It only started there, because of the (strange, and unexpected) linking of the "overthrow" to Genesis 3:15. Strange and unexpected, as I don't recall ever hearing anything like that from vpw or twi.
13 hours ago, WordWolf said:
and I answered making it clear I was addressing HIS positions specifically.
Yeah, I got that. No problem. I simply had more interest in the concept itself.
13 hours ago, WordWolf said:
I assure you, we had an easy time of it. He spent 3 different tapes laying out his position, and we successfully refuted each tape point by point, as well as the entire premise. Perhaps it might have gone differently with someone else presenting "Open Theism", but I'm skeptical it would have gone DRASTICALLY different. We refuted the premise in addition to every point he made, attempting to make his case. But that's an exercise in imagination, at this point.
So, if you still have your refutation of his position, I would be interested in reading it (to see how directly it might - or might not - address the general concept.)
Are they all not taking Paul's writings with enough levity?
Seems most want a law to live by, to appear (or feel) more righteous...
Do you know that the harlots in the pagan temples in Corinth shaved their heads? Made it easy to identify them.
And by the way, hair is the covering Paul speaks of. (Not the hijab... unless maybe you have a shaved head, and don't care to be mistaken for a harlot.)
Seems most want a law to live by, to appear (or feel) more righteous...
Do you know that the harlots in the pagan temples in Corinth shaved their heads? Made it easy to identify them.
And by the way, hair is the covering Paul speaks of. (Not the hijab... unless maybe you have a shaved head, and don't care to be mistaken for a harlot.)
No, and I also didn't know that all the hair bands in the 90's were "disgraceful" naturally per I Cor 11:15. Didn't seem that way to me at the time - all the girls wanted to hang out with them.
I also know the Way jargon interpolation of that section of scripture how "covering" really means you are obedient and have the permission of your husband. But the husband only has to ask the Lord, that is unless he is in the "household" where he has to tell Rosalie if he's going off grounds to buy flowers for his wife. Many women I conversed with in the Way felt that to be demeaning, and certainly the male leaders used it to make their spouses walk 10 feet behind them.
And mind you now, God is breathing all this stuff. Right?
No, and I also didn't know that all the hair bands in the 90's were "disgraceful" naturally per I Cor 11:15. Didn't seem that way to me at the time - all the girls wanted to hang out with them.
Disgraceful? Never heard of such ridiculousness. (And btw, our girls wore 'em. ...loved'em, as a matter of fact.)
11 minutes ago, chockfull said:
I also know the Way jargon interpolation of that section of scripture how "covering" really means you are obedient and have the permission of your husband.
Well then, evidently they were full of chit. Sounds like a prime example of how to use the scripture deceitfully.
11 minutes ago, chockfull said:
And mind you now, God is breathing all this stuff. Right?
Disgraceful? Never heard of such ridiculousness. (And btw, our girls wore 'em.)
Well then, evidently they were full of chit. Sounds like a prime example of how to use the scripture deceitfully.
Wrong. Not that crap.
14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
Clarifying here - so these scriptures in I Cor. 11:14, 15 are not the crap that is God-breathed. There is other crap that is God-breathed in Corinthians but this crap isn't?
I think this kind of gets down to what we were discussing in "Thus Saith Paul" the title of the thread. What part of Paul's crap is God breathed and what part is not. Or all of it is God-breathed and God likes obedient women in hijabs. And Pentecostal preachers with haircuts from a salad bowl. (I remember listening to this Pentecostal preacher one time live in a tent and he was at 110 decibels going on about how someone found the Lord and cut their hair).
14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
Clarifying here - so these scriptures in I Cor. 11:14, 15 are not the crap that is God-breathed. There is other crap that is God-breathed in Corinthians but this crap isn't?
I think this kind of gets down to what we were discussing in "Thus Saith Paul" the title of the thread.
Hey, you were referring to "Way jargon" and how they interpret those verses, so the crap I spoke of should be plenty obvious enough, and it doesn't need for any more clarification from me.
If you have an issue understanding a couple of verses because of some BS that was taught in twi, and are going to throw out or otherwise use that to denigrate the Pauline epistles as a result, well... that's some serious damage that twi has put in your head.
