Thus Saith Paul

[Tzaia]

Jeff - I met VPW a little over a year after my first visit to a twig fellowship, PFAL, and a little over a month after I got married. In 1980, I went to a limb meeting with my husband, an AC grad, college wow, and former twig leader. I was out in the lobby going to the little girl's room when VPW was moving across the room. I was with a friend talking and he approached us. He looked at me just like we were standing in a singles bar, and held my hand a bit too long. I had seen that look before, and had that lingering hand before. I went back to my seat and told my husband that VPW was a lecherous old man. He thought my insight was ridiculous. From that point forward, my radar was up.

I don't have to be in a situation where I'm in complete agreement. As long as we were left alone, I didn't really care. The events of 1987 seemed to be a logical stopping point and I was able to say, "I told you so" to my husband.

I don't know about Paul having victims aplenty. There was fall-out. It appears he and Barnabus had a falling out. It does happen - even to the best of people.

[waysider]

I don't know how to state this any plainer. I am not attacking Paul. I am attacking a concept. The concept is that, first, the epistles are addressed directly to us today, and, secondly, that whenever Paul spoke, it was synonymous with God speaking.

[Broken Arrow]

I don't know how to state this any plainer. I am not attacking Paul. I am attacking a concept. The concept is that, first, the epistles are addressed directly to us today, and, secondly, that whenever Paul spoke, it was synonymous with God speaking.

I read what you're saying here, Waysider but your words seem to be inconsistent with other posts you've written. Namely:

" Suppose for a moment, though, that Paul was, perhaps, the VPW of his day. (So often, people would put forth the inverse idea that VPW was the Apostle Paul of our day and time.) Even now, years after his death, with the advent of the internet and the plethora of information it puts at our fingertips, some people still aren't able to see that VPW was really a con-man. People in the first century did not have access to resources that could prove or disprove Paul's legitimacy."

"What if Paul was really a forerunner of what we now call "con men"? What if Paul was the VPWFHDAT? (VPW for his day and time) It certainly shines a very different light on the importance and "inerrancy" of The Epistles."

"What do we really know about this cat named Paul? I mean, he had a pretty lengthy rap sheet before he made the old switchola. Personal credibility does not work heavily in his favor...."

"If Paul was a flim-flam man on the order of VPW, maybe the comparisons are warranted."

"there are at least weather records on file that refute Wierwille's gas pump Stowwwry. We don't even have any traffic logs for Damascus Road."

This next was was bit vicious in my opinion:

"A thousand years from now-----

"He sacrificed his very own eye for his keeeds. And, when that wasn't enough, he turned his face to the wall and, with a broken heart and shattered liver, was heard to say, 'I wish I was a man. I know I could have been.'"

A comparison, it seems, to Paul discussing how he was beaten etc. and what it would have sounded like if it were being written about VPW.

I could have picked other quotes...but you catch my drift.

Now in this post you say you're not attacking Paul? With all due respect, and I do respect you by the way, these look like attacks to me. So, can you help me out here? Am I completely misunderstanding your words? Looks plain to me, but we're all guilty of reading into things. So I'm open. How do you reconcile some of these statements that look (to me) like attacks on Paul with, "I'm not attacking Paul".

[geisha779]

I don't know how to state this any plainer. I am not attacking Paul. I am attacking a concept. The concept is that, first, the epistles are addressed directly to us today, and, secondly, that whenever Paul spoke, it was synonymous with God speaking.

Paul was an Apostle. He was recognized as an Apostle. He is called "The Apostle Paul". An Apostle was someone who, in this case, was sent forth by the Lord as a messenger. His Epistles are suppose to contain the message he was sent to deliver. New light. It was not an unknown concept to the church. The Apostles helped establish the church. That was their purpose and life.

If you don't believe that Jesus would send forth messengers . . . or believe the resurrected Jesus would appear to someone. . . . or that God would use flawed men, word of mouth, and imperfect language as some of the ways He communicates himself to us. . . . . .there is no point in believing any of it. God used a Palestinian Jew in a particular culture. . . at a particular time. . . . . and in an unexpected rather ghoulish manner. . . . to redeem mankind. To declare Himself to us. . . . Jesus came to declare God. . . . They were expecting Him to kick the Roman butt. Maybe God is not always what we would like to believe about Him.

