I don't have any verses to share with you, besides you seem to have that covered. Let me share some of what I think of since my time with TWI with you and I'd be happy to hear back from you.
One thing that I never heard was Dr. say that he had it all figured out. What I do remember him saying was "We're just scratching the "H" in Holy Bible." I never figured out why anyone would act like we had it all figured out when Dr. himself wanted us to prove the doctrine.
One thing that's changed for me is that the epistles are no longer "over" the gospels or Revelation in terms of my understanding. Many things that I was taught were similar I now believe to be the same.
As I go over my notes from those days, I marvel at how we were taught to study the Bible. I appreciate and am truly thankful for the PFAL class. I know that may sound a bit demented, but I took those keys and ran with it. What really sucks balls (I got that from my 14 year old) is while we were learning something so absolutely wonderfl, we were being brain-washed into not using those keys. Here something: The Bible can be (forgot that part) In the verse, in the context and where it was used before.
So, take something like this:
Col 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
I see a condition there. I have to continue in the faith in order to be presented unblameable. But that way taught once and always. This bothered me, but I was taught not to question doctrine. But if I use the keys, then I can go from Genesis to Revelation and prove these verses. Things like this really bother me, and they bothered me then.
I still use the PFAL tools to study, but I have found myself targeting EVERYTHING we learned. I guess I am still a radical at heart.
I remember when I took the class a statement vpw made about God telling him He would teach vp the word like it wasn't known since the 1st century if he would teach it to others.
I remember that too than later found out VPW copied all he said from books of old that others wrote but I did not judge him evil because of that
I remember liking the fact that the way was radical, different. They taught Speaking in Tongues!!! Jesus Christ was NOT God!!! They proved the Rapture.
I used to like the way they said spiriture and verse until I asked them for scripture and verse and was told to take it by faith -- then there are two words not in the bible trinity and rapture one they are for one and the other they are against
It was so different than what "traditional" christianity taught. Everybody kicked against it. Many of us lost our lifelong friends and became estranged from our families because of that doctrine. I know my family prayed for me on a daily basis. (And thank God they did)
my family sent Mike Bell of the local church who told me they the Way might be able to help me because he did not know or what to do to help me - I guess help came at a high price
Now every church, especially COGIC, and even the Catholics teach PFAL. Have any of you considered this? Old vpw really did what he said God told him to. It's pretty fuzzy in my mind now, how we managed to change "church" doctrine, but he/we did it. The things we thought were so radical biblically has become common place in American christian churches.
yes I seeing it more and more too
After dumping out all that old way wine, and really finding the Word of God, I began to question everything we learned in PFAL. I am sure you all did it too.
yes I begin again too and have change many of my doctrines or beliefs
Jesus said: Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
I love these verses too and I would say VPW was a false prophets in sheep's clothing or a lier with fancy speech
I THINK this means that whatever most are doing and believing in terms of christianity is wrong.
I think it more about loving than believing
He said the gate is straight and the way narrow that leads to life. Few find it. But everybody believes PFAL.
yes everyone looks for riches now but real riches are spiritual which come later
These verses sent me on a quest through my Bible, and while I have many things to share with everybody in the world, I want to share this first one. Let me say though, the Rapture doctrine always scared the crap out me, so this is one of the first things I looked into when I recovered. Here goes, and I would love some feedback. It's just some verses, not what I think about them, yet.
the rapture doctrine is nothing from what I see spiritually today but this is just me
(Please not the Trumpets. There are specific ones in the Bible)
Have a Great Day,
Rachel
you have a nice day too
Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
what is the trump of God and who are the dead in Christ because we are alive in Christ -- he has quicken us made us alive ane we are no more dead in tresspasses of sin - we have received the gift of holy ghost - holy spirit - holy breath Christ in us hope of glory
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
we who are alive in Christ at the time this was wrote and right now shall be caught up together in the clouds
1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
its about changing without needing to sleep because we are alive in Christ
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
the last comes last but before the last there is a first trump -- I believe the first trump is the sound of soul breath we make it at our first birth and the last breath come at spiritual birth the day we are changed our first spiritual breath outside the womb of the flesh
Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
which days the end of the world or our personal end our death
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
our personal day or the end of the world
Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
this trump come before the last
now these verses and others teach us many things
God is a personal God as Christ is a personal Savior
Now I see many returns of Christ not just one, two. three, four, five, six, seven, and so on
I recall reading nothing about a second just that he will come back as they saw him leave
did they see him come back in the same way on the day of Pentcost ?
if Christ has not came back we could not have him in us as the hope of glory
Kind of surprising to me to learn that a lot of what many churches were saying turns out to be closer to truth then anything the way taught in reality.
I think lumping Christianity together in one group is a mistake because of the different teachings that different denominations and groups teach. Even within these are different things taught.
I would not say today's truths are not closer to truth but what was believe to be truth in the time of men like E.W. Bullinger has came back to the top of the circle
I link all believers together as believers whether their believe is in God or not
the way I see it all Christianity together has many pieces of the same truth but no one has the whole truth
it brings tears to my eyes when they fight over bits and pieces
I am almost always amazed when I remember that we were taught so many great keys to prove doctrines and then weren't allowed to use them. At least that's how some remember it and I tend to believe them when they say they weren't allowed to test the doctrines. My life has seen plety of those battles.