Hey, you were referring to "Way jargon" and how they interpret those verses, so the crap I spoke of should be plenty obvious enough, and it doesn't need for any more clarification from me.
If you have an issue understanding a couple of verses because of some BS that was taught in twi, and are going to throw out or otherwise use that to denigrate the Pauline epistles as a result, well... that's some serious damage that twi has put in your head.
Actually I was getting at what your views are on the hair thing referred to in I Cor 11:14, 15. But instead of answering it seems you are passing on that, instead saying it should be plenty obvious enough.
Next you are pushing it back on me saying I have an issue understanding verses because the Way taught false doctrine?
But you don't?
How about instead of the ad hominem attack, you just answer the question about how you fit in Paul's writings on hair length with the God breathed topic.
"However... I have read and given some thought (again, some number of years ago) to what others have said on this matter. As a matter of fact, I think most of it (if not all) falls under a category called "open theism" (which appears to be quite alive and well among some number of bible scholars.) So, I have serious doubts that Geer was "original" with the concept, and if (as you've alluded to previously) he had ulterior reasons to use it to endorse or promote something else... well, he may have either taught it wrong or not understood it well enough. "
He wasn't original, and I certainly knew that at the time. The book "the Trivialization of God" was published around that time, a book addressing "Open Theism" (I was familiar with the term, and with the existence of the book.) In fact, "Christianity Today" addressed this subject around that time also-which is how I heard about this stuff pre-internet.
"Otherwise, I suspect a couple of teenagers would not have had as easy a time with the rebuttal of it as you say they did."
I assure you, we had an easy time of it. He spent 3 different tapes laying out his position, and we successfully refuted each tape point by point, as well as the entire premise. Perhaps it might have gone differently with someone else presenting "Open Theism", but I'm skeptical it would have gone DRASTICALLY different. We refuted the premise in addition to every point he made, attempting to make his case. But that's an exercise in imagination, at this point.
I resent the characterization of our work as "easy." It was exhausting.
That said, on its own terms, Geer's thesis was preposterous. On its own terms.
On philosophical terms -- that's another matter entirely.
Can we all agree that this topic, however it started, has become almost entirely doctrinal since TLC's act of necromancy? I mean, you can almost make the case it belongs in the European forum, but About the Way? not seeing it.
It only started there, because of the (strange, and unexpected) linking of the "overthrow" to Genesis 3:15. Strange and unexpected, as I don't recall ever hearing anything like that from vpw or twi.
Yeah, I got that. No problem. I simply had more interest in the concept itself.
So, if you still have your refutation of his position, I would be interested in reading it (to see how directly it might - or might not - address the general concept.)
Can we all agree that this topic, however it started, has become almost entirely doctrinal since TLC's act of necromancy? I mean, you can almost make the case it belongs in the European forum, but About the Way? not seeing it.
Actually I was getting at what your views are on the hair thing referred to in I Cor 11:14, 15. But instead of answering it seems you are passing on that, instead saying it should be plenty obvious enough.
I did answer it, in nearly as direct a way as you asked. What was far more obvious was (your) bringing twi's interpretation of it into the picture (which I subsequently called "crap.")
48 minutes ago, chockfull said:
Next you are pushing it back on me saying I have an issue understanding verses because the Way taught false doctrine?
That bothers you? Trust me, I've had more than my share of trouble understanding certain verses because of what twi taught.
What did you expect, or would have liked me to say?
53 minutes ago, chockfull said:
But you don't?
Not so much on those particular verses. Does that mean I have a full or complete understanding of them? No, I never said or claimed that, nor will I. And yeah, I could be wrong... but I think I understand them well enough that they don't jump off the page and scream at me, "Something's wrong here."
58 minutes ago, chockfull said:
How about instead of the ad hominem attack,
It was nothing of the sort, and I'm sorry you feel that way. Maybe it's a generational thing (as in, I don't think peers in my generation would have ever taken it as such.) But, maybe it's me, and my thinking is so different than most here, I ought to just quit.
1 hour ago, chockfull said:
...just answer the question about how you fit in Paul's writings on hair length with the God breathed topic.
We don't have (at least, not in this country - that I've ever heard of) open practices where the worship involved sex with the temple harlots that had shaved heads. So, if you or anyone else wants to rip that verse of context and the culture of its day and time to make some dumbass law out of it, so what? Think that changes the truth of why it was written and what it means?
Can we all agree that this topic, however it started, has become almost entirely doctrinal since TLC's act of necromancy? I mean, you can almost make the case it belongs in the European forum, but About the Way? not seeing it.
Makes no diff to me. (But I blame waysider for posting the link that brought me here... lol.)
We don't have (at least, not in this country - that I've ever heard of) open practices where the worship involved sex with the temple harlots that had shaved heads. So, if you or anyone else wants to rip that verse of context and the culture of its day and time to make some dumbass law out of it, so what? Think that changes the truth of why it was written and what it means?
So that part was only to the twig that was having sex with shaved head temple harlots while worshipping?
Cool story bro.
Why write it with the intention to be passed around all the other churches then?
So that part was only to the twig that was having sex with shaved head temple harlots while worshipping?
Cool story bro.
Why write it with the intention to be passed around all the other churches then?
'Cause it wasn't just in Corinth, and I never said it was or wasn't happening in their fellowships. You injected that. I spoke of it being "in the culture" of that day and time.
'Cause it wasn't just in Corinth, and I never said it was or wasn't happening in their fellowships. You injected that. I spoke of it being "in the culture" of that day and time.
Well stop me from filling in the blanks and tell me why it is you think God wants us Christians in modern times (as I believe the intent of the letters was to reach us also) to be aware that shaved head temple harlots aren't naturally attractive so grow your hair out? And men don't be a cue ball?
Well stop me from filling in the blanks and tell me why it is you think God wants us Christians in modern times (as I believe the intent of the letters was to reach us also) to be aware that shaved head temple harlots aren't naturally attractive so grow your hair out? And men don't be a cue ball?
Why is this issue so important to you, or why does it bother you so much, chockfull? I don't get it. Why try to make it mean something more than it does?
I think we have it really easy in many respects compared to what Paul evidently had to contend with in his day and time. On one hand were the religious zealots of Judaic law (more than a few of them stemming directly out of the church in Jerusalem, led by James.) On the other hand were pagan idolaters that were, in so many words, the extreme opposite. Just imagine how impossible it must have seemed to bring either out of the muck and mire of "the senses world" that they were bred into. In so many words, it required change. And my, oh my... how people in general do hate change.
Fast forward to our world today, and what is (or isn't) required for us to fit into the culture around us. Very little, if anything, really. At least, not in the USA. You can pretty much do what you want, go where you want, think what you want, say what you want, whenever you want. The culture today is so diverse, what common molds or casings for it stand out as binding us or holding us back from what God might desire for us?
Seems I see what is written here (and certain things written elsewhere) as being meant to free believers from certain cultural practices, norms or ensnarement's, some number of which simply don't exist in our culture today, and direct their (non-spiritual) thinking more towards Christ.
Why is this issue so important to you, or why does it bother you so much, chockfull? I don't get it. Why try to make it mean something more than it does?
I think we have it really easy in many respects compared to what Paul evidently had to contend with in his day and time. On one hand were the religious zealots of Judaic law (more than a few of them stemming directly out of the church in Jerusalem, led by James.) On the other hand were pagan idolaters that were, in so many words, the extreme opposite. Just imagine how impossible it must have seemed to bring either out of the muck and mire of "the senses world" that they were bred into. In so many words, it required change. And my, oh my... how people in general do hate change.
Fast forward to our world today, and what is (or isn't) required for us to fit into the culture around us. Very little, if anything, really. At least, not in the USA. You can pretty much do what you want, go where you want, think what you want, say what you want, whenever you want. The culture today is so diverse, what common molds or casings for it stand out as binding us or holding us back from what God might desire for us?
Seems I see what is written here (and certain things written elsewhere) as being meant to free believers from certain cultural practices, norms or ensnarement's, some number of which simply don't exist in our culture today, and direct their (non-spiritual) thinking more towards Christ.
it is a seeming dichotomy - language of freedom, but there language of control across an extreme personal boundary like grooming choices.
Paul in one letter made a distinction between speaking by permission or by command. Separating them out would be futile verse by verse. However to me I find that as sufficient evidence that Paul says of himself that sometimes in his writings it's Paul, and other times he feels it is God inspiring him to write things.
Paul was a religious zealot of the time, a Pharisee of the Pharisees.He was clearly well educated and well respected, trusted by the important people of the time, given free rein to carry out his zealotry and haul converts (heretics) off to prison.Yet he was tutored also by Gamaliel, who we’ve seen from other records took things carefully and slowly, and in perhaps a more considered manner.
Paul goes off hauling folk off to prison.He meets a form of zealotry and passive resistance that astounds him: the martyr Stephen, and others in the towns he rampages.He knows that what he knows – in his head – hasn’t quite reached his heart.But he sees these people have something in their hearts.He’s suspicious, at first; doesn’t believe it’s real, but knows they have a passion that exceeds his own.(They can be a bit scary, that sort of people; yet they have something that grabs one’s attention.)
After his conversion experience and with his welcome and introduction by Barnabas (how astounding that must have been!), Paul wants to know how he got it wrong.He re-examines everything he knows (and it’s a lot).(Just like we have to re-examine everything we learned from TWI in particular, and perhaps from other churches too.)He finally begins to get the big picture. Those of us who still profess to be Christians know those light-bulb moments when something suddenly comes into focus, or when such-and-such a verse appears in our Bible and it’s as though we’d never ever seen that verse before.I’m suspecting Paul had a lot of those moments.
I don’t think Paul was a con-artist, any more than we escapees from TWI are con artists.If anything, we who have re-examined our beliefs and our biased studies are more passionate for what we now understand than we ever were before.Paul started from a high level of knowledge so he could examine a lot of detailed passages and draw threads together in a way that most of us cannot.Finally, finally, he gets God’s big picture, and the more he studies, ponders, preaches, the more he learns.The more he sees others apply it and live it (and it works!) the more he understands.
I wonder if some of those “but I speak by permission” and “in my judgment” sections are things that he’d considered, but hadn’t at that point found any specific Torah or other scroll/scripture to support (and also nothing to negate).He realised “externals” didn’t matter (hair length, modes of dress, religious observances and rituals, etc) but that “internals” manifesting as actions, really did matter.
There is so much more freedom inPaul’s epistlesthan he’s usually given credit for.He himself had been “under law” for so long – he knew what that was like – and he knew it wasn’t the will of God that men should be oppressed by legalism.He knew the many OT proverbs and sayings about guarding one’s heart, probably knew the oral forms of the gospels – what we know as Mt 15:1-28 for example.
I don’t think a single one of us here could do anything like Paul did (not even the late Steve Lortz, whose contributions I always found interesting and usually enlightening).Paul, a con man?If it were not for Paul, we’d still be worshiping nature, Diana, Dagon, the local emperor, or other false gods.
Can we all agree that this topic, however it started, has become almost entirely doctrinal since TLC's act of necromancy? I mean, you can almost make the case it belongs in the European forum, but About the Way? not seeing it.
I resent the characterization of our work as "easy." It was exhausting.
That said, on its own terms, Geer's thesis was preposterous. On its own terms.
On philosophical terms -- that's another matter entirely.
From an emotional perspective, it was a lot more difficult than from any other. We were able to get it all done using resources found in the twi bookstore, using skills any wayfer could have displayed. Digging into "the word in the stars" didn't have to go any further than "JC-OPS",and "the Witness of the Stars", and finding verses that refuted each claim as he made them was done with a simple Concordance.
On its own terms, it should have been plainly obvious it was too flawed to hold. "...had God foreknown- or forced or tracked or whatever you'd like to put as the word there...." Honestly, that sentence alone should have been a tremendous embarrassment, and that's not even the whole sentence. We were even able to quote 8ruce M@h0ne to refute him- and BM probably was going around agreeing with him at the time. EMOTIONALLY, it was a heavy burden, and I readily acknowledge that.
I think if one were to listen to Wayne Clapps post twi expose` on "Is hell a place of eternal torment" and his handling of the greek words regarding eternal, age long, cosmos and aeon it certainly throws 'new light' on current thinking.
Hey, you were referring to "Way jargon" and how they interpret those verses, so the crap I spoke of should be plenty obvious enough, and it doesn't need for any more clarification from me.
Paul in one letter made a distinction between speaking by permission or by command. Separating them out would be futile verse by verse. However to me I find that as sufficient evidence that Paul says of himself that sometimes in his writings it's Paul, and other times he feels it is God inspiring him to write things.
It appears there is something in the semantics, and the difference between how we see or use certain vocabulary that we don't seem to agree on. If there is a distinction that can be made between speaking by permission or by command, I would be more inclined to take that to mean speaking by inspiration or speaking by revelation.
If you were to tell me that you wrote a book, I would probably hear that and think... okay, so you wrote a book. But, if you were to say that you were inspired to write a book, my first thought is probably going to be....okay, what inspired you to write it? Maybe it's that association in my own head between "inspired" and "in spirit action" that I'm too hung up on, but I suppose that a great many things are said and done and accomplished by "inspiration." In a certain sense, one might even say (or claim) that everything that is said or done is the result of inspiration. However, that seems to significantly lessen the worth even having or ever using it in our vocabulary. And for the record, I just don't think it is very common to equate someone being "inspired" to say or write something with them being "commanded" to do so. But then, perhaps the "not by commandment" spoken of by Paul relates more to the message itself rather than the messenger.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
73
31
47
76
Popular Days
Feb 3
25
Jul 16
21
May 15
21
Feb 21
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 73 posts
geisha779 31 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 76 posts
Popular Days
Feb 3 2010
25 posts
Jul 16 2018
21 posts
May 15 2019
21 posts
Feb 21 2010
21 posts
Popular Posts
Sunesis
Well, we do have over 30,000 Christian denominations, so I don't think you're going to see all Christians agreeing. I imagine that's why it is more important to God that we keep the unity of the Spir
Broken Arrow
I think I get what you're trying to do here as far as getting people to think through something that may have simply been accepted blindly. I'm not going to offer a lengthy defense as to the authenti
Raf
First, to DWBH, please, let's keep it about content and not about people. And in that vein...I for one don't care one whit about what TLC might see or think on the matter. I only care about the actual
Posted Images
TLC
It only started there, because of the (strange, and unexpected) linking of the "overthrow" to Genesis 3:15. Strange and unexpected, as I don't recall ever hearing anything like that from vpw or twi.
Yeah, I got that. No problem. I simply had more interest in the concept itself.
So, if you still have your refutation of his position, I would be interested in reading it (to see how directly it might - or might not - address the general concept.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Seems most want a law to live by, to appear (or feel) more righteous...
Do you know that the harlots in the pagan temples in Corinth shaved their heads? Made it easy to identify them.
And by the way, hair is the covering Paul speaks of. (Not the hijab... unless maybe you have a shaved head, and don't care to be mistaken for a harlot.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
No, and I also didn't know that all the hair bands in the 90's were "disgraceful" naturally per I Cor 11:15. Didn't seem that way to me at the time - all the girls wanted to hang out with them.
I also know the Way jargon interpolation of that section of scripture how "covering" really means you are obedient and have the permission of your husband. But the husband only has to ask the Lord, that is unless he is in the "household" where he has to tell Rosalie if he's going off grounds to buy flowers for his wife. Many women I conversed with in the Way felt that to be demeaning, and certainly the male leaders used it to make their spouses walk 10 feet behind them.
And mind you now, God is breathing all this stuff. Right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Disgraceful? Never heard of such ridiculousness. (And btw, our girls wore 'em. ...loved'em, as a matter of fact.)
Well then, evidently they were full of chit. Sounds like a prime example of how to use the scripture deceitfully.
Wrong. Not that crap.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
Clarifying here - so these scriptures in I Cor. 11:14, 15 are not the crap that is God-breathed. There is other crap that is God-breathed in Corinthians but this crap isn't?
I think this kind of gets down to what we were discussing in "Thus Saith Paul" the title of the thread. What part of Paul's crap is God breathed and what part is not. Or all of it is God-breathed and God likes obedient women in hijabs. And Pentecostal preachers with haircuts from a salad bowl. (I remember listening to this Pentecostal preacher one time live in a tent and he was at 110 decibels going on about how someone found the Lord and cut their hair).
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Hey, you were referring to "Way jargon" and how they interpret those verses, so the crap I spoke of should be plenty obvious enough, and it doesn't need for any more clarification from me.
If you have an issue understanding a couple of verses because of some BS that was taught in twi, and are going to throw out or otherwise use that to denigrate the Pauline epistles as a result, well... that's some serious damage that twi has put in your head.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Actually I was getting at what your views are on the hair thing referred to in I Cor 11:14, 15. But instead of answering it seems you are passing on that, instead saying it should be plenty obvious enough.
Next you are pushing it back on me saying I have an issue understanding verses because the Way taught false doctrine?
But you don't?
How about instead of the ad hominem attack, you just answer the question about how you fit in Paul's writings on hair length with the God breathed topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I resent the characterization of our work as "easy." It was exhausting.
That said, on its own terms, Geer's thesis was preposterous. On its own terms.
On philosophical terms -- that's another matter entirely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Can we all agree that this topic, however it started, has become almost entirely doctrinal since TLC's act of necromancy? I mean, you can almost make the case it belongs in the European forum, but About the Way? not seeing it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yes doctrinal at this point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I did answer it, in nearly as direct a way as you asked. What was far more obvious was (your) bringing twi's interpretation of it into the picture (which I subsequently called "crap.")
That bothers you? Trust me, I've had more than my share of trouble understanding certain verses because of what twi taught.
What did you expect, or would have liked me to say?
Not so much on those particular verses. Does that mean I have a full or complete understanding of them? No, I never said or claimed that, nor will I. And yeah, I could be wrong... but I think I understand them well enough that they don't jump off the page and scream at me, "Something's wrong here."
It was nothing of the sort, and I'm sorry you feel that way. Maybe it's a generational thing (as in, I don't think peers in my generation would have ever taken it as such.) But, maybe it's me, and my thinking is so different than most here, I ought to just quit.
We don't have (at least, not in this country - that I've ever heard of) open practices where the worship involved sex with the temple harlots that had shaved heads. So, if you or anyone else wants to rip that verse of context and the culture of its day and time to make some dumbass law out of it, so what? Think that changes the truth of why it was written and what it means?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Makes no diff to me. (But I blame waysider for posting the link that brought me here... lol.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So that part was only to the twig that was having sex with shaved head temple harlots while worshipping?
Cool story bro.
Why write it with the intention to be passed around all the other churches then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
'Cause it wasn't just in Corinth, and I never said it was or wasn't happening in their fellowships. You injected that. I spoke of it being "in the culture" of that day and time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Well stop me from filling in the blanks and tell me why it is you think God wants us Christians in modern times (as I believe the intent of the letters was to reach us also) to be aware that shaved head temple harlots aren't naturally attractive so grow your hair out? And men don't be a cue ball?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Why is this issue so important to you, or why does it bother you so much, chockfull? I don't get it. Why try to make it mean something more than it does?
I think we have it really easy in many respects compared to what Paul evidently had to contend with in his day and time. On one hand were the religious zealots of Judaic law (more than a few of them stemming directly out of the church in Jerusalem, led by James.) On the other hand were pagan idolaters that were, in so many words, the extreme opposite. Just imagine how impossible it must have seemed to bring either out of the muck and mire of "the senses world" that they were bred into. In so many words, it required change. And my, oh my... how people in general do hate change.
Fast forward to our world today, and what is (or isn't) required for us to fit into the culture around us. Very little, if anything, really. At least, not in the USA. You can pretty much do what you want, go where you want, think what you want, say what you want, whenever you want. The culture today is so diverse, what common molds or casings for it stand out as binding us or holding us back from what God might desire for us?
Seems I see what is written here (and certain things written elsewhere) as being meant to free believers from certain cultural practices, norms or ensnarement's, some number of which simply don't exist in our culture today, and direct their (non-spiritual) thinking more towards Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
it is a seeming dichotomy - language of freedom, but there language of control across an extreme personal boundary like grooming choices.
Paul in one letter made a distinction between speaking by permission or by command. Separating them out would be futile verse by verse. However to me I find that as sufficient evidence that Paul says of himself that sometimes in his writings it's Paul, and other times he feels it is God inspiring him to write things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Paul was a religious zealot of the time, a Pharisee of the Pharisees. He was clearly well educated and well respected, trusted by the important people of the time, given free rein to carry out his zealotry and haul converts (heretics) off to prison. Yet he was tutored also by Gamaliel, who we’ve seen from other records took things carefully and slowly, and in perhaps a more considered manner.
Paul goes off hauling folk off to prison. He meets a form of zealotry and passive resistance that astounds him: the martyr Stephen, and others in the towns he rampages. He knows that what he knows – in his head – hasn’t quite reached his heart. But he sees these people have something in their hearts. He’s suspicious, at first; doesn’t believe it’s real, but knows they have a passion that exceeds his own. (They can be a bit scary, that sort of people; yet they have something that grabs one’s attention.)
After his conversion experience and with his welcome and introduction by Barnabas (how astounding that must have been!), Paul wants to know how he got it wrong. He re-examines everything he knows (and it’s a lot). (Just like we have to re-examine everything we learned from TWI in particular, and perhaps from other churches too.) He finally begins to get the big picture. Those of us who still profess to be Christians know those light-bulb moments when something suddenly comes into focus, or when such-and-such a verse appears in our Bible and it’s as though we’d never ever seen that verse before. I’m suspecting Paul had a lot of those moments.
I don’t think Paul was a con-artist, any more than we escapees from TWI are con artists. If anything, we who have re-examined our beliefs and our biased studies are more passionate for what we now understand than we ever were before. Paul started from a high level of knowledge so he could examine a lot of detailed passages and draw threads together in a way that most of us cannot. Finally, finally, he gets God’s big picture, and the more he studies, ponders, preaches, the more he learns. The more he sees others apply it and live it (and it works!) the more he understands.
I wonder if some of those “but I speak by permission” and “in my judgment” sections are things that he’d considered, but hadn’t at that point found any specific Torah or other scroll/scripture to support (and also nothing to negate). He realised “externals” didn’t matter (hair length, modes of dress, religious observances and rituals, etc) but that “internals” manifesting as actions, really did matter.
There is so much more freedom in Paul’s epistles than he’s usually given credit for. He himself had been “under law” for so long – he knew what that was like – and he knew it wasn’t the will of God that men should be oppressed by legalism. He knew the many OT proverbs and sayings about guarding one’s heart, probably knew the oral forms of the gospels – what we know as Mt 15:1-28 for example.
I don’t think a single one of us here could do anything like Paul did (not even the late Steve Lortz, whose contributions I always found interesting and usually enlightening). Paul, a con man? If it were not for Paul, we’d still be worshiping nature, Diana, Dagon, the local emperor, or other false gods.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
From an emotional perspective, it was a lot more difficult than from any other. We were able to get it all done using resources found in the twi bookstore, using skills any wayfer could have displayed. Digging into "the word in the stars" didn't have to go any further than "JC-OPS",and "the Witness of the Stars", and finding verses that refuted each claim as he made them was done with a simple Concordance.
On its own terms, it should have been plainly obvious it was too flawed to hold. "...had God foreknown- or forced or tracked or whatever you'd like to put as the word there...." Honestly, that sentence alone should have been a tremendous embarrassment, and that's not even the whole sentence. We were even able to quote 8ruce M@h0ne to refute him- and BM probably was going around agreeing with him at the time. EMOTIONALLY, it was a heavy burden, and I readily acknowledge that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I think if one were to listen to Wayne Clapps post twi expose` on "Is hell a place of eternal torment" and his handling of the greek words regarding eternal, age long, cosmos and aeon it certainly throws 'new light' on current thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
.
Edited by RockyNevermind
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
It appears there is something in the semantics, and the difference between how we see or use certain vocabulary that we don't seem to agree on. If there is a distinction that can be made between speaking by permission or by command, I would be more inclined to take that to mean speaking by inspiration or speaking by revelation.
If you were to tell me that you wrote a book, I would probably hear that and think... okay, so you wrote a book. But, if you were to say that you were inspired to write a book, my first thought is probably going to be....okay, what inspired you to write it? Maybe it's that association in my own head between "inspired" and "in spirit action" that I'm too hung up on, but I suppose that a great many things are said and done and accomplished by "inspiration." In a certain sense, one might even say (or claim) that everything that is said or done is the result of inspiration. However, that seems to significantly lessen the worth even having or ever using it in our vocabulary. And for the record, I just don't think it is very common to equate someone being "inspired" to say or write something with them being "commanded" to do so. But then, perhaps the "not by commandment" spoken of by Paul relates more to the message itself rather than the messenger.
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.