Most didn't believe on Him. . . and they SAW Him. They SAW the miracles. His own brother didn't believe Him and he was there. It was not until James saw the resurrected Christ that he believed. You should include James with Paul. He has a conversion story too. James was always with the Pharisees. . . .He was so pious that they called him old camel knees. . . . because he would spend so much time in the temple praying for Israel. Meanwhile, his own brother is the Messiah.

James, along with the others. . .died a violent death. . . for their faith. Most believe, the only one who did not die a martyrs death was John. Could be, a part of that, was a way for God to establish their credibility. Their deaths might mean something. Have significance.

These guys, for the most part, were devout Jews. . . . Paul went to the gentiles. . . huge deal. . . . while James, Peter, and John went to the Jews. Putting it mildly, not common, or popular to take it straight to the gentiles.

Many of us believed VP was an Apostle. We got tricked. VP had to counterfeit something in order to be so good at what he pulled off. . . . something already established. I believe he counterfeited something genuine, not counterfeited something counterfeit.

The church is established. . . . it is built on the Apostles and Prophets.. . Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone. This is the way it happened.

Jesus said His church would be built. .. .. . .who was going to do this? Those who didn't believe on Him? Paul called himself, one born out of due time, chief among sinners, and God had to smack him down and blind him just to get him to listen. He was the biggest enemy of the church at the time. Something happened? We have a church today. Built on the Apostles and prophets. It has made it 2000 years so far.

The epistles are addressed to the church. . . not to someone not in the church. I don't know if they actually do apply to you. They were written at a specific time, to specific people, about how the church should be. . . . that would still apply to the church today. Cultural norms change.. . . . hair length and head covering for example. . . . yet, the demeanor behind the CUSTOM doesn't change. We can change the cultural expression without changing the meaning. A past particularity does not obstruct the significance.

Why should the revelation or new light that was so significant to the early church, now be used in argument against it and its trustworthiness by a later people? Because our knowledge of the establishment of a church is so superior to those called to establish it?

Edited February 17, 2010 by geisha779

[OldSkool]

geisha779 - that is probably the best post I have read. Thanks.

[JeffSjo]

Jeff - I met VPW a little over a year after my first visit to a twig fellowship, PFAL, and a little over a month after I got married. In 1980, I went to a limb meeting with my husband, an AC grad, college wow, and former twig leader. I was out in the lobby going to the little girl's room when VPW was moving across the room. I was with a friend talking and he approached us. He looked at me just like we were standing in a singles bar, and held my hand a bit too long. I had seen that look before, and had that lingering hand before. I went back to my seat and told my husband that VPW was a lecherous old man. He thought my insight was ridiculous. From that point forward, my radar was up.

I don't have to be in a situation where I'm in complete agreement. As long as we were left alone, I didn't really care. The events of 1987 seemed to be a logical stopping point and I was able to say, "I told you so" to my husband.

I don't know about Paul having victims aplenty. There was fall-out. It appears he and Barnabus had a falling out. It does happen - even to the best of people.

I am glad you had your radar up Tzaia. That being said it must have been a dificult thing to go through, TWI and all while having been creeped out by Wierwille himself.

__________________________________________

As far as the victim issue goes....

Paul's victims were before his conversion experience when he victimized fledgling Christianity under the cover of status, laudable background, and the fruit of personal ambition. After his conversion he willingly thanked God if his own life was given up upon the altar in service to God for the benefit of Christianity. All the while of his ministry he faced persecution from his former fellows and in spite of their best efforts found no reason to condemn him as a criminal for cause despite many persistent attempts. The 1st century church then persisted and prospered despite nefarious persecution from official sources despite being widely recognized by even their adversaries as having done no evil things worthy of judgement.

Wiewille claimed to have a calling that was miraculous in it's origin, yet in private remained a wicked and abusive horndog to the end. He built a ministry where even to this day the minimogs herd their followers and protect them from the other Wierwillian minimogs by slander, insults, and a TWI learned skill at manipulation that I have trouble finding words to describe but many GSCers seem to be able to sniff out by virtue of having been crushed to various extents by the TWI system.

TWI seems more like pre-conversion Paul to me than Paul the Apostle, despite it's own press.

Edited February 17, 2010 by JeffSjo

[Tzaia]

I was never all that sold out and that served as a sort of protection against all the stuff that went on. It was hard at the time because I didn't buy into the whole thing, so apart from that 15% that was being given, we were dead weight as it was never enough - in terms of time - in terms of doing - in terms of anything. It got old - very quickly.

[Broken Arrow]

Nevermind. :)

Edited February 18, 2010 by erkjohn

[Ham]

I think it is a good question..

what would people actually DO if it wasn't da word o gawd like it hadnt not ever been known..

what would one do.. without the certainty..

is certainty really worth all that much?

I won't say more..

[irisheyes]

Although I am jumping in here without reading every single reply, my first thought is why get so hung up on the epistles? Paul was one apostle. The book of Acts says there were more than 12 apostles. One of the requirements for being an apostle was SEEING the resurrected Christ. Where did VPW ever meet that one? I guess what I am trying to say is that shouldn't we be more concerned with what Jesus Christ did than what Paul did or wrote? Should he not be our example? Who says JUST the epistles are written to us? To say there were three components to what makes up the church is not exactly accurate. Jews, Gentiles, Church of God? The Church of God consisted of Jews and Gentiles in the first century. It took lots of figuring out for them to get to the point of being able to coexist. If we just go by what we were taught backthen, the Old Testament was just for our learning. Ha. Sure, we learn from it, we learn who God is and how He works. That is not just in the epistles or the gospels. Why have it otherwise? We would have tunnel vision just looking at seven letters.

[WordWolf]

Although I am jumping in here without reading every single reply, my first thought is why get so hung up on the epistles? Paul was one apostle. The book of Acts says there were more than 12 apostles.

One of the requirements for being an apostle was SEEING the resurrected Christ. Where did VPW ever meet that one?

I guess what I am trying to say is that shouldn't we be more concerned with what Jesus Christ did than what Paul did or wrote? Should he not be our example? Who says JUST the epistles are written to us? To say there were three components to what makes up the church is not exactly accurate. Jews, Gentiles, Church of God? The Church of God consisted of Jews and Gentiles in the first century. It took lots of figuring out for them to get to the point of being able to coexist. If we just go by what we were taught backthen, the Old Testament was just for our learning. Ha. Sure, we learn from it, we learn who God is and how He works. That is not just in the epistles or the gospels. Why have it otherwise? We would have tunnel vision just looking at seven letters.

Small wonder vpw REDEFINED THE MEANING OF THE WORD "APOSTLE". When he was done, their

personal witnessing wasn't an issue.

Honestly, though, I see "apostle" as "sent one." Wherever vpw plagiarized "his" definition

from, I find it interesting and irrelevant. Then again, when one is "sent", it raises

the question of who "sent" them and how....

[irisheyes]

Small wonder vpw REDEFINED THE MEANING OF THE WORD "APOSTLE". When he was done, their

personal witnessing wasn't an issue.

Honestly, though, I see "apostle" as "sent one." Wherever vpw plagiarized "his" definition

from, I find it interesting and irrelevant. Then again, when one is "sent", it raises

the question of who "sent" them and how....

OK. Sure apostle means "sent one." But, others were also sent ones and didn't qualify as apostles, yes? The Samartin woman was sent....Mary Magdelen was sent....the 70 were sent. Has to be a bit more to it and I think some of the clues would be Paul's definition of apostle, I Cor. 9:1, "...Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?...." Then there's Luke's "definition" in Acts 1:21, "so one of the MEN who have accompanied us during all the tiem that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us...." Not too sure if MEN remained part of the definition because Junia (Rom. 16:7)was "prominent among the apostles." Junia eventually got to be masculine as the MSS got "newer." Then, of course, there the fact that apostles are gifts to the church. Not everyone is called to be an apostle....

Interesting though in re-looking at this stuff James has been grouped in with the apostles without even a thought (by most of us) and yet he was not one of the "original." Apollos is grouped in by Paul in I Cor. 4:6-9 ("us apostles"). Barnabas (I Cor. 9:5,6; Acts 14:14). Silvanus and Timothy (see I Thess. 2:7 with 1:1).

I often feel as if I missed the forest for the trees and this is certainly one area in particular. Curiously, does that mean there are no apostles today? Well, TODAY, I'd have to say I think not. Tomorrow? Who knows?

[Sunesis]

Awesome post Geisha.

I think the Apostle Paul is important for several reasons. But first, a little background to explain why I think so.

Remember, the 12 Apostles had been with Jesus on earth. They were sent to the Jewish people. Their message was "repent, the Kingdom of heaven come to earth is at hand. You crucified the Messiah, but he is still ready to come back."