To get back to the Rapture, in that verse it says ''we shall MEET him in the air''.
Meet is an interesting word.
Lets look it up together and see what we find. (it will take me a few days though)
One explaination is that it implies a ''greeting'', like when a king would visit a city, they would run out with all their best stuff (horses, chariots, etc) and welcome him.........so then, we come back DOWN to earth for the judgements. Not that we go to heaven for 1000 years.....
I no longer believe in a ''rapture'' per say. I also believe that most of Matt 24 is talking about the destruction of the temple and Jeruselem in 70 AD. (something TWI never even mentioned happening.) Jesus' very words were ''this generation'' shall see this and that... (Isreal, who turned their back on Jesus the Christ)
I do believe that He iscoming back and we greet him in the air, and we will forever be with the LORD.
This link takes you to the official Catechism of the Catholic Church
This link takes you to a Compendium of that Catechism (a far shorter version -- about 150 pages vice 900)
Please feel free to show me where PFAL appears in either text. If it isn't in the above, you'll have a hard time demonstrating that it's part of the doctrine of the Church.
The Catholic Church has taken the Bible and rewritten it. While PFAL and the way may seem on the surface to be apples and oranges, they both teach the same things -
The biggest being Sunday Observance.
The Bible says the Sabbath is a sign between The God of Israel and His people (Strangers included) FOREVER. I didn't write that, and everytime I look in the Bible it is still there.
It is a Catholic Doctrine to NOT observe the Sabbath and the Feast Days. Did the way teach anything different on this point?
Easter. We observed Passover, right?
Wrong. We observed Easter. You can't really do Passover without the following Feast Day - Passover is a PREPARATION DAY for the following feast.
Did we observe it Biblically?
Did we have Christmas in the way?
Totally roman doctrine. Jeremiah 10 tells you NOT to do that...Everytime you look it's still there.
Jesus said why do you make void the commandment of God by your traditions?
ALL of the traditions the way has, as well as organized christianity came from the RCC.
And what I meant about the RCC teaching PLAL - They teach it in their Bible studies...The abundant life ministry is a big part of RCC in the U.S. They also teach people to speak in tongues, just like VP instructed. You may disagree, and that's fine. Go to newadvent.org and look up the following:
The Catholic Church has taken the Bible and rewritten it. While PFAL and the way may seem on the surface to be apples and oranges, they both teach the same things -
The biggest being Sunday Observance.
The Bible says the Sabbath is a sign between The God of Israel and His people (Strangers included) FOREVER. I didn't write that, and everytime I look in the Bible it is still there.
It is a Catholic Doctrine to NOT observe the Sabbath and the Feast Days. Did the way teach anything different on this point?
Easter. We observed Passover, right?
Wrong. We observed Easter. You can't really do Passover without the following Feast Day - Passover is a PREPARATION DAY for the following feast.
Did we observe it Biblically?
Did we have Christmas in the way?
Totally roman doctrine. Jeremiah 10 tells you NOT to do that...Everytime you look it's still there.
Jesus said why do you make void the commandment of God by your traditions?
ALL of the traditions the way has, as well as organized christianity came from the RCC.
And what I meant about the RCC teaching PLAL - They teach it in their Bible studies...The abundant life ministry is a big part of RCC in the U.S. They also teach people to speak in tongues, just like VP instructed. You may disagree, and that's fine. Go to newadvent.org and look up the following:
Sunday
Christmas
Easter
Pork
See if the way doesn't do as they do.
Rachel,
I, frankly, don't post as much as I used to, as I am sort of time limited. So I won't address everything, but here are a couple of points:
On Sunday worship. This has gone on since the first century. The Epistle of Barnabas, written in 74 AD, states the following:
Further, also, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue which [the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount Sinai, "And sanctify the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart." Exodus 20:8; Deuteronomy 5:12 And He says in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them." The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: "And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it." Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six days." This implies that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifies, saying, "Behold, today will be as a thousand years." Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. "And He rested on the seventh day." This means: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the-sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day. Moreover, He says, "You shall sanctify it with pure hands and a pure heart." If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the day which God has sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things, we are deceived. Behold, therefore: certainly then one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves. Further, He says to them, "Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure." Isaiah 1:13 You perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world.
Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.
So if you want to call Sunday worship a Catholic innovation, I guess you could. St. Barnabas (one of the apostles) was a Catholic, after all.
As to Easter versus Passover, that is a false analogy. The analogue is not Easter. The analogue is the Celebration of the Lord's Passion (i.e., Good Friday). This day commemorates the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb without spot or blemish, not Easter. Easter celebrates something that was not part of the Old Covenant, and that is the resurrection.
As to pork, I would refer you to a vision by St. Peter (the first Catholic Pope), documented in Acts 10:
9 The next day, as they were on their journey and coming near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed, you must not call common." 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.
Or you have the Canons of the Council of Jerusalem (the first Catholic ecumenical council) (Acts 15:23ff)
"The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. 24 Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."
