait for the sun to warm things up here. I can't remember the origins of this thread. I thought you invited me here, or something like that. I'm not vilifying you for bringing up the scriptures. I felt like you were rushing me. I feel rushed by my customers right now too. LoL I recognize how important it is that we all understand those scriptures properly, and in the 1970s I was all over them to the best of my ability. It is a very large topic and I have finite time.

It is a love/hate thing for them both. I see the good reasons for both, and the successes, but I also see the EXTREME failures that get covered up.

Reading I can do relatively fast, even with my (excuses?) vision impairment. But writing responses can take hours, and often does. I am reading/writing overwhelmed usually with T-Bone and WW, and now you jump on the pile. That is happening right now, and the timestamps are ample evidence.. There are WAY too many long, long posts for me to respond to right now, and for many other valid reason, and possibly a couple of flimsy excuses (because I am human), you'll just have to hold your breath waiting for me to respond to all this huge volume of text. */*/*/*/* I'll read things later, after work, and see what looks interesting and worth responding to. As I said before, if there is one burning item you could isolate and put into a post of not too many paragraphs, please do it. I can make time for one burning item, but after glass work and home chores are done. I am swamped with both.

I have VALID reasons, and you are not in a position to judge how well I judged HOW valid they are. You are acting like a Corps controller again with that comment, calling my valid reasons, flimsy excuses. Why do you want to cheapen a discussion with points like that? They don't influence me any. Do you think they influence others who are reading this? Is that why you call my valid reasons mere excuses? Are you trying to control the minds of readers?

Great Scott!!! (whatever that means?) Why don't you conscript me into your On-Line Theology Class or something? That is a week's worth of homework for me! loL I loved the way you started out, with the nice blue formatting. I looked at the first scripture, and the second,.... both familiar, and more, and more familiar, and more.... then the list got a little bit longer than I was expecting. I felt a bit overwhelmed by the volume. But thanks. I saved it for a rainy day. I might look thru it for a super cool one to respond to sooner. Might you do the same? Isolate one of those scriptures most burning to you? I got 3 more sunny days to work, and then it rains again.

Who says phenomena can't REVEAL information, and thus be a revelation? I think he describes the 1942 promise as phenomena with many words, and probably used the word "revelation" only once? What I was saying is that it was not him operating the manifestations in 1942, because (of course) he did not know how to do that in 1942.