Remember, all Israel needs to repent and call on the Messiah for him to come back. If Israel had repented, we would have skipped over our current age of grace and gone on to Revelation - Christ would have come back as King. Things would be very different today.

Israel did not believe. Now what? Who would have thunk Israel would have rejected the Messiah? All through Acts, Pauls Hope is Israel's Hope, as he states in Acts 26. He taught nothing other than "what the law and the prophets say." "I am in chains for the Hope of Israel." That's why, all of his epistles up through Acts 28 are loaded with OT scripture - he is able to show people that this was all prophesised. Read Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Thes., James, Jude, etc. - they believed the return was immanent and they would see it in their lifetime. That's why Peter had to address - hey, where is his coming? Its been years now. People were starting to wonder (I and II Peter).

But, Israel refused to believe - now what?

Now, Paul is commissioned to go to the Gentiles (Acts 28:28). Starting with Ephesians you can see something has happened, there has been a change.

Paul, as he says in his own words, received a revelation from the risen, heavenly Christ. What was this great revelation?

It was: God will take a people and house them with Him and His Son in Heaven for eternity - he will make a "new creation" a creation never seen. A people who will believe - even though they never saw. God will take a people for Heaven - above the heavenlies.

This is why in the prison epistles (Eph., Col, Phil., Timothy, Titus & Philemon) virtually no OT scripture is quoted. Why?

Because this was Paul's revelation, shown to him by the risen Christ kept secret from before the Foundation of the World. This revelation is not in the OT, nor was it ever prophesised. Thus, he can't prove it. He cannot "prove" this new revelation. We just have to believe him and learn about it in his prison epistles.

Why did all asia turn away from him at the end? Because for Jewish Christians - it was nonsense, Paul could not prove this out of the OT, and it was ludicrous for them to think God would take gentiles (aliens, strangers and with no hope in the world), and give them this amazing grace and mercy - who ever heard of a people in heaven for eternity???? He's crazy.

Maybe Paul was, maybe he wasn't. Our heavenly citizenship is our Hope - the Hope of the new creation. Our hope is not land, and a kingdom on earth.

So the Christian now has a choice - believe what Paul said in his prison epistles, or no. Its like the movie the Matrix - here's a blue pill, here's the red pill. Do you want to take the pill and go further (i.e., believe Paul's revelation) or no?

Many people do not believe Paul's revelation. Fine. To me, this age of grace was a secret from before the foundation of the world. It is the cherry on top, it is the tip of the pyramid put into place - it is the fullness of God's revelation.

But, Paul couldn't "prove" it with scripture from the OT. Thus, all turned away. As many have done today. And as many Christians have appropriated Israel's Hope for themselves.

So, I think Paul was an important guy, and I believe his wacky revelation and think its important for other Christians to. "Be it unto you according to your believing." I really do not look at heaven as one large arena we'll all be herded into for eternity. I believe there are different places. If you truly, truly believe you are not a citizen of heaven (i.e., do not believe Paul's revelation), well, maybe you will enjoy Israel's hope here on earth.

I think, just as Abraham believed and it was counted unto him for righteouness when God promised his seed would populate the earth, I think when Paul believed the revelation he was given, it was counted to him for righteouness and he was the first Citizen of Heaven. He is our apostle of this new revelation - the mystery. I choose to take the pill and explore the heavenlies someday.

[irisheyes]

Geisha and Sunesis: Awesome insight and responses. I might just add how in Acts the Church appears to act as the ONE BODY. Is not that a huge characteristic of the church as was established then? When Annanias and Saphira withheld their proceeds they were condemned for sinning against the holy spirit. In the gospels the holy spirit worked through Jesus Christ; in the epistles the holy spirit worked through the church, as a whole. At least as it appears to me. That seems to point to the relevance of the one body. Don't misunderstand, of course I believe each individual has the holy spirit too, but we are meant to be community. Everyonewhere we see community. Jesus heals the people who were outside of the community. Why? So they could be brought back in. So they could participate and be loved and held and touched. So they would no longer be outcasts. If what John's Gospel says about all the things Jesus did and said couldn't be written because the world could not contain the books that should be written, then I have to wonder why the ones that were written were so special. I think the answer is community. I LOVE THIS STUFF!!!

I am realizing more lately that the need is to look at the basic beliefs of what is being said, rather than the "literal meaning". That might explain the hair length, etc. What's God really trying to say here? What's His message to us. If there is no new thing under the son, then His message would relate just as well today as it did then.