As to Christmas, the official name is the Solemnity of the Nativity of Our Lord (in most of the romance languages, to include Latin, it is some variant of "natale" -- or Nativity). We have other feasts and solemnities commemorating other key events in our Lord's life: His circumcision, His presentation at the Temple, His baptism, His ascension, His transfiguration, His resurrection, etc. Do we know with certainty when any of these dates were? (In fact, do you know that a significant percentage of Catholics celebrate His nativity on Jan 6th?) You may or may not agree with the idea of commemorating key dates; that's your business.
You mention Christmas trees. The Christmas tree is actually NOT a Roman invention; it is an invention of the French and is barely 500 years old. I, personally, have never met somebody who worships a Christmas tree. If you take a look at Jeremiah 10, you will read:
10 1 Hear the word which the LORD speaks to you, O house of Israel. 2 Thus says the LORD: "Learn not the way of the nations, nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens because the nations are dismayed at them, 3 for the customs of the peoples are false. A tree from the forest is cut down, and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman. 4 Men deck it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move.
5 Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Be not afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, neither is it in them to do good."
6 There is none like thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might. 7 Who would not fear thee, O King of the nations? For this is thy due; for among all the wise ones of the nations and in all their kingdoms there is none like thee. 8 They are both stupid and foolish; the instruction of idols is but wood! 9 Beaten silver is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz. They are the work of the craftsman and of the hands of the goldsmith; their clothing is violet and purple; they are all the work of skilled men. 10 But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting King. At his wrath the earth quakes, and the nations cannot endure his indignation. 11 Thus shall you say to them: "The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens." 12 It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens. 13 When he utters his voice there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and he makes the mist rise from the ends of the earth. He makes lightnings for the rain, and he brings forth the wind from his storehouses. 14 Every man is stupid and without knowledge; every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; for his images are false, and there is no breath in them. 15 They are worthless, a work of delusion; at the time of their punishment they shall perish. 16 Not like these is he who is the portion of Jacob, for he is the one who formed all things, and Israel is the tribe of his inheritance; the LORD of hosts is his name.
A casual reading of this section make it clear that what is being spoken of is an idol...the object of worship, not a seasonal decoration. Please note verse 5, which I highlighted.
As to the Catholic Church re-writing the Bible, the collection of writings that was compiled into the Canon of the New Testament by the Catholic Church...those who wrote the individual writings were either Catholic Bishops (St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John, St. James, St. Matthew, St. Jude) or scribes who worked with Catholic Bishops (in the case of St. Mark and St. Luke), so I would phrase it more like the Catholic Church wrote the Bible...not re-wrote it.
Having replied to all of your anti-Catholic rants, I come back to the original point. PFAL is NOT reflected in Catholic doctrine. I gave you links to the two simplest (and fully searchable) documents that compile Catholic doctrine, so if you can show me in those two Catholic documents where some of the unique points about PFAL are discussed, I will be more than happy to consider your reference (and, as others on this board can attest, I will be happy to admit I'm wrong, if, in fact, I am).
As I go over my notes from those days, I marvel at how we were taught to study the Bible. I appreciate and am truly thankful for the PFAL class. I know that may sound a bit demented, but I took those keys and ran with it. What really sucks balls (I got that from my 14 year old) is while we were learning something so absolutely wonderfl, we were being brain-washed into not using those keys. Here something: The Bible can be (forgot that part) In the verse, in the context and where it was used before.
So, take something like this:
Col 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
I see a condition there. I have to continue in the faith in order to be presented unblameable. But that way taught once and always. This bothered me, but I was taught not to question doctrine. But if I use the keys, then I can go from Genesis to Revelation and prove these verses. Things like this really bother me, and they bothered me then.
I still use the PFAL tools to study, but I have found myself targeting EVERYTHING we learned. I guess I am still a radical at heart.
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
That kind of sums up the importance of it all for me too!
For me it's a matter of record that PFAL and many of the same things that were being taght in those days by other men changed a lot of mainline church doctrine.
As far as the Catholic church goes I met some Catholics that said that under the "Vatican 2" writings that they were allowed to speak in tounges. As they seemed to know what they were talking about I never questioned it further.
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Rachel
Rachel,
OK, and...your point is what???
I suggest you actually read the context (Marcus 7:1-13) and then try to understand exactly what Jesus was saying.
To make sure you understand it fully, I would also suggest you pull out your Mishnah and read Seder Kodashim...particularly Tractate Arakhin (and look especially at 6:2 through 7:5).
Then compare this to Leviticus 25:10ff.
Once you do the above and actually attempt to understand what our Lord was talking about, then we can talk about it.
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Rachel
When St. John wrote this in his Apocalypse (22:18-19), there was no compiled collection known as the Bible. Therefore, the context must be referring simply to the vision that he received from the Lord.
However, if you wish to apply it in that context, I would suggest that you would wish to apply it to your Protestant friends whose forefathers emasculated the Holy Scriptures during the 16th Century AD.
I suggest you actually read the context (Marcus 7:1-13) and then try to understand exactly what Jesus was saying.
To make sure you understand it fully, I would also suggest you pull out your Mishnah and read Seder Kodashim...particularly Tractate Arakhin (and look especially at 6:2 through 7:5).
Then compare this to Leviticus 25:10ff.
Once you do the above and actually attempt to understand what our Lord was talking about, then we can talk about it.
