The ideas we think about have histories of terms and ideas.
Not trying to be rude here, but I learned more talking with those North Carolina country people who had been reading the bible for decades than their "Pastors" who spoke of ideas in terms that had histories. Now, decades later, I believe things concerning the Comforter, Jesus Christ, the Spirit, things that don't fit into any of the labels, terms, ideas, whatever - boxes that have been brought up here. TWI think/Trinity think, dyophysite, miaphysite.
his thoughts are not our thoughts, so why not speak in terms of His thoughts rather than our thoughts?
You won't mind if I retain my skepticism, although I could see why you would consider the account highly valuable and, as they say in court, probative.
I don't mind at all, Raf, but I don't consider the account highly valuable or probative, nor do I perceive myself as being in court here. I did mention that was the least of all considerations with regard to tongues for those who believe in praying in the Spirit. I just mentioned it because it might make an impression on those who don't believe like the people who heard tongues in Acts 2 - or not.
Not trying to be rude here, but I learned more talking with those North Carolina country people who had been reading the bible for decades than their "Pastors" who spoke of ideas in terms that had histories. Now, decades later, I believe things concerning the Comforter, Jesus Christ, the Spirit, things that don't fit into any of the labels, terms, ideas, whatever - boxes that have been brought up here. TWI think/Trinity think, dyophysite, miaphysite.
his thoughts are not our thoughts, so why not speak in terms of His thoughts rather than our thoughts?
I am not doubting your story Tom, about the folks in the back hills of NC, but, I have heard this exact same story from many TWI people. One, I remember, was the branch leader in Western NC. In a teaching, he recounted the exact story you did. Another, roamed the hills in TN. The reason I remember this running theme is because I heard it so much, that, at the time I had to wonder about it. You may not believe this,:) but, I was thinking about this story not all that long ago. It has stuck with me all these years. Not because of the impact it made on what I believed, but rather because of the commonalities. . . . it was suspicious. Whenever I heard it, it was used to support the idea that JCING. These "hill people" who had never been exposed to theology, but, had simply read the scriptures on their own for years......would respond by pulling out their bibles, and saying something to the effect...."It says Son of God, not God the Son". These hill people got around.
I am serious....I remember these stories. Maybe VP set you all loose in the hills of the South or in Appalachia. Could be.
Not trying to start a flame war.....please.....I am just telling you.... I do remember this story from way back. I was in NC for years.
I am not doubting your story Tom, about the folks in the back hills of NC, but, I have heard this exact same story from many TWI people. One, I remember, was the branch leader in Western NC. In a teaching, he recounted the exact story you did. Another, roamed the hills in TN. The reason I remember this running theme is because I heard it so much, that, at the time I had to wonder about it. You may not believe this,:) but, I was thinking about this story not all that long ago. It has stuck with me all these years. Not because of the impact it made on what I believed, but rather because of the commonalities. . . . it was suspicious. Whenever I heard it, it was used to support the idea that JCING. These "hill people" who had never been exposed to theology, but, had simply read the scriptures on their own for years......would respond by pulling out their bibles, and saying something to the effect...."It says Son of God, not God the Son". These hill people got around.
I am serious....I remember these stories. Maybe VP set you all loose in the hills of the South or in Appalachia. Could be.
Not trying to start a flame war.....please.....I am just telling you.... I do remember this story from way back. I was in NC for years.
Wow, Geisha, I never heard that story. Maybe I started it. That was back in, umm, 1975-77. I guess that's "way back." Stories do get around - wow. But I'm not talking about what I heard, but about what I saw & experienced. And, for the record, and apparently for posterity generations from now (gosh, I'm feeling ancient), I don't remember them "pulling out their bibles." They didn't have to; they just knew what the Word said. You couldn't fool them. And it wasn't about the Trinity - OMG, I'M FREAKING OUT HERE; I DO REMEMBER ONE PERSON TELLING ME, "It says Son of God, not God the Son." That's a true report, girl. I can't believe that spread so far & wide. And that was definitely about Jesus Christ & who he was, God or not, but regardless of whatever purpose the story was used for, that's the way some of those country folk were about EVERYTHING in the Word. Course JCING was big back then.
Gotta go now. My mind is - without further expression for the moment. Thanks for sharing Geisha.
Wow, Geisha, I never heard that story. Maybe I started it. That was back in, umm, 1975-77. I guess that's "way back." Stories do get around - wow. But I'm not talking about what I heard, but about what I saw & experienced. And, for the record, and apparently for posterity generations from now (gosh, I'm feeling ancient), I don't remember them "pulling out their bibles." They didn't have to; they just knew what the Word said. You couldn't fool them. And it wasn't about the Trinity - OMG, I'M FREAKING OUT HERE; I DO REMEMBER ONE PERSON TELLING ME, "It says Son of God, not God the Son." That's a true report, girl. I can't believe that spread so far & wide. And that was definitely about Jesus Christ & who he was, God or not, but regardless of whatever purpose the story was used for, that's the way some of those country folk were about EVERYTHING in the Word. Course JCING was big back then.
Gotta go now. My mind is - without further expression for the moment. Thanks for sharing Geisha.
Well, if I were you, I would be a bit ticked, as several others have borrowed it and made it their own personal experience and what they saw as well. . . and it was, that they got their bibles, and they were big old family bibles, opened them up and pointed. Heard it a few times now. :)
Well, if I were you, I would be a bit ticked, as several others have borrowed it and made it their own personal experience and what they saw as well. . . and it was, that they got their bibles, and they were big old family bibles, opened them up and pointed. Heard it a few times now. :)
Hahahaha, ticked? It's all just too weird & bizarre to me at the moment to be ticked. If they copped my ID, I'm just glad I'm me & not them. Or maybe there is a bunch of stories out there that are legitimately similar; those country folk are ubiquitous, thank God - salt of the earth. But if the story you heard from so many as their own is so particularly similar/identical that the story has to be stolen, that's just the weirdest thing.
Raf, master of retention of skepticism, help. What the freak do I do with this?
Never meant to imply you were on trial, Tom. Just saying while I remain skeptical, I could see where you or others would find affirmation or confirmation of SIT in your account. Me, I've heard it before, always second or third hand,... And I'm off topic and will stop there. Good morning.
Hahahaha, ticked? It's all just too weird & bizarre to me at the moment to be ticked. If they copped my ID, I'm just glad I'm me & not them. Or maybe there is a bunch of stories out there that are legitimately similar; those country folk are ubiquitous, thank God - salt of the earth. But if the story you heard from so many as their own is so particularly similar/identical that the story has to be stolen, that's just the weirdest thing.
Raf, master of retention of skepticism, help. What the freak do I do with this?
State of brain block - nothing to say.
Later & love,
Tom
Well, I was just recounting my experience with that particular story...I didn't mean to put you on trial either. It was just one of those things that has stuck with me for years.
Since Steve has graciously given us some latitude on this thread....I am interested in how you make the leap from God purifying His words, to Him purifying the language of our lives. How do you get there?
Mormon's often depend on a "burning in their bosom" to know if something is true. They have what they call a "testimony" and when something feels right or good to their ears . . . they get a burning in their bosom. Their experiences then gird these testimonies and they believe God is showing them that their doctrines are true through those experiences. Mormons are among some of the most zealous for God, but, if I recounted some of their current doctrines, and some that fundamentalist Mormons still cling to.....you might strongly disagree with them. When confronted with scripture, Mormons often make claims that the bible can't be trusted. Except of course, the parts rewritten by Joseph Smith. They believe they are the one true church on earth and that Joseph Smith received the restored gospel. For years, their Temple ceremonies included a portrayal of an Orthodox Christian minister as being a tool of the devil. They rely heavily on their extra biblical scriptures, BOM, (Book of Mormon) D&C(Doctrine and Covenants) and the Pearl of Great Price. But, they appeal to their personal testimony to know if something is true. It all starts with an experience.
Other sects are also very experienced based including many Pentecostals, who rely on tongues as evidence they have received the HS. They can have great angst without that proof. That is problematic on so many levels.
So, whose experience ends up pointing to the truth?
I personally can't make the leap from God purifying His word to Him purifying the experiences of our lives. We are told to rely on our conscience and the creation, which makes us accountable before Him, but, told we are transformed by renewal to something outside of ourselves. Not our experiences. We are to cast down vain imaginations and every high thing which exalts itself against the knowledge of God. If, we are participating and practicing something in a manner that is not scriptural, but experienced based, I think we may wander into vain imaginations.
Without the Holy Spirit dwelling in our heart...it is all an exercise in futility and words anyway. The perspective we need when reading scripture, must come from the heart with which it was written. It is not all academic, but, neither is it all visceral. It is a matter of heart and how I read about SIT matters above my experiences. My take.
Never meant to imply you were on trial, Tom. Just saying while I remain skeptical, I could see where you or others would find affirmation or confirmation of SIT in your account. Me, I've heard it before, always second or third hand,... And I'm off topic and will stop there. Good morning.
Like I said, it's been a while since I've been here, but why is this off-topic? Because it's personal & experienced rather than a strictly academic approach to doctrine?
OK, back to topic. Steve, sorry if I've been leading the conversation astray.
Why do you have to start with who wrote Acts? Is that in question? Or is it just something that your professors are going to expect you to cover for your research to be recognized as complete? I don't know, but I thought it was pretty well accepted in theological circles drawn on graph paper viewed through trigonometric lenses through which people can be heard but not seen (sorry, I'll cut that out now - I actually found that whole circle thing to be interesting even though I didn't really understand it - please don't ask what I mean by really) whew, anyway I thought it was pretty well accepted that Luke wrote Luke and Acts. No?
Why do you think Luke didn't write Acts? For that matter, why do you think he did?
Bullinger says in his companion bible concerning Acts, "The writer is, without doubt, Luke. The book has the same introductory address as his Gospel (cp 1.1 with Luke 1.3), and takes up the history where the third Gospel leaves it, giving in greater detail the account of the Ascension with which that Gospel closes."
A friend of mine is presently reading a book that puts forth the proposition that Luke wrote Acts as an informative account to be brought forth in Roman court in defense of Paul - to concisely answer the question up front as to what this guy Paul was all about. I don't know, but it might have some good info showing that Luke wrote Acts. I'll be happy to ask my friend if it has info along those lines & get the title & author of the book if you are interested, Steve.
A friend of mine is presently reading a book that puts forth the proposition that Luke wrote Acts as an informative account to be brought forth in Roman court in defense of Paul - to concisely answer the question up front as to what this guy Paul was all about. I don't know, but it might have some good info showing that Luke wrote Acts. I'll be happy to ask my friend if it has info along those lines & get the title & author of the book if you are interested, Steve.
One thing my friend did mention was that, according to this book, theophilis (beloved of God) was a term that was used for high Roman officials.
Hahahaha, ticked? It's all just too weird & bizarre to me at the moment to be ticked. If they copped my ID, I'm just glad I'm me & not them. Or maybe there is a bunch of stories out there that are legitimately similar; those country folk are ubiquitous, thank God - salt of the earth. But if the story you heard from so many as their own is so particularly similar/identical that the story has to be stolen, that's just the weirdest thing.
Raf, master of retention of skepticism, help. What the freak do I do with this?
State of brain block - nothing to say.
Later & love,
Tom
I think it's important to keep straight which of Tom's stories (and stories are GOOD things) we are referencing. He has the story about someone who heard tongues they identified as Aramaic, and he has the story about the beliefs of people in the hills.
The story about tongues may very well be "real", that is, something that occurred in objective reality, but I will have to reference my sources in this thesis, so I'm pretty much restricted to sources the evaluation committee will find reasonable from a scholarly point of view. It isn't something EVERYBODY has to. It's something I have to do to be admitted to the club of "masters", meaning other teachers deem me capable of responsible teaching. If I have a masters degree, I will be acceptible as a teacher at accredited schools, and that was my original goal. To be able to get back into teaching seventh graders.
RE: Tom's story about hill people - My mother was born in 1919 in Louisville, KY. During the depression, she was sent to live on a relative's tobacco farm in the hills near Elizabethtown. She spent her teen-age years as a hill person. Her dad was a-religious, but her mom was a Methodist. When I was a child, we attended a trinitarian Church of Christ, where we sang the doxology at the end of every service, "...praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Amen!" When I got involved with TWI in my early-thirties, and I told her the church she attended (the same one I attended as a child) taught that Jesus is God, she thought the idea was preposterous. I distinctly remember her saying "It says Son of God, not God the Son!"
Those aren't apochryphal stories. It's part of hill culture!
Well, there is another one to add to the list of times I have heard that same story.
Told ya.
We certainly did appeal to the expertise of hill folk. Steve, maybe you should do your thesis there in the backwater of KY. And just out of curiosity....your mother was born in 1919?!? I feel like a kid. Thanks for that. :)
Like I said, it's been a while since I've been here, but why is this off-topic? Because it's personal & experienced rather than a strictly academic approach to doctrine?
OK, back to topic. Steve, sorry if I've been leading the conversation astray.
Why do you have to start with who wrote Acts? Is that in question? Or is it just something that your professors are going to expect you to cover for your research to be recognized as complete? I don't know, but I thought it was pretty well accepted in theological circles drawn on graph paper viewed through trigonometric lenses through which people can be heard but not seen (sorry, I'll cut that out now - I actually found that whole circle thing to be interesting even though I didn't really understand it - please don't ask what I mean by really) whew, anyway I thought it was pretty well accepted that Luke wrote Luke and Acts. No?
Why do you think Luke didn't write Acts? For that matter, why do you think he did?
Bullinger says in his companion bible concerning Acts, "The writer is, without doubt, Luke. The book has the same introductory address as his Gospel (cp 1.1 with Luke 1.3), and takes up the history where the third Gospel leaves it, giving in greater detail the account of the Ascension with which that Gospel closes."
A friend of mine is presently reading a book that puts forth the proposition that Luke wrote Acts as an informative account to be brought forth in Roman court in defense of Paul - to concisely answer the question up front as to what this guy Paul was all about. I don't know, but it might have some good info showing that Luke wrote Acts. I'll be happy to ask my friend if it has info along those lines & get the title & author of the book if you are interested, Steve.
The fact that you are writing about things that are "personal and experienced" is not off topic, just as it's not off topic for Raf or geisha, or anyone else to write on this thread about what's personal and experienced to them. After all, Luke was writing about "personal and experienced" things that had happened in his and other peoples' lives.
I WILL have to account for the personal and experienced things related in Acts. I have a model for how "speaking by the Spirit" works, that doesn't mainly rely on "supernatural" explanations. For want of any better way to refer to it, I call it my "Impression-Expression Flow Model. I'm going to have to include that in the thesis, but I'm debating with myself whether to do that as an appendix, or include it as a part of the text.
If I'm not mistaken, Tom, the book you mentioned is Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defense of Christianity by John W. Mauck (2001). I am inclined to accept Mauck's conclusions. My copy is currently on loan to one of my professors. He has it on a special place on the bookself in his office, so I can retrieve it whenever I want to. (Loaning books to my professors is part of my strategy of preparing them for my thesis!)
A doctor in the Computer Science department of the University owns and runs the Friendly Local Comic Book Shop. I actually spend a lot of time in the comic book shop talking with him about all kinds of things (comic books, the ins-and-outs of retailing, the ins-and-outs of teaching, our latest aches and pains, politics, etc.) and sometimes I pick his brain for strategic thinking in academia, even though he's not in the School of Theology!
As Brenda Johnson would say, "Thank yew! Thank yew very much!" (sorry if that causes any Rivenbark flashbacks)
I respectfully withhold judgment on the first person account provided here, for reasons I've expressed on another thread.
If this makes me a master of skepticism, then guilty as charged.
Ouch, sorry Raf. I didn't mean that crack to be insulting or even negative. You have a knack for debunking things. Of suspending judgment. I appreciate that.
Ouch, sorry Raf. I didn't mean that crack to be insulting or even negative. You have a knack for debunking things. Of suspending judgment. I appreciate that.
Peace,
Tom
Hey, Raf! All you'd have to do to get a Masters of Skepticism certificate is go down and get Randi to sign one! That would be cool! I'd do it if I lived down there!
Ouch, sorry Raf. I didn't mean that crack to be insulting or even negative. You have a knack for debunking things. Of suspending judgment. I appreciate that.
Since Steve has graciously given us some latitude on this thread....I am interested in how you make the leap from God purifying His words, to Him purifying the language of our lives. How do you get there?
So, whose experience ends up pointing to the truth?
Without the Holy Spirit dwelling in our heart...it is all an exercise in futility and words anyway. The perspective we need when reading scripture, must come from the heart with which it was written. It is not all academic, but, neither is it all visceral. It is a matter of heart and how I read about SIT matters above my experiences. My take.
Obviously it's MY experiences that point to the truth. Just kidding.
The simple answer is what is the Holy Spirit dwelling in our heart doing in there. Transforming us into the New Man, no? And who are we? If God is His Word, so are we our words. Actually, I think God is more than His words, & we are more than our words, but you get the idea. That's what I meant by the language of our lives.
Oral Roberts said that every syllable uttered in a tongue of prayer in the Spirit comes back in revelation knowledge & power. The more we do that, the more we (cruddy inept weak) get changed to be like Jesus Christ. In the sense that we are our words, the language of our lives is getting purified in the fire of Holy Spirit.
Does that help/make sense?
God bless you.
Psalm 12:6 Â The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Well, there is another one to add to the list of times I have heard that same story.
Told ya.
We certainly did appeal to the expertise of hill folk. Steve, maybe you should do your thesis there in the backwater of KY. And just out of curiosity....your mother was born in 1919?!? I feel like a kid. Thanks for that. :)
My mom WAS born in 1919, thirty years before she bore me. She had curvature of the spine which developed about the time she was thirteen. She had to wear a body cast, and she couldn't make it up and down the stairs at her school at Louisville, so she dropped out at the end of the eighth grade. She attended a one-room schoolhouse in the hills, where they studied McGuffy's Reader. Her dad would visit her every weekend, and bring books from the Cabbage Patch Library. She read every book in that library with the exception of Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. She said she could never get into that. She memorized parts of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, all in the hills near E-Town. And she read her Bible. She kept learning all her life, because she never felt she had learned enough.
In the fifties when I was a kid, Mama became friends with one of my sister's 2nd grade teachers. At that time, Indiana was saying every teacher had to get a masters degree to remain in her or his teaching job. My mother's friend was very busy, so she would bring books over and ask my mom to read them and write reports on them. My mom wrote a masters thesis, on an eighth grade education that began on the knee of Cornelius Harden Sharp, a retired tobacco farmer in the hills of Kentucky.
So much for "the expertise of hill folk". LizzyBuzz and I went to see Lawless. It reminded me of so many stories my mom told about our own relatives in the hills!
And, no, my experience was not that TWI appealed to hill folk so much as to young college students. :)
Hmm, more experience based talk. Let's try some Word.
Romans 8:24a  For we are saved by hope...
What happens at the hope? All the cool stuff talked about in verses 28-30 is fully realized in our lives.
Romans 8:28 Â And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29  ¶For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Â Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
We become fully conformed to the image of his Son.
Meanwhile before the fullness of the Hope, we have the Spirit.
Romans 8:26a  ¶Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession...
"Likewise the Spirit" Like WHAT does the Spirit help? Like the Hope. How does the Hope help? We are made completely whole. Just like that the Spirit helps as it makes intercession for us "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" Ephesians 4:13.
Until then the Spirit is bringing all that glorified Christ at the right hand of God stuff to bear in our lives. That's intercession. Transformational, no? The Comforter revealing Christ to us as Jesus said it would. John 15:26  ¶But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. Like Jesus Christ was in God & God in him, so we are in them and might be one with them as they were one. That's the work of the Comforter to open that door to us spiritually NOW.
Steve, like Geisha I very much appreciate the loving latitude you afford us in this thread.
Geisha, that's pretty much what I meant by God perfecting the language of our lives. Sorry if I was unclear. Maybe I should follow my own advice & stick to the language of the Word.
7. That the earliest Christians regarded tongues as a sign the same way Abraham regarded circumcision as a sign:
Golly, I'm glad you said that because there's something I've never understood.
Circumcision, and tongues.
Why did God chose circumcision as a sign? Of all things!! Let's say there were some Old Testament guys walking down a road, minding their own business, and then another group of guys passed by and stopped them to ask, "Hey, are you guys Jews?" Did the Jews like whip out their penises and say, "Yeah, buddy! Jews here!" I mean, wtf?
And then tongues. Why did God chose tongues as a sign for Christians? Of all things!! Maybe He chose it so that, instead of Christians having to whip out our penises to show people, we could just stick out our tongues. That's what I think.
Golly, I'm glad you said that because there's something I've never understood.
Circumcision, and tongues.
Why did God chose circumcision as a sign? Of all things!! Let's say there were some Old Testament guys walking down a road, minding their own business, and then another group of guys passed by and stopped them to ask, "Hey, are you guys Jews?" Did the Jews like whip out their penises and say, "Yeah, buddy! Jews here!" I mean, wtf?
And then tongues. Why did God chose tongues as a sign for Christians? Of all things!! Maybe He chose it so that, instead of Christians having to whip out our penises to show people, we could just stick out our tongues. That's what I think.
Is this off topic?
Really! God has the Jews cut off part of their penis. There can't be any more humiliating thing to do to a man. And they turn it into a sign that they are better than everyone else. God has Christians SIT - so absolutely simple that you don't even have to use your understanding to do it. Zero cause for ego enhancement. So much so that so many perceive it as false & you as stupid, gullible, & assinine if you do it, & think it is real. And Christians turn it into a sign that they are better than everyone else. People are messed up.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
25
24
11
Popular Days
Sep 24
32
Sep 23
18
Sep 18
10
Sep 21
6
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 21 posts
Tom 25 posts
Steve Lortz 24 posts
geisha779 11 posts
Popular Days
Sep 24 2012
32 posts
Sep 23 2012
18 posts
Sep 18 2012
10 posts
Sep 21 2012
6 posts
Tom
Not trying to be rude here, but I learned more talking with those North Carolina country people who had been reading the bible for decades than their "Pastors" who spoke of ideas in terms that had histories. Now, decades later, I believe things concerning the Comforter, Jesus Christ, the Spirit, things that don't fit into any of the labels, terms, ideas, whatever - boxes that have been brought up here. TWI think/Trinity think, dyophysite, miaphysite.
his thoughts are not our thoughts, so why not speak in terms of His thoughts rather than our thoughts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I don't mind at all, Raf, but I don't consider the account highly valuable or probative, nor do I perceive myself as being in court here. I did mention that was the least of all considerations with regard to tongues for those who believe in praying in the Spirit. I just mentioned it because it might make an impression on those who don't believe like the people who heard tongues in Acts 2 - or not.
If I'm in court, I'm just bearing witness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I am not doubting your story Tom, about the folks in the back hills of NC, but, I have heard this exact same story from many TWI people. One, I remember, was the branch leader in Western NC. In a teaching, he recounted the exact story you did. Another, roamed the hills in TN. The reason I remember this running theme is because I heard it so much, that, at the time I had to wonder about it. You may not believe this,:) but, I was thinking about this story not all that long ago. It has stuck with me all these years. Not because of the impact it made on what I believed, but rather because of the commonalities. . . . it was suspicious. Whenever I heard it, it was used to support the idea that JCING. These "hill people" who had never been exposed to theology, but, had simply read the scriptures on their own for years......would respond by pulling out their bibles, and saying something to the effect...."It says Son of God, not God the Son". These hill people got around.
I am serious....I remember these stories. Maybe VP set you all loose in the hills of the South or in Appalachia. Could be.
Not trying to start a flame war.....please.....I am just telling you.... I do remember this story from way back. I was in NC for years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Wow, Geisha, I never heard that story. Maybe I started it. That was back in, umm, 1975-77. I guess that's "way back." Stories do get around - wow. But I'm not talking about what I heard, but about what I saw & experienced. And, for the record, and apparently for posterity generations from now (gosh, I'm feeling ancient), I don't remember them "pulling out their bibles." They didn't have to; they just knew what the Word said. You couldn't fool them. And it wasn't about the Trinity - OMG, I'M FREAKING OUT HERE; I DO REMEMBER ONE PERSON TELLING ME, "It says Son of God, not God the Son." That's a true report, girl. I can't believe that spread so far & wide. And that was definitely about Jesus Christ & who he was, God or not, but regardless of whatever purpose the story was used for, that's the way some of those country folk were about EVERYTHING in the Word. Course JCING was big back then.
Gotta go now. My mind is - without further expression for the moment. Thanks for sharing Geisha.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Well, if I were you, I would be a bit ticked, as several others have borrowed it and made it their own personal experience and what they saw as well. . . and it was, that they got their bibles, and they were big old family bibles, opened them up and pointed. Heard it a few times now. :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Hahahaha, ticked? It's all just too weird & bizarre to me at the moment to be ticked. If they copped my ID, I'm just glad I'm me & not them. Or maybe there is a bunch of stories out there that are legitimately similar; those country folk are ubiquitous, thank God - salt of the earth. But if the story you heard from so many as their own is so particularly similar/identical that the story has to be stolen, that's just the weirdest thing.
Raf, master of retention of skepticism, help. What the freak do I do with this?
State of brain block - nothing to say.
Later & love,
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Never meant to imply you were on trial, Tom. Just saying while I remain skeptical, I could see where you or others would find affirmation or confirmation of SIT in your account. Me, I've heard it before, always second or third hand,... And I'm off topic and will stop there. Good morning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Well, I was just recounting my experience with that particular story...I didn't mean to put you on trial either. It was just one of those things that has stuck with me for years.
Since Steve has graciously given us some latitude on this thread....I am interested in how you make the leap from God purifying His words, to Him purifying the language of our lives. How do you get there?
Mormon's often depend on a "burning in their bosom" to know if something is true. They have what they call a "testimony" and when something feels right or good to their ears . . . they get a burning in their bosom. Their experiences then gird these testimonies and they believe God is showing them that their doctrines are true through those experiences. Mormons are among some of the most zealous for God, but, if I recounted some of their current doctrines, and some that fundamentalist Mormons still cling to.....you might strongly disagree with them. When confronted with scripture, Mormons often make claims that the bible can't be trusted. Except of course, the parts rewritten by Joseph Smith. They believe they are the one true church on earth and that Joseph Smith received the restored gospel. For years, their Temple ceremonies included a portrayal of an Orthodox Christian minister as being a tool of the devil. They rely heavily on their extra biblical scriptures, BOM, (Book of Mormon) D&C(Doctrine and Covenants) and the Pearl of Great Price. But, they appeal to their personal testimony to know if something is true. It all starts with an experience.
Other sects are also very experienced based including many Pentecostals, who rely on tongues as evidence they have received the HS. They can have great angst without that proof. That is problematic on so many levels.
So, whose experience ends up pointing to the truth?
I personally can't make the leap from God purifying His word to Him purifying the experiences of our lives. We are told to rely on our conscience and the creation, which makes us accountable before Him, but, told we are transformed by renewal to something outside of ourselves. Not our experiences. We are to cast down vain imaginations and every high thing which exalts itself against the knowledge of God. If, we are participating and practicing something in a manner that is not scriptural, but experienced based, I think we may wander into vain imaginations.
Without the Holy Spirit dwelling in our heart...it is all an exercise in futility and words anyway. The perspective we need when reading scripture, must come from the heart with which it was written. It is not all academic, but, neither is it all visceral. It is a matter of heart and how I read about SIT matters above my experiences. My take.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Like I said, it's been a while since I've been here, but why is this off-topic? Because it's personal & experienced rather than a strictly academic approach to doctrine?
OK, back to topic. Steve, sorry if I've been leading the conversation astray.
Why do you have to start with who wrote Acts? Is that in question? Or is it just something that your professors are going to expect you to cover for your research to be recognized as complete? I don't know, but I thought it was pretty well accepted in theological circles drawn on graph paper viewed through trigonometric lenses through which people can be heard but not seen (sorry, I'll cut that out now - I actually found that whole circle thing to be interesting even though I didn't really understand it - please don't ask what I mean by really) whew, anyway I thought it was pretty well accepted that Luke wrote Luke and Acts. No?
Why do you think Luke didn't write Acts? For that matter, why do you think he did?
Bullinger says in his companion bible concerning Acts, "The writer is, without doubt, Luke. The book has the same introductory address as his Gospel (cp 1.1 with Luke 1.3), and takes up the history where the third Gospel leaves it, giving in greater detail the account of the Ascension with which that Gospel closes."
A friend of mine is presently reading a book that puts forth the proposition that Luke wrote Acts as an informative account to be brought forth in Roman court in defense of Paul - to concisely answer the question up front as to what this guy Paul was all about. I don't know, but it might have some good info showing that Luke wrote Acts. I'll be happy to ask my friend if it has info along those lines & get the title & author of the book if you are interested, Steve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
One thing my friend did mention was that, according to this book, theophilis (beloved of God) was a term that was used for high Roman officials.
Seize the day,
Tom
Edited by TomLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I think it's important to keep straight which of Tom's stories (and stories are GOOD things) we are referencing. He has the story about someone who heard tongues they identified as Aramaic, and he has the story about the beliefs of people in the hills.
The story about tongues may very well be "real", that is, something that occurred in objective reality, but I will have to reference my sources in this thesis, so I'm pretty much restricted to sources the evaluation committee will find reasonable from a scholarly point of view. It isn't something EVERYBODY has to. It's something I have to do to be admitted to the club of "masters", meaning other teachers deem me capable of responsible teaching. If I have a masters degree, I will be acceptible as a teacher at accredited schools, and that was my original goal. To be able to get back into teaching seventh graders.
RE: Tom's story about hill people - My mother was born in 1919 in Louisville, KY. During the depression, she was sent to live on a relative's tobacco farm in the hills near Elizabethtown. She spent her teen-age years as a hill person. Her dad was a-religious, but her mom was a Methodist. When I was a child, we attended a trinitarian Church of Christ, where we sang the doxology at the end of every service, "...praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Amen!" When I got involved with TWI in my early-thirties, and I told her the church she attended (the same one I attended as a child) taught that Jesus is God, she thought the idea was preposterous. I distinctly remember her saying "It says Son of God, not God the Son!"
Those aren't apochryphal stories. It's part of hill culture!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I didn't realize I was a master of skepticism.
I respectfully withhold judgment on the first person account provided here, for reasons I've expressed on another thread.
If this makes me a master of skepticism, then guilty as charged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Well, there is another one to add to the list of times I have heard that same story.
Told ya.
We certainly did appeal to the expertise of hill folk. Steve, maybe you should do your thesis there in the backwater of KY. And just out of curiosity....your mother was born in 1919?!? I feel like a kid. Thanks for that. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The fact that you are writing about things that are "personal and experienced" is not off topic, just as it's not off topic for Raf or geisha, or anyone else to write on this thread about what's personal and experienced to them. After all, Luke was writing about "personal and experienced" things that had happened in his and other peoples' lives.
I WILL have to account for the personal and experienced things related in Acts. I have a model for how "speaking by the Spirit" works, that doesn't mainly rely on "supernatural" explanations. For want of any better way to refer to it, I call it my "Impression-Expression Flow Model. I'm going to have to include that in the thesis, but I'm debating with myself whether to do that as an appendix, or include it as a part of the text.
If I'm not mistaken, Tom, the book you mentioned is Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defense of Christianity by John W. Mauck (2001). I am inclined to accept Mauck's conclusions. My copy is currently on loan to one of my professors. He has it on a special place on the bookself in his office, so I can retrieve it whenever I want to. (Loaning books to my professors is part of my strategy of preparing them for my thesis!)
A doctor in the Computer Science department of the University owns and runs the Friendly Local Comic Book Shop. I actually spend a lot of time in the comic book shop talking with him about all kinds of things (comic books, the ins-and-outs of retailing, the ins-and-outs of teaching, our latest aches and pains, politics, etc.) and sometimes I pick his brain for strategic thinking in academia, even though he's not in the School of Theology!
As Brenda Johnson would say, "Thank yew! Thank yew very much!" (sorry if that causes any Rivenbark flashbacks)
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Ouch, sorry Raf. I didn't mean that crack to be insulting or even negative. You have a knack for debunking things. Of suspending judgment. I appreciate that.
Peace,
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Hey, Raf! All you'd have to do to get a Masters of Skepticism certificate is go down and get Randi to sign one! That would be cool! I'd do it if I lived down there!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
;)
I may meet Randi this week.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Obviously it's MY experiences that point to the truth. Just kidding.
The simple answer is what is the Holy Spirit dwelling in our heart doing in there. Transforming us into the New Man, no? And who are we? If God is His Word, so are we our words. Actually, I think God is more than His words, & we are more than our words, but you get the idea. That's what I meant by the language of our lives.
Oral Roberts said that every syllable uttered in a tongue of prayer in the Spirit comes back in revelation knowledge & power. The more we do that, the more we (cruddy inept weak) get changed to be like Jesus Christ. In the sense that we are our words, the language of our lives is getting purified in the fire of Holy Spirit.
Does that help/make sense?
God bless you.
Psalm 12:6 Â The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Edited by TomLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
My mom WAS born in 1919, thirty years before she bore me. She had curvature of the spine which developed about the time she was thirteen. She had to wear a body cast, and she couldn't make it up and down the stairs at her school at Louisville, so she dropped out at the end of the eighth grade. She attended a one-room schoolhouse in the hills, where they studied McGuffy's Reader. Her dad would visit her every weekend, and bring books from the Cabbage Patch Library. She read every book in that library with the exception of Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. She said she could never get into that. She memorized parts of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, all in the hills near E-Town. And she read her Bible. She kept learning all her life, because she never felt she had learned enough.
In the fifties when I was a kid, Mama became friends with one of my sister's 2nd grade teachers. At that time, Indiana was saying every teacher had to get a masters degree to remain in her or his teaching job. My mother's friend was very busy, so she would bring books over and ask my mom to read them and write reports on them. My mom wrote a masters thesis, on an eighth grade education that began on the knee of Cornelius Harden Sharp, a retired tobacco farmer in the hills of Kentucky.
So much for "the expertise of hill folk". LizzyBuzz and I went to see Lawless. It reminded me of so many stories my mom told about our own relatives in the hills!
And, no, my experience was not that TWI appealed to hill folk so much as to young college students. :)
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Hmm, more experience based talk. Let's try some Word.
Romans 8:24a  For we are saved by hope...
What happens at the hope? All the cool stuff talked about in verses 28-30 is fully realized in our lives.
Romans 8:28 Â And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29  ¶For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Â Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
We become fully conformed to the image of his Son.
Meanwhile before the fullness of the Hope, we have the Spirit.
Romans 8:26a  ¶Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession...
"Likewise the Spirit" Like WHAT does the Spirit help? Like the Hope. How does the Hope help? We are made completely whole. Just like that the Spirit helps as it makes intercession for us "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" Ephesians 4:13.
Until then the Spirit is bringing all that glorified Christ at the right hand of God stuff to bear in our lives. That's intercession. Transformational, no? The Comforter revealing Christ to us as Jesus said it would. John 15:26  ¶But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. Like Jesus Christ was in God & God in him, so we are in them and might be one with them as they were one. That's the work of the Comforter to open that door to us spiritually NOW.
Steve, like Geