Mike

I have already spent 50 years searching the scriptures (usually KJV) and found PLENTY of verses how God, Jesus Christ, and the gift of holy spirit guide us into understanding.

It just occurred to me that MAYBE my simple question of who fathered Jesus could be answered if we moved this thread to the Doctrinal Forum?? Probably just a desperate hunch on my part, I guess. Then again, all the focus on sin and AWAY from the spiritually present Christ, the SAVIOR from sin, has probably made it impossible to answer that question, especially since it was from me. You all are really going to love the answer.

LoL It is YOU GUYS who derailed it. I just responded to T-Bone, and put a cherry on top. If any of you had the understanding to quickly answer my question "Who fathered Jesus (hint: not Joseph)" then we'd be back to the topic. Instead you run derailing circles around my question and other things.... ANYTHING to avoid answering a 2 cent question. It really is simple. Why not answer the simple question so we can move on?

Gosh! You could witness that to the other posters here who got discouraged from thinking that way. Don't you want your team to be like-minded on the Word. Instead you are like-minded on loving to hate and focus on the sins of others.

I pretty much finished my trinity studies in the 1970s, and was not bringing that up of detailed instruction. If you go back to it's origin I was responding to your mild accusation that I had not gone farther than one teacher, so I said that I had, and offered proof with my answer to "Who fathered Jesus?" Again, I ask you this question because I think you haven't thought it through very well yourself. The answer is incredibly simple and casts light on a subject you thought VPW missed: The Holy Spirit. Now come on, we don't need to meet in doctrinal for you to answer my simple question. The answer is right under your nose this minute... oh... er... I should say it is a little ABOVE your nose as I type these lines. Hint: that was a hint.

I'm just an old hippie, and I stand against the established "official" kingdoms of this world. I think I got that idea from Jesus. Not the hippie part, because I have never had the hair to grow long. But the official system of churchiness had corrupted by then pretty bad, so he took a stand against it. I credit VPW for teaching me about the man Christ Jesus who is the only mediator between me and God. It's funny that you would warn me, in an earlier post, to be careful..... as if I wasn't aware of the stakes 50 years ago. I think you should be wary of what you and the others fill your mind with: sin and negatives. You become what you look at if you look at it hard enough: Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. I think you ought to be careful that you don't fill your mind with the opposite thoughts.

Yikes! You are STILL misreading or overlooking what I actually write. The KJV is NOT the Word of God, not in every passage and verse. But with PFAL we are given keys that unlock this delima. Before PFAL the Word was buried in the debris of the Temple, in Western theology baloney. After working PFAL into my Cambridge and mind and loving walk, I have the Word. I build on that word daily, and now 50 years later I am teaching you the Word of God. */*/*/* The part you overlooked is how I responded to T-Bone above. He had the same accusation of ignorance and not able to go beyond one man's perspective that you had. Looks like you overlooked his challenge, not knowing I'd answer the same again, thusly: T-Bone had written: "I think you may have fell for wierwille's bull$hit line "you can't go beyond what you're taught" says who?!?! wierwille that's who. ... Besides cognitive skills, I think understanding from God the Father / Jesus Christ / The Holy Spirit is something wierwille did not have a clue about..." Then I answered with: Actually, I spent a lot of time working the KJV on the trinity, BEFORE JCNG came out. I had in my research found a few more points of proof beyond what was in that book. He also had some points that I missed. One of my scoops over JCNG regards the Holy Spirit, and I find it very powerful in discussing the trinity and Jesus being God to those in that prison. I simply ask them "Who fathered Jesus?" Do you know who fathered Jesus? Nathan-Jr, do you have any idea who fathered Jesus, accorting to God's Word... AND the KJV? This means you have to THINK, instead of playing word salad with my posts. It requires you to go beyond what your GreaseSpot teachers have taught you. Are you ready. Who fathered Jesus? Hint: It wasn't Joseph. Try using a Concordance, or a simple word search in a text file of the KJV.

You wrote: "how ironic – on a thread about Christ being absent from wierwille’s theology this post of yours actually concurs with that theme." No, the thread is about Christ being temporarily absent from the physical realm. */*/*/*/* I was quoting a line from Acts, and pointing out that we need some currently alive man to teach us about the scriptural messengers you point to. I find them great, and I read them to learn more. You seem to have missed that totally in your zeal to discredit VPW. There are lots of things that hate blinds the mind to. */*/*/* You wrote: "Besides cognitive skills, I think understanding from God the Father / Jesus Christ / The Holy Spirit is something wierwille did not have a clue about..." Actually, I spent a lot of time working the KJV on the trinity, BEFORE JCNG came out. I had in my research found a few more points of proof beyond what was in that book. He also had some points that I missed. One of my scoops over JCNG regards the Holy Spirit, and I find it very powerful in discussing the trinity and Jesus being God to those in that prison. I simply ask them "Who fathered Jesus?" Do you know who fathered Jesus?

We all need to hear the Word from a messenger. How can I understand unless some man should guide me? My belief is not in what you describe as "the value of wierwille / PFAL." What I believe is the God I saw in the KJV, as that man, VPW, guided me to. Once I got my wings a few years later, I could fly alone not with him but with God and His Son. I got a family relationship with them that I deeply enjoy and proclaim to others who need it. Most of the time, with new people, I rarely mention VPW until they are ready to get serious and study. The god you seem to be propping up, and academic churchianity professes, I would have a hard time being faithful to and loving with all my heart. It reminds me of 1950s Roman Catholic nuns' doctrine. That is not a god I would loving tell others about; I'd be too embarrassed. That god is no good.

I'm not. I am teaching others who read this.

Thanks much. That looks like a great thread, devoted to this figure. And thanks to you, Twinky, for starting it.

I think it may be (remember I am inexperienced with the idiom of permission) that Jesus being our mediator and "defense lawyer" sounds like it fits right in with that figure of speech. For one thing, the advocate role of the man Christ Jesus, matches the courtroom scenery in the opening of Job, where the figure of permission is exposed. Twinky, I think you discovered the cue to start thinking "figures of speech" which is something doesn't fit, it is not true to fact. So if his advocacy is figurative, then that figure is there to help us in our believing with something solid to hold on that is easy to picture. We need that when we first begin believing God's Word. As we grow, we can graduate from the advocate figure of speech, to the "Christ in you, the hope of glory" which is another figure of speech. Christ in you really means God's permanent and pure connection in you that makes you belong to God and not the devil any more.

Has there ever been a discussion of the “idiom of permission” here at GreaseSpot? Is there a different crew in the Doctrinal Dungeon? Maybe they would know better. I will be checking myself, but I thought I'd mention it here because it can be described in different ways, like "Viewpoints - God's and Mans" does. I don't think the phrase “idiom of permission” comes up there, but it is similar. I’m obviously rusty on it, so I plan a re-fresh. T-Bone, with all your thoroughness, you seemed to miss mentioning the idiom of permission. Is that because you don’t know it well, like me? By “know” I mean “able to call up most of the details from memory.” One of the most interesting places where this idiom is displayed is in the Book of Job. It has both the human (sans spirit) 5-senses perspective, where Job (and others I think) say things like “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.” But then it also has the spiritual perspective, where it is plain that it was the devil that trashed Job’s family and possessions, and God was reluctantly allowing (permission) this destruction. But notice that God sternly drew the line at Job’s life. He protected Job from the consequences of his negative believing as best He could.” The idiom of permission started because before Pentecost most of the people, most of the time who heard or read the written Word had only body and soul, sans spirit. God had things written with figures of speech like this, and abbreviations, and condescensions, so that super important parts of life were super clear to natural-man humans and children. And which god among lots of available gods a child chose was very important in their whole education system. Everything was set up for children to grow up accepting the true God, including the language idioms. The spiritual “mechanics” of what happened in Job during the heaven scenes was way over the head of children and adults with no spirit. They had to have a more simple algorithm to walk with the true God: FEAR of the Lord, when they were out of fellowship. The algorithm with the idiom of permission strongly resembled a parent punishing them when they were bad, and blessing them when they were good. I’m sure there is a Church Lady debunking of this idiom somewhere without thoroughly explaining it, but I am looking for a thorough explanation of it. Maybe Bullinger? */*/*/* LoL! As usual, this discussion has degenerated to resemble a political battle, with lots of memes on TV deliberately mis-characterizing the opponent’s position.

I like private communications. I would never label them "covert" unless I was trying to be in charge of everything. Every now and then I get an unsolicited private letter from a lurker and even an active poster or two. I have a couple of running private conversations running right now. Before posting this, I responded to one, just minutes ago. OF COURSE, if I send an unsolicited letter to someone here, and they express any displeasure with such a communication, THEN i would be obligated to immediately back off. T-Bone, your preferences are noted.

Well, I respect your right to disagree… but HEY! Maybe it’s due to a simple miscommunication… or a deep one maybe. Actually, I didn’t give a “Biblical” definition of “free pass.” What it was was a “Mike” definition. I don’t think “free pass” appears in the Bible. Maybe it does, but it’s a big book, and it takes a long time to get it all studied up and deeply. It’s a work in progress for me. MAYBE it is the case that I did not do a good job in defining it, or didn’t explain it well enough. I will give it a try again. First of all, what I meant by “tolerate” is embedded in “The Idiom of Permission.” Now THAT is pretty deep, and so deep I am not yet good at describing it. I am searching for a good, short description. God tolerates bad behavior from you and me and anyone with holy spirit in this following way: When we sin and are out of fellowship, but when we ADMIT, or confess, or “say the same thing,” that what we did or think was contrary to God’s will, He FAITHFULLY forgives and cleanses us from all unrighteousness, and “forgets” or makes the past to be null and void. He then is poised to bless work with us again as we again resume working for Him. Remember Jesus teaching us about the prodigal son, and the loving father, and the religious, envious, non-forgiving brother? God’s forgiveness, fast and free !!! Oh, but MEANWHILE, the devil does NOT forgive and forget. Notes and files and folders on our sin are compiled and processed and stored, and he is poised to drag us into self-condemnation, or a RE-temptation to do the same sin again, or disaster to distract us. He will do ANYTHING to get us off topic of serving God. It is the devil that brings the consequences, and not God, our Father. (prepare for some like-mindedness now) And God, for His perfect reasons, uses the figure of permission to get our attention, because it is important that we never merely admit or confess our sin, but that we also REPENT, or change our ways. If we don’t learn how to do this, then the devil has a button or two to drag us down almost any time he wants. It is NOT necessary to repent to receive what 1 John 1:9 promises, God faithfully forgiving and “forgetting.” Confession of sins is like standing back up after falling down. Repenting is like starting immediately to walk, and not falling back down immediately. Maybe repenting happens some time later, after forgiveness. This is not best, but God is THAT good! Forgiveness is paid for. Protection and blessings come after repentance, unless it is God's extra grace. I am SO GLAD that it works this way! I am so glad that the GSC requirement for forgiveness and cleansing (repenting) is NOT the way God forgives. Actually, the GSC requirement is common in world religions. I cringingly see how closely it resembles the way the RC Nuns taught me in the 1950s and early 60s, how tough it was to get God to forgive us. They even said that sometimes Mary has to calm Him or Jesus down when we sin, they get so mad at us repeat sinners after Jesus died for us. Dana Carvey’s SNL church lady epitomizes this faulty attitude. Actually, the GSC requirement for forgiveness bigger than repenting. It’s repenting IN PUBLIC for all to see, and having it documented, video recorded, notarized, and copyrighted. The convent welcomes and awaits some posters here, to help strengthen their church-lady like stand. Sheesh! I’m going to do a “Surety Rating” for a few items: I know David sinned because it is (specifically) written in God’s Word. I know VPW sinned because it is (generally) written in God’s Word. I know David repented because it is written in God’s Word. I have no idea if and when or how many times VPW repented, and anyone here who says they do know, or know to the contrary, God’s Word calls a liar. ONLY God knows a man’s heart. Aren’t you glad? I am. All of us have really stinky old-man natures, and I am glad that only an “educated guess” can be made when we try to do heart judgement liked that. It is always important to accurately rate our surety for each and every matter we need to juggle in life. We sometimes NEED to make as educated a guess on a person’s heart when we are deciding how much time to spend with them and work with them. But we also need to keep in mind that it’s only a guess, and only God knows who has repented, and when. Suppose VPW did do a public, notarized repenting with tears and color video? Would that be a guarantee of a genuine repentance? No ! No one here knows anything for sure about repentance in another man’s heart and life but God. */*/*/* Now, let’s go back to being like-minded and the idiom of permission. This next text below is from the MVB. That is my Cambridge Wide-Margin with extensive Bic 4-color pen notes, and then DIGITIZED and neatened it up. I call it the MVB for the Mike Version of the Bible. I started with the NIV, brought in some KJV where the language is more fun, the Corps Literals for some difficult points, the collaterals, and some other sources I have learned to trust pretty well. In the MVB I did not put any footnotes or source citations, because I am making it (a work in progress) to read easily and fluidly. No scholarly clutter to bother my eyes with distractions. I hate citations like that. It is for my own personal use, not for publication…. Except in rare teaching situations, like this. Ohhh, BTW, feel free to make your own digitized and neatened up your Cambridge Wide-Margin.... unless your religion forbids it. You can even call it your MVB to stand for “My Version of the Bible.” Have fun with it. It is fun to play (respectfully, of course) with God’s Word just like it is to play with language in SIT. Remember, all versions are de-void of authority, and we still are responsible to rightly-divide it. Now, back again to the idiom of permission and like-mindedness. 1 Thess 4:3-7 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister. The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you His Holy Spirit. Yes, repenting is important. Yes, there are consequences. But they really come from the devil, because God is light and in Him is no darkness, no none at all. When I was first taught this idiom, I started seeing it in lots of places, like the bad guy in Psalms who digs a pit to trap and rob someone, but then falls in the pit himself. One of the most wonderful passages that teaches this is 1 Cor Chapter 3, but the translators were so freaked out by God’s graciousness, that they BENT the translation towards God being a harsh punisher. No one taught them the idiom of permission, I guess. We should talk more about this chapter. Can any of the encyclopedic “gotcha-Mike” watchers” here tell me if I posted my MVB for that chapter in another thread a few months ago?. I know I’ve texted it privately so a few of friends, but I can’t remember if I posted it here. If anyone has some good presentation up their sleeve for idiom of permission, or a well-cited source explaining it, I’d love to see it.

RIGHT you are, sir!

That is wonderful ! At last! Some Godly like-mindedness emerges at GSC! :) Wonders never cease, and Caesars never wonder. Twinky, in recent years I read here more than I post. This was so nice to hear that I went to YouTube to extract the cursive version, plus I did a tiny bit of formatting to make it more readable. I did not have the time to correct it, due to this "English Class From Hell" that I got roped into. Imagine that! So many essays to write, and I’ll only get a “D” at best on them! Ohhh! At the end the You-Tube transcriptor bot couldn’t hear the words in the music. We can hear better than the best OCR software in Earth! Imagine THAT! */*/*/*/*/*/* Maybe someone else can massage these cursive fragments below for us all and make a Critical Grease Text out of it for us all to enjoy. Let’s amplify what MANY things we agree on, and put aside the very few things we disagree on. the Bible says my king is the King of the Jews He's a king of Israel He's a king of righteousness He's a king of the ages He's the king of heaven He's a king of glory He's the king of kings and He's the Lord of lords that's not King I wonder do you know him Martine is a sovereign King both means of measure can define his limitless love He's enduring the strong He's entirely sincere He's eternally steadfast He's immortal He's imperious powerful He's impossible do you know him He's phenomenon the horizon He's God's Son He's a sinner Saviour He's a centerpiece of civilization He's unparallel He's unprecedented He is the lastest idea in literature He's the highest personality in philosophy He's a fundamental doctrine of theology she's only mollified to be at all sufficient Savior I wonder if you know him today He supplies train for the week He's available for attempted and the pride He sympathizes any saves He strengthens and sustained He thought and He died He healed the sick He cleanse the lepers He forgives sinners He discharges tethers He delivers the captive agent in the Siebel He blesses the young He serves the unfortunate He regards me [Music] wisdom and limitless is everlasting [Music] [Music] [Music] they comprehensible you're out of your mind in jail they couldn't stop it [Music]

Well, The Great Mystery was revealed a few years later, after Christ became absent in Acts 1:9

No, I love the logic. It's the volume of text I have to deal with. It's like having the worst English teacher in the world, and having homework assignments to do 5 essays per day day. It is like the "English Class from Hell." Might make a good sit-com theme, but I'm too old to handle it day after day for months at a time, hours and hours on the keyboard. Anyway, I am happy to be allowed to post what I did. The Absent Christ is now clarified for those who want to re-read all the pages back. I may be back to post more, if it seems like it's worth it. It is not worth it to me to do round number 413 with everyone, which is what this has degenerated to. I've been doing this since late 2002. I deserve a break today.

Well, it looks to me that I made some strong points on the absent Christ, so now it's time for others to bury it. There is more that I can say about it, but I think I'll wait. This text storm has blown far away from the absent Christ now, and is just a hodge podge of attacks on me and VPW and PFAL. I am not going to try and keep up with the flood of text. If anyone wants to get back to the topic, I will pay attention.

Yikes I had to answer this. I mentioned that the phrase "the Bible" is very ambiguous.| Before I can answer this I you need to specify what you mean EXACTLY for every occurance of the word Bible in your post, before I can answer it in a timely manner. Otherwise I will have to ask you for each one what you mean. */*/*/*/* We started this in a specific section of doctrine and now it is had drifted a bit. Let's start all over for a minute, going back to how the Word originally got here. God found a man who could hear Him due to diligently seeking Him. What God spoke to this man is the Word. That man tells others in love. Eventually, the man to whom God spoke tells others in written form. These kinds of writings accumulate over time. Young Jesus feeds off them. He learns them well, and then perfectly, and then shows us the Father as we see him. He is the Word made flesh. Now we get to do the same, and God will help us. It is a matter of WHO do you love. If you seek the Word of God with all your heart, then act on it. Minister what you know to others in love, like Jesus did. God will help you. Good night, sir.

Yikes! Now it's 5 hours ago. You wrote: "So, the Word of God is the Bible as interpreted and corrected back to the original, according to victor?"

I was trying to answer your first question of 4 hours ago, and accidentally lost it. I should have been working it on my word processor. I'll try again. I am tired.

Well, it's late and I have only a small amount of time to respond to many posts. Sorry about that. Anyone got any ideas whom I should select? Lottery? Sorry, T-Bone yours is way too long for me tonight.

It is what you get in mind when you work the research principles of the class, in study of the KJV or your semi-corrected Cambridge Wide-Margin Bible, or nearly any other version. Even go into the ancient languages and texts if you can. Other principles like Receive, Retain, Release are also involved in building the Word in your mind. Jesus did the same as a youth and young man. Walking love to serve and help others are other things Jesus did to build the Word in his mind. It wasn't there automatically. He ate the Word. He did this to the max and to perfection, so he is called "the Word made flesh" in the Gospel of John.