I do not speak any other language than English. Please speak English to me. (Looks like you are a little hot under the colla' Bro)
I understand the context of Mark very well...John's disciples were questioning Jesus because they did not keep the traditions of men - the extensive washing of hands before they ate. They held man's tradition to be above the commandment of God.
It's pretty simple when you read it. Not rocket science. Ya know.
This reasoning can be applied to anything that makes a tradition, like what you call the eighth day sabbath - and elevate it over the word of God. And about that - The eighth day thing, The days of the week biblically are numbered. You cannot find the first day of the week being called the 8th day anywhere in the Bible. It's called the first day.
There is however a FEAST DAY called the Eighth Day, it is observed once a year. By folks that know about it. The Seventh Day, however, is the only day in the Bible that has a name. It's called the Sabbath Day.
So, if you reason that the Bible says what it means and means what it says, the 7th day is the only day The God of Abraham, Issac and Israel called the Sabbath day. No matther what Good Saint so and so said in 69AD or whenever the frack. Men changed that day, men changed the tradition, and those men also formed the RCC. They esteem the tradition of men greater than the Commandment of God.
You may do what you like - But don't try to say all of this spookery is biblical, because it is not. It is religious, yes. But what you are spewing is not from the Bible.
When St. John wrote this in his Apocalypse (22:18-19), there was no compiled collection known as the Bible. Therefore, the context must be referring simply to the vision that he received from the Lord.
However, if you wish to apply it in that context, I would suggest that you would wish to apply it to your Protestant friends whose forefathers emasculated the Holy Scriptures during the 16th Century AD.
Well Mark,
You obviously are not paying attention. Mark didn't write ALL of the above.
Let me run something by you, Mark...
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (I know you are familiar with this one)
Now, my Bible is one book. Many writers, one central theme. The above verses say they spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit. And then they wrote it down. We know this because our eyes have seen it, and our hands can touch the Word of Life, right? (You may disagree, but to me the Bible is one book, God can do stuff like that. Pretty nifty trick, huh Mark?)
Now, check this one out...
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Now, this verse from the Bible reders to: The Law (OT) and the Testimony - a common reference to the NEW TESTAMENT. Pretty nifty how God did that, huh Mark?
I do this to show you that the verses I used in the above quote of yours come from The Law and the Testimony. And you missed it, Mark. The point is that God made sure if you read the Bible as one Book, you will se when Moses said "Ye shall not add to the Word which I command you..." and when John said, "whosoever addeth to or taketh away from..." (Paraphrased) It is talking not about the Words of Moses or John, but it is talking about GOD"S HOLY WORD!!!
Holy Men Of God Wrote God's Word. It is HIS. Not John's. And it is one. The Law and the Testimony.
That is my point, Mark.
Do you understand what I am saying? Not asking you to agree with it, just understand whay I am saying. I certainly understand what you are saying. Please try to do the same with me.
Thank You,
RachelYsrael
PS...I am sure you noticed I did not include the scripture references...Maybe you would like to look them up. Search the scriptures, Mark....
However, if you wish to apply it in that context, I would suggest that you would wish to apply it to your Protestant friends whose forefathers emasculated the Holy Scriptures during the 16th Century AD.
I am sorry, Mark.
I don't understand this here...Please enlighten me.
As far as the Catholic church goes I met some Catholics that said that under the "Vatican 2" writings that they were allowed to speak in tounges. As they seemed to know what they were talking about I never questioned it further.
Glossolalia is a gift that has been given to the Church from time to time throughout recorded history. Of course, you can read about it in the primitive Church throughout the Acts and in the Pauline epistles. However, several Church fathers documented this up through Nicene times and, in fact, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia,
St. Francis Xavier is said to have preached in tongues unknown to him and St. Vincent Ferrer while using his native tongue was understood in others. From this last phenomenon Biblical glossolaly differs in being what St. Gregory Nazianzen points out as a marvel of speaking and not of hearing. Exegetes observe too that it was never used for preaching, although Sts. Augustine and Thomas seem to have overlooked this detail.
As to the 2nd Vatican Council (1962-1965), the subject of glossolalia is not explicitly mentioned in any of the published documents. However, there is an allusion to the subject of charismata in several places:
From the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium), chapter 1, paragraph 4,
4. When the work which the Father gave the Son to do on earth
9
was accomplished, the Holy Spirit was sent on the day of Pentecost in order that He might continually sanctify the Church, and thus, all those who believe would have access through Christ in one Spirit to the Father.
10
He is the Spirit of Life, a fountain of water springing up to life eternal.
11
To men, dead in sin, the Father gives life through Him, until, in Christ, He brings to life their mortal bodies.
12
The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple.
13
In them He prays on their behalf and bears witness to the fact that they are adopted sons.
14
The Church, which the Spirit guides in way of all truth
15
and which He unified in communion and in works of ministry, He both equips and directs with hierarchical and charismatic gifts and adorns with His fruits.
16
By the power of the Gospel He makes the Church keep the freshness of youth. Uninterruptedly He renews it and leads it to perfect union with its Spouse.
3*
The Spirit and the Bride both say to Jesus, the Lord, "Come!"
17
From the Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church (Ad Gentes), chapter 4, paragraph 23,
23. Although every disciple of Christ, as far in him lies, has the duty of spreading the Faith,
1
Christ the Lord always calls whomever He will from among the number of His disciples, to be with Him and to be sent by Him to preach to the nations (cf. Mark 3:13). Therefore, by the Holy Spirit, who distributes the charismata as He wills for the common good (1 Cor. 12:11), He inspires the missionary vocation in the hearts of individuals, and at the same time He raises up in the Church certain institutes
2
which take as their own special task the duty of preaching the Gospel, a duty belonging to the whole Church.
Likewise, from the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem), chapter 1, paragraph 3,
3. The laity derive the right and duty to the apostolate from their union with Christ the head; incorporated into Christ's Mystical Body through Baptism and strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit through Confirmation, they are assigned to the apostolate by the Lord Himself. They are consecrated for the royal priesthood and the holy people (cf. 1 Peter 2:4-10) not only that they may offer spiritual sacrifices in everything they do but also that they may witness to Christ throughout the world. The sacraments, however, especially the most holy Eucharist, communicate and nourish that charity which is the soul of the entire apostolate.
3
One engages in the apostolate through the faith, hope, and charity which the Holy Spirit diffuses in the hearts of all members of the Church. Indeed, by the precept of charity, which is the Lord's greatest commandment, all the faithful are impelled to promote the glory of God through the coming of His kingdom and to obtain eternal life for all men-that they may know the only true God and Him whom He sent, Jesus Christ (cf. John 17:3). On all Christians therefore is laid the preeminent responsibility of working to make the divine message of salvation known and accepted by all men throughout the world.
For the exercise of this apostolate, the Holy Spirit Who sanctifies the people of God through ministry and the sacraments gives the faithful special gifts also (cf. 1 Cor. 12:7), "allotting them to everyone according as He wills" (1 Cor. 12:11) in order that individuals, administering grace to others just as they have received it, may also be "good stewards of the manifold grace of God" (1 Peter 4:10), to build up the whole body in charity (cf. Eph. 4:16). From the acceptance of these charisms, including those which are more elementary, there arise for each believer the right and duty to use them in the Church and in the world for the good of men and the building up of the Church, in the freedom of the Holy Spirit who "breathes where He wills" (John 3:8). This should be done by the laity in communion with their brothers in Christ, especially with their pastors who must make a judgment about the true nature and proper use of these gifts not to extinguish the Spirit but to test all things and hold for what is good (cf. 1 Thess. 5:12,19,21).
4
But to say that this is "new doctrine" or that they were "allowed" to speak in tongues only after Vatican II is sort of a misstatement. Vatican II restates and reframes doctrine that has been in existence since the time of the apostles. St Irenaeus spoke of it in the third century. St John Chrysostom spoke of it in the fifth. St Thomas Aquinas spoke of it in the thirteenth.
In fact, St. John of the Cross (16th Century), in his book Ascent to Mt Carmel (Book 3, Chapter 30), states:
t now behoves us to treat of the fifth kind of good thing wherein the soul may rejoice, which is the supernatural. By this term we here understand all the gifts and graces given by God which transcend natural virtue and capacity and are called gratis datae. Such as these are the gifts of wisdom and knowledge which God gave to Solomon, and the graces whereof Saint Paul speaks — namely, faith, gifts of healing, the working of miracles, prophecy, knowledge and discernment of spirits, interpretation of words and likewise the gift of tongues.
2. These good things, it is true, are also spiritual, like those of the same kind of which we have to speak presently; yet, since the two are so different, I have thought well to make a distinction between them. The practice of these has an intimate relation with the profit of man, and it is with a view to this profit and to this end that God gives them. As Saint Paul says: ‘The spirit is given to none save for the profit of the rest;’ this is to be understood of these graces. But the use and practice of spiritual graces has to do with the soul and God alone, and with God and the soul, in the communion of understanding and will, etc., as we shall say hereafter. And thus there is a difference in their object, since spiritual graces have to do only with the Creator and the soul; whereas supernatural graces have to do with the creature, and furthermore differ in substance, and therefore in their operation, and thus of necessity the instruction which we give concerning them differs also.
3. Speaking now of supernatural graces and gifts as we here understand them, I say that, in order to purge ourselves of vain joy in them, it is well here to notice two benefits which are comprised in this kind of gift — namely, temporal and spiritual. The temporal benefits are the healing of infirmities, the receiving of their sight by the blind, the raising of the dead, the casting out of devils, prophesying concerning the future so that men may take heed to themselves, and other things of the kind. The spiritual and eternal benefit is that God is known and served through these good works by him that performs them, or by those in whom and in whose presence they are performed.
While the current "Charismatic Renewal" of which your friends spoke is rather recent (it began in 1967 at Duquesne University and has spread worldwide), the point is that it is not new.
Again, unless VPW was around in the 16th century, I doubt that he would have had any influence on St. John of the Cross.
I don't understand this here...Please enlighten me.
Thanks,
Rachel
Rachel,
Sometimes Firefox really ticks me off. This is one of those times. I had worked up a post that took me over an hour to research (I like to have my names and dates correct when I post...particularly in Doctrinal).
It spoke to the intent of Luther and Zwingli as far as the canonicity of the books of the NT and then went through the rationale and validity of all the books in the OT.
Unfortunately, it's late and I don't have time to re-do my work (as I said before, I don't have the time I'd like to do this stuff).
Bottom line is that the Prots stripped out about 7 books out of the OT: Judith, Tobit, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch (and parts of the Book of Daniel).
I'm sorry, I wish I had time to re-do the post I was working on, but I don't.
Bottom line is that the Prots stripped out about 7 books out of the OT: Judith, Tobit, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch (and parts of the Book of Daniel).
I'm sorry, I wish I had time to re-do the post I was working on, but I don't.
Hi Mark,
Do you not think it possible that the Creator of the Universe, that pulled the dry land out of a ball of water, and hung it in the heavens without rods nor beams...
That made man from the dirt, the ground we walk upon, that spit in Adam's nose and gave him breath-life, and made him to be self healing, self replicating and in the image of His Very Self...
Do you not think it possible that He personally had those seven books removed from His Holy Word?
I don't know if this is 100% true, but didn't Martin Luther himself think that the Book of James and even the Book of Revelation didn't belong in the Scriptures?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
13
9
16
Popular Days
Jan 12
22
Jan 9
14
Jan 10
10
Jan 14
5
Top Posters In This Topic
markomalley 15 posts
Eyesopen 13 posts
JeffSjo 9 posts
RachelYsrael 16 posts
Popular Days
Jan 12 2008
22 posts
Jan 9 2008
14 posts
Jan 10 2008
10 posts
Jan 14 2008
5 posts
JeffSjo
Hi Rachel,
I don't have any verses to share with you, besides you seem to have that covered. Let me share some of what I think of since my time with TWI with you and I'd be happy to hear back from you.
One thing that I never heard was Dr. say that he had it all figured out. What I do remember him saying was "We're just scratching the "H" in Holy Bible." I never figured out why anyone would act like we had it all figured out when Dr. himself wanted us to prove the doctrine.
One thing that's changed for me is that the epistles are no longer "over" the gospels or Revelation in terms of my understanding. Many things that I was taught were similar I now believe to be the same.
I hope we can develope some good dialogue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
As I go over my notes from those days, I marvel at how we were taught to study the Bible. I appreciate and am truly thankful for the PFAL class. I know that may sound a bit demented, but I took those keys and ran with it. What really sucks balls (I got that from my 14 year old) is while we were learning something so absolutely wonderfl, we were being brain-washed into not using those keys. Here something: The Bible can be (forgot that part) In the verse, in the context and where it was used before.
So, take something like this:
Col 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
I see a condition there. I have to continue in the faith in order to be presented unblameable. But that way taught once and always. This bothered me, but I was taught not to question doctrine. But if I use the keys, then I can go from Genesis to Revelation and prove these verses. Things like this really bother me, and they bothered me then.
I still use the PFAL tools to study, but I have found myself targeting EVERYTHING we learned. I guess I am still a radical at heart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Rachel
God loves you my dear friend
now these verses and others teach us many things
God is a personal God as Christ is a personal Savior
Now I see many returns of Christ not just one, two. three, four, five, six, seven, and so on
I recall reading nothing about a second just that he will come back as they saw him leave
did they see him come back in the same way on the day of Pentcost ?
if Christ has not came back we could not have him in us as the hope of glory
yes alot to think about
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Kind of surprising to me to learn that a lot of what many churches were saying turns out to be closer to truth then anything the way taught in reality.
I think lumping Christianity together in one group is a mistake because of the different teachings that different denominations and groups teach. Even within these are different things taught.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved cman
God loves you my dear friend
I would not say today's truths are not closer to truth but what was believe to be truth in the time of men like E.W. Bullinger has came back to the top of the circle
I link all believers together as believers whether their believe is in God or not
the way I see it all Christianity together has many pieces of the same truth but no one has the whole truth
it brings tears to my eyes when they fight over bits and pieces
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I am almost always amazed when I remember that we were taught so many great keys to prove doctrines and then weren't allowed to use them. At least that's how some remember it and I tend to believe them when they say they weren't allowed to test the doctrines. My life has seen plety of those battles.
Well: there's still today!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
HI Rachel
To get back to the Rapture, in that verse it says ''we shall MEET him in the air''.
Meet is an interesting word.
Lets look it up together and see what we find. (it will take me a few days though)
One explaination is that it implies a ''greeting'', like when a king would visit a city, they would run out with all their best stuff (horses, chariots, etc) and welcome him.........so then, we come back DOWN to earth for the judgements. Not that we go to heaven for 1000 years.....
I no longer believe in a ''rapture'' per say. I also believe that most of Matt 24 is talking about the destruction of the temple and Jeruselem in 70 AD. (something TWI never even mentioned happening.) Jesus' very words were ''this generation'' shall see this and that... (Isreal, who turned their back on Jesus the Christ)
I do believe that He iscoming back and we greet him in the air, and we will forever be with the LORD.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
So, let's meet here next week and then...
Do what we do, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I am a lector and a catechist.
No, PFAL has no part of Catholic Doctrine.
This link takes you to the official Catechism of the Catholic Church
This link takes you to a Compendium of that Catechism (a far shorter version -- about 150 pages vice 900)
Please feel free to show me where PFAL appears in either text. If it isn't in the above, you'll have a hard time demonstrating that it's part of the doctrine of the Church.
Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
Mark,
The Catholic Church has taken the Bible and rewritten it. While PFAL and the way may seem on the surface to be apples and oranges, they both teach the same things -
The biggest being Sunday Observance.
The Bible says the Sabbath is a sign between The God of Israel and His people (Strangers included) FOREVER. I didn't write that, and everytime I look in the Bible it is still there.
It is a Catholic Doctrine to NOT observe the Sabbath and the Feast Days. Did the way teach anything different on this point?
Easter. We observed Passover, right?
Wrong. We observed Easter. You can't really do Passover without the following Feast Day - Passover is a PREPARATION DAY for the following feast.
Did we observe it Biblically?
Did we have Christmas in the way?
Totally roman doctrine. Jeremiah 10 tells you NOT to do that...Everytime you look it's still there.
Jesus said why do you make void the commandment of God by your traditions?
ALL of the traditions the way has, as well as organized christianity came from the RCC.
And what I meant about the RCC teaching PLAL - They teach it in their Bible studies...The abundant life ministry is a big part of RCC in the U.S. They also teach people to speak in tongues, just like VP instructed. You may disagree, and that's fine. Go to newadvent.org and look up the following:
Sunday
Christmas
Easter
Pork
See if the way doesn't do as they do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Rachel,
I, frankly, don't post as much as I used to, as I am sort of time limited. So I won't address everything, but here are a couple of points:
On Sunday worship. This has gone on since the first century. The Epistle of Barnabas, written in 74 AD, states the following:
So if you want to call Sunday worship a Catholic innovation, I guess you could. St. Barnabas (one of the apostles) was a Catholic, after all.
As to Easter versus Passover, that is a false analogy. The analogue is not Easter. The analogue is the Celebration of the Lord's Passion (i.e., Good Friday). This day commemorates the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb without spot or blemish, not Easter. Easter celebrates something that was not part of the Old Covenant, and that is the resurrection.
As to pork, I would refer you to a vision by St. Peter (the first Catholic Pope), documented in Acts 10:
Or you have the Canons of the Council of Jerusalem (the first Catholic ecumenical council) (Acts 15:23ff)
As to Christmas, the official name is the Solemnity of the Nativity of Our Lord (in most of the romance languages, to include Latin, it is some variant of "natale" -- or Nativity). We have other feasts and solemnities commemorating other key events in our Lord's life: His circumcision, His presentation at the Temple, His baptism, His ascension, His transfiguration, His resurrection, etc. Do we know with certainty when any of these dates were? (In fact, do you know that a significant percentage of Catholics celebrate His nativity on Jan 6th?) You may or may not agree with the idea of commemorating key dates; that's your business.
You mention Christmas trees. The Christmas tree is actually NOT a Roman invention; it is an invention of the French and is barely 500 years old. I, personally, have never met somebody who worships a Christmas tree. If you take a look at Jeremiah 10, you will read:
A casual reading of this section make it clear that what is being spoken of is an idol...the object of worship, not a seasonal decoration. Please note verse 5, which I highlighted.
As to the Catholic Church re-writing the Bible, the collection of writings that was compiled into the Canon of the New Testament by the Catholic Church...those who wrote the individual writings were either Catholic Bishops (St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John, St. James, St. Matthew, St. Jude) or scribes who worked with Catholic Bishops (in the case of St. Mark and St. Luke), so I would phrase it more like the Catholic Church wrote the Bible...not re-wrote it.
Having replied to all of your anti-Catholic rants, I come back to the original point. PFAL is NOT reflected in Catholic doctrine. I gave you links to the two simplest (and fully searchable) documents that compile Catholic doctrine, so if you can show me in those two Catholic documents where some of the unique points about PFAL are discussed, I will be more than happy to consider your reference (and, as others on this board can attest, I will be happy to admit I'm wrong, if, in fact, I am).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
SMART GIRL, RACHEL!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
Mark,
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
Mark,
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Thanks Rachel,
That kind of sums up the importance of it all for me too!
For me it's a matter of record that PFAL and many of the same things that were being taght in those days by other men changed a lot of mainline church doctrine.
As far as the Catholic church goes I met some Catholics that said that under the "Vatican 2" writings that they were allowed to speak in tounges. As they seemed to know what they were talking about I never questioned it further.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Rachel,
OK, and...your point is what???
I suggest you actually read the context (Marcus 7:1-13) and then try to understand exactly what Jesus was saying.
To make sure you understand it fully, I would also suggest you pull out your Mishnah and read Seder Kodashim...particularly Tractate Arakhin (and look especially at 6:2 through 7:5).
Then compare this to Leviticus 25:10ff.
Once you do the above and actually attempt to understand what our Lord was talking about, then we can talk about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
When St. John wrote this in his Apocalypse (22:18-19), there was no compiled collection known as the Bible. Therefore, the context must be referring simply to the vision that he received from the Lord.
However, if you wish to apply it in that context, I would suggest that you would wish to apply it to your Protestant friends whose forefathers emasculated the Holy Scriptures during the 16th Century AD.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
I do not speak any other language than English. Please speak English to me. (Looks like you are a little hot under the colla' Bro)
I understand the context of Mark very well...John's disciples were questioning Jesus because they did not keep the traditions of men - the extensive washing of hands before they ate. They held man's tradition to be above the commandment of God.
It's pretty simple when you read it. Not rocket science. Ya know.
This reasoning can be applied to anything that makes a tradition, like what you call the eighth day sabbath - and elevate it over the word of God. And about that - The eighth day thing, The days of the week biblically are numbered. You cannot find the first day of the week being called the 8th day anywhere in the Bible. It's called the first day.
There is however a FEAST DAY called the Eighth Day, it is observed once a year. By folks that know about it. The Seventh Day, however, is the only day in the Bible that has a name. It's called the Sabbath Day.
So, if you reason that the Bible says what it means and means what it says, the 7th day is the only day The God of Abraham, Issac and Israel called the Sabbath day. No matther what Good Saint so and so said in 69AD or whenever the frack. Men changed that day, men changed the tradition, and those men also formed the RCC. They esteem the tradition of men greater than the Commandment of God.
You may do what you like - But don't try to say all of this spookery is biblical, because it is not. It is religious, yes. But what you are spewing is not from the Bible.
Peace,
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
Well Mark,
You obviously are not paying attention. Mark didn't write ALL of the above.
Let me run something by you, Mark...
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (I know you are familiar with this one)
Now, my Bible is one book. Many writers, one central theme. The above verses say they spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit. And then they wrote it down. We know this because our eyes have seen it, and our hands can touch the Word of Life, right? (You may disagree, but to me the Bible is one book, God can do stuff like that. Pretty nifty trick, huh Mark?)
Now, check this one out...
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Now, this verse from the Bible reders to: The Law (OT) and the Testimony - a common reference to the NEW TESTAMENT. Pretty nifty how God did that, huh Mark?
I do this to show you that the verses I used in the above quote of yours come from The Law and the Testimony. And you missed it, Mark. The point is that God made sure if you read the Bible as one Book, you will se when Moses said "Ye shall not add to the Word which I command you..." and when John said, "whosoever addeth to or taketh away from..." (Paraphrased) It is talking not about the Words of Moses or John, but it is talking about GOD"S HOLY WORD!!!
Holy Men Of God Wrote God's Word. It is HIS. Not John's. And it is one. The Law and the Testimony.
That is my point, Mark.
Do you understand what I am saying? Not asking you to agree with it, just understand whay I am saying. I certainly understand what you are saying. Please try to do the same with me.
Thank You,
RachelYsrael
PS...I am sure you noticed I did not include the scripture references...Maybe you would like to look them up. Search the scriptures, Mark....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
I am sorry, Mark.
I don't understand this here...Please enlighten me.
Thanks,
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Glossolalia is a gift that has been given to the Church from time to time throughout recorded history. Of course, you can read about it in the primitive Church throughout the Acts and in the Pauline epistles. However, several Church fathers documented this up through Nicene times and, in fact, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia,
As to the 2nd Vatican Council (1962-1965), the subject of glossolalia is not explicitly mentioned in any of the published documents. However, there is an allusion to the subject of charismata in several places:
From the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium), chapter 1, paragraph 4,
From the Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church (Ad Gentes), chapter 4, paragraph 23,
Likewise, from the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem), chapter 1, paragraph 3,
But to say that this is "new doctrine" or that they were "allowed" to speak in tongues only after Vatican II is sort of a misstatement. Vatican II restates and reframes doctrine that has been in existence since the time of the apostles. St Irenaeus spoke of it in the third century. St John Chrysostom spoke of it in the fifth. St Thomas Aquinas spoke of it in the thirteenth.
In fact, St. John of the Cross (16th Century), in his book Ascent to Mt Carmel (Book 3, Chapter 30), states:
While the current "Charismatic Renewal" of which your friends spoke is rather recent (it began in 1967 at Duquesne University and has spread worldwide), the point is that it is not new.
Again, unless VPW was around in the 16th century, I doubt that he would have had any influence on St. John of the Cross.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Rachel,
Sometimes Firefox really ticks me off. This is one of those times. I had worked up a post that took me over an hour to research (I like to have my names and dates correct when I post...particularly in Doctrinal).
It spoke to the intent of Luther and Zwingli as far as the canonicity of the books of the NT and then went through the rationale and validity of all the books in the OT.
Unfortunately, it's late and I don't have time to re-do my work (as I said before, I don't have the time I'd like to do this stuff).
Bottom line is that the Prots stripped out about 7 books out of the OT: Judith, Tobit, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch (and parts of the Book of Daniel).
I'm sorry, I wish I had time to re-do the post I was working on, but I don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
Hi Mark,
Do you not think it possible that the Creator of the Universe, that pulled the dry land out of a ball of water, and hung it in the heavens without rods nor beams...
That made man from the dirt, the ground we walk upon, that spit in Adam's nose and gave him breath-life, and made him to be self healing, self replicating and in the image of His Very Self...
Do you not think it possible that He personally had those seven books removed from His Holy Word?
In His Service,
RachelIsrael
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I don't know if this is 100% true, but didn't Martin Luther himself think that the Book of James and even the Book of Revelation didn't belong in the Scriptures?
((slipping back into the shadows ;) ))
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.