[irisheyes]

Oops! Hit send twice.... :blush:

Edited February 21, 2010 by irisheyes

[roberterasmus]

Awesome post Geisha.

I think the Apostle Paul is important for several reasons. But first, a little background to explain why I think so.

Remember, the 12 Apostles had been with Jesus on earth. They were sent to the Jewish people. Their message was "repent, the Kingdom of heaven come to earth is at hand. You crucified the Messiah, but he is still ready to come back."

Remember, all Israel needs to repent and call on the Messiah for him to come back. If Israel had repented, we would have skipped over our current age of grace and gone on to Revelation - Christ would have come back as King. Things would be very different today.

Israel did not believe. Now what? Who would have thunk Israel would have rejected the Messiah? All through Acts, Pauls Hope is Israel's Hope, as he states in Acts 26. He taught nothing other than "what the law and the prophets say." "I am in chains for the Hope of Israel." That's why, all of his epistles up through Acts 28 are loaded with OT scripture - he is able to show people that this was all prophesised. Read Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Thes., James, Jude, etc. - they believed the return was immanent and they would see it in their lifetime. That's why Peter had to address - hey, where is his coming? Its been years now. People were starting to wonder (I and II Peter).

But, Israel refused to believe - now what?

Now, Paul is commissioned to go to the Gentiles (Acts 28:28). Starting with Ephesians you can see something has happened, there has been a change.

Paul, as he says in his own words, received a revelation from the risen, heavenly Christ. What was this great revelation?

It was: God will take a people and house them with Him and His Son in Heaven for eternity - he will make a "new creation" a creation never seen. A people who will believe - even though they never saw. God will take a people for Heaven - above the heavenlies.

This is why in the prison epistles (Eph., Col, Phil., Timothy, Titus & Philemon) virtually no OT scripture is quoted. Why?

Because this was Paul's revelation, shown to him by the risen Christ kept secret from before the Foundation of the World. This revelation is not in the OT, nor was it ever prophesised. Thus, he can't prove it. He cannot "prove" this new revelation. We just have to believe him and learn about it in his prison epistles.

Why did all asia turn away from him at the end? Because for Jewish Christians - it was nonsense, Paul could not prove this out of the OT, and it was ludicrous for them to think God would take gentiles (aliens, strangers and with no hope in the world), and give them this amazing grace and mercy - who ever heard of a people in heaven for eternity???? He's crazy.

Maybe Paul was, maybe he wasn't. Our heavenly citizenship is our Hope - the Hope of the new creation. Our hope is not land, and a kingdom on earth.

So the Christian now has a choice - believe what Paul said in his prison epistles, or no. Its like the movie the Matrix - here's a blue pill, here's the red pill. Do you want to take the pill and go further (i.e., believe Paul's revelation) or no?

Many people do not believe Paul's revelation. Fine. To me, this age of grace was a secret from before the foundation of the world. It is the cherry on top, it is the tip of the pyramid put into place - it is the fullness of God's revelation.

But, Paul couldn't "prove" it with scripture from the OT. Thus, all turned away. As many have done today. And as many Christians have appropriated Israel's Hope for themselves.

So, I think Paul was an important guy, and I believe his wacky revelation and think its important for other Christians to. "Be it unto you according to your believing." I really do not look at heaven as one large arena we'll all be herded into for eternity. I believe there are different places. If you truly, truly believe you are not a citizen of heaven (i.e., do not believe Paul's revelation), well, maybe you will enjoy Israel's hope here on earth.

I think, just as Abraham believed and it was counted unto him for righteouness when God promised his seed would populate the earth, I think when Paul believed the revelation he was given, it was counted to him for righteouness and he was the first Citizen of Heaven. He is our apostle of this new revelation - the mystery. I choose to take the pill and explore the heavenlies someday.

Sunesis,

There is much within what you say that I agree with, yet places where I’d like to see you ferret out things a bit more. I too think the Pauline corpus is Scripture (2 Peter 3: 16) and therefore applicable to the believer today. I’m not mid-Acts or Ultra dispy whereby the earlier and later Pauline epistles are somewhat or not applicable, but you seem to be. Is this the case?

You said that, “all of his epistles up through Acts 28 are loaded with OT scripture” and then, “This is why in the prison epistles (Eph., Col, Phil., Timothy, Titus & Philemon) virtually no OT scripture is quoted. Why?” May I point out that the prison epistles were written before Acts 28 in most people’s understanding. There are certainly other reasons why Paul might not use the Hebrew Scriptures in his reasonings. I, personally think he did not need them to explain the “the unsearchable riches of Christ”. They were…unsearchable.

The “if Israel had repented” language that you are using is infused with some interesting luggage theologically. Add to that your statement, “all Israel needs to repent and call on the Messiah for him to come back,” and I’m really interested in where this comes from. Care to share?

Finally, so I won’t take up too much of your time, I’m agreeing with our “heavenly citizenship” (Philippians 3:20); how could I not, but your extension of that citizenship into “eternity” (“God will take a people and house them with Him and His Son in Heaven for eternity”) doesn’t sit well Biblically for me. I believe on another thread somewhere I asked you the same question; isn’t the “holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven” (see Revelation 21: 2) and isn’t God coming too ("Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.” – Revelation 21:3)? I believe later in that same chapter the Lamb is there with God and God is still on the earth (they both have a throne, BTW). The logic would be that if Christ (aka – the Lamb) is on earth (with all the rest of the saints, BTW), God is on the earth, then shouldn’t we be coming too (“…so shall we ever be with the Lord” – 1 Thessalonians 4:17)?

So, while I agree with you that our hope initially is heaven (we’ll be there for the seven (7) years of the “great tribulation”, IMHO) our ultimate hope would be to be with God and the Lamb in the new heaven and earth (maybe living with some Jewish and Gentile believers in the New Jerusalem??)? I also think that Jesus, not Paul, is the “first citizen of heaven” (no other humans up there…). Paul and the rest of us Christianish types will be there soon though. I took the pill as well.

RE

[excathedra]

It was: God will take a people and house them with Him and His Son in Heaven for eternity - he will make a "new creation" a creation never seen. A people who will believe - even though they never saw

i know that i am a "believer" who never saw

sunesis, could you explain to me how believing paul could be more important than believing christ? i know you did not say this at all, but i just want to understand -- because i feel my faith, new birth, etc., had only to do with christ and god. thank you. you know how much i loveyou

[irisheyes]

roberterasmus: Absolutely great points. Sometimes I wish I had the wherewithal to pick things apart. Hard for me to do when not face-to-face. I do wonder, and I'm not picking at you, or anyone for that matter, just how much all of the nitty-gritty details matter? Just as my eternal life does not depend on whether or not I cut my hair, should we not be more driven to just get people to the point where they too can have eternal life? Hey, I'm not saying you don't do that, just thinking out loud. Paul was a vehicle, albeit probably a Rolls Royce compared to a VW, but aren't we all? The point being that either car can get us where we need to go. I do think, Excathedra, that we need to keep our eyes on the Lord and mimic him. Is not that what Paul has told us anyway?

[geisha779]

i know that i am a "believer" who never saw

sunesis, could you explain to me how believing paul could be more important than believing christ? i know you did not say this at all, but i just want to understand -- because i feel my faith, new birth, etc., had only to do with christ and god. thank you. you know how much i loveyou

excathedra.. . . you are correct that she did not say it was more important.. . . but, I just wanted to mention that as Christians we put our faith in Christ.. . people can believe Jesus and intellectually ascent to what was accomplished on the cross. . . and still not have faith in the Lord. I know that sounds funny, and I am not saying that is what you do . . . I just think coming out of TWI it is a relevant point.

Some of us put plenty of faith in the scriptures, MOG's, research, and name tags . . . and not in the person of Jesus Christ. That would actually be me BTW.

I truly do not believe I became a Christian until after I left TWI. . . I know that is just my personal experience. . . .and others differ. . . . but, I am of the mind that unless one went in a Christian. . . it is not likely one came out of TWI a Christian. That also explains why some now easily seem to repudiate Christ. But, that is just my opinion.

As for Paul . .. he had a really specific calling. . . . to bring the light to the gentiles. He kind of completed the second half of Jesus ministry. Although one can kind of piece together some things from the gospels about gentiles . . . Jesus said He came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

"I was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel."

Remember the crumbs and dogs under the table? That would be us.

Things had already shifted to a new reality with the resurrection . . . .everything was changing. . . . . and it was Paul who received the calling from the Lord to take the gospel directly to the gentiles. . . . Jesus didn't do this while here on earth. So, if Paul was lying. . . . we are not saved.

I, like Sunesis and others believe Paul. For a myriad of reasons. It is perfect the way God accomplished this. . . . He took the biggest enemy of the church. . . . zealous, zealous Jew. . . . . . . a man with stature in his culture and everything to lose and struck him blind. . . . then sent him to the people he would have called dogs. There is more to it, but I believe Paul's defense of his Apostleship is very powerful. Paul swore to God . . . and that may not mean much today. . . . but, it did to Paul. One has to at the very least put some cultural context on his epistles.

There is no gain for Paul in terms of profit in a sense we could see. . . . only loss in a tangible sense. He lost his stature, beloved faith, his entire identity, and eventually his life.

But, the bottom line is. . . . if Paul lied. . . . . we got nothing.

[roberterasmus]

roberterasmus: Absolutely great points. Sometimes I wish I had the wherewithal to pick things apart. Hard for me to do when not face-to-face. I do wonder, and I'm not picking at you, or anyone for that matter, just how much all of the nitty-gritty details matter? Just as my eternal life does not depend on whether or not I cut my hair, should we not be more driven to just get people to the point where they too can have eternal life? Hey, I'm not saying you don't do that, just thinking out loud. Paul was a vehicle, albeit probably a Rolls Royce compared to a VW, but aren't we all? The point being that either car can get us where we need to go. I do think, Excathedra, that we need to keep our eyes on the Lord and mimic him. Is not that what Paul has told us anyway?

Hi, Irish,

Thanks for the reply. I'm in the unfortunate postion of being an electrical engineer and a student of theology. Just as physicist/astrophysicists have a holy grail of a "unified theory of everything" (quantum mechanics at its best...think about Albert Einstein' theory of relativity and string theory combined), theologians look for the systematic theology that solves all the problems. That's where the details come in. I think jots and tittles are the wildest things and not that they are a thrill for everyone (I agree with the car analogy above, BTW), I think that some of us are called to really vet the theories as best they can. The Reformation would not have happened if Martin Luther hadn't really thought through Romans 1: 17 and Dispensationalism wouldn't have it's ascendency without the grammatical/historical/logical interpretation of Scripture by the likes of Darby, Scofield, etc.

I'm just seeing things and asking questions.

RE

[Sunesis]

I haven't forgotten your question in doctrinal Robert, its a big topic, I need to find you a couple of good links. But, for me, I will explain.

There is a phrase God uses a lot: Foundation of the World. It his dividing line so to speak, like bc/ad is for us on earth - before Christ, after Christ. Foundation of the World literally means "overthrow of the cosmos (Kosmos in greek). It is his dividing line for things that happened before, and things that happened later.

For God, Gen. 1:1 and before - here creation had not fallen, angels hadn't fallen, all is still perfect. This is "before the Foundation of the World." From Gen 1:2 forward, after destruction, things have fallen, the earth is restored again and made habitable for man, that is "from" or "since" the Foundation of the World.

Now, we can see certain groups of believers called in the Bible, from which period God purposed them, when they were called and where their eternal life will be.

There are only 2 groups, or beings called from "before" the Foundation of the World. Christ, and us - those of us living in the age of Grace. God purposed us in eternity - Gen. 1:1 and before.

Israel was called "from" or since the Foundation of the World - from Gen. 1:2 on. They will inherit the earth someday.

Then you have the faithful "remnant" of Israel, like Abraham who looked for a heavenly city, whose builder and maker is God. Hebrews talks about these people and there are others. This Heavenly Jerusalem will descend to earth from heaven someday and it will be the abode of the Jews who really believed - they didn't just rest on their laurels because they were God's chosen. I consider this group, the "Bride" - some will disagree and say the church today is the "Bride."

Anyway. We see:

3 groups called in the Bible: Jew, Bride, Church which is the one body, the new man in the age of grace.

2 different time callings: Christ and Church of age of Grace - before the Foundation of the World. Israel and remnant - since or From the foundation of the World.

3 different spheres for eternity for each group: Jew - land, earth. Bride (faithful remant) - heavenly Jerusalem. One body - Heavenly places.

So, each group has a different calling in time, a different hope, and a different abode for eternity. Its an interesting study.

Ex-cath. I would never, ever put Paul above Christ - just sayin' :) All I'm saying is Israel rejected their Messiah. God reveals "Plan B" to Paul (thank God, that God had one - that's why its grace - he didn't have to - he could have let mankind stew in their own juices as they and the world "lies in the arms of the wicked one"). Its like God took a bunch of mangy mutts, bathed them and washed them (with Christ's blood), fluffed us up, clothed us, and said - "Come In" Welcome to my home. Whoa! That's grace. Its like, have you ever taken in a stray animal? You open the door for them to come in and they are like, really? I can come in? I can hasz cookie? (just kidding on that one). But, they are so grateful, someone allowed them in. Someone took them in. Grace. I believe in this day and age, one of the Holy Spirits functions is to give each individual the opportunity to believe. I believe every human is gently called, but not all respond. You responded :)

Irish, it is about community! The One Body, the Unity of the Spirit (note its regarding spirit - I don't think God expects unity of politics, sports, liking the same things - we are all individuals). TWI failed in this aspect - we were all expected to think in lockstep. "Renewed mind" was what was used to beat this into us.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Sunesis

[waysider]

But, the bottom line is. . . . if Paul lied. . . . . we got nothing.

Who said Paul lied?

Lying is a conscious act of deception.

If I say the moon is made of green cheese because I actually believe it, I'm not lying.

Wrong, yes. Lying, no.

[geisha779]

Who said Paul lied?

Lying is a conscious act of deception.

If I say the moon is made of green cheese because I actually believe it, I'm not lying.

Wrong, yes. Lying, no.

Con men tell the truth now? Wow. . . who knew?

" A confidence trick or confidence game (also known as a bunko, con, flim flam, gaffle, grift, hustle, scam, scheme, swindle or bamboozle) is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence. The victim is known as the mark, the trickster is called a confidence man, con man, or con artist, and any accomplices are known as shills. Confidence men exploit human characteristics such as greed and dishonesty, and have victimized individuals from all walks of life."

http://en.wikipedia....onfidence_trick

And we know he was wrong given our what? . . . . Great insight into God's revelation to the church which is different from Paul's. . . how?

Edited February 22, 2010 by geisha779

[waysider]

All through though this thread we have people saying, "God said this." or, " God said that.".

Did He? Or did Paul say "this" or "that"? Then, it all comes back around to, "Well, the scriptures are God-breathed." How do we know? "God said so." No, He didn't. Paul did. "Well, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Did God say that?----or was it Paul who made that statement?

Does that make Paul a con-man? Does it make him a liar? No. But it doesn't make those statements the "absolute truth" either.

Edited February 22, 2010 by waysider

[geisha779]

All through though this thread we have people saying, "God said this." or, " God said that.".

Did He? Or did Paul say "this" or "that"? Then, it all comes back around to, "Well, the scriptures are God-breathed." How do we know? "God said so." No, He didn't. Paul did. "Well, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Did God say that?----or was it Paul who made that statement?

I believe it comes back to the message . . . this is where you and I differ . . . . I believe the message. I see Paul's credibility and the way God works in His choosing of Paul, but I hear the message. Now, if YOU believe Paul is wrong. . . I have to seriously question what you are basing this on. . . . you must base it on more than simply. . . it came from a man named Paul who said he was called and inspired by God.

You must have a handle on the way it actually should be . . . . to say Paul is wrong. How do you know?

What is the message? Is Paul giving us a recipe for chocolate cake? Are we saying a cake recipe came from Paul by way of God? No, it is a revelation about the church and the things of God. A shocker of a revelation concerning the gentiles. No one was saying what Paul was at the time. . . . it was being alluded to. . . . but, he lived it out. He was believed too. . . . How do I know?

I go to church.

No one is saying it was not Paul who said these things. . . . it WAS Paul . . . who I believe was INSPIRED by God. Have you ever been inspired Waysider? You do believe there is such a thing as inspiration don't you? It is in our vernacular . . . we actually have a word to describe this event. Inspiration. IN SPIRIT. . . .

You believe in God right? So, God inspiring someone to reveal His plan or purpose with a group of people by way of communicating through language . . . something we can relate to. . . is what? Difficult to believe?

Or . . . is it that it was Paul? Paul is difficult to believe? Is it the message? Is it inspiration? The Holy Spirit? What is the real issue?

No guarantee? Not much in life does come with a guarantee . . . except. . . death. . . . and that is in part what Paul's message is about, that and eternity. . . . God's eternal nature is fairly evident in creation as you remind us . . . so, Paul's message should make some sense to us. Death and eternity . . . or do you have the correct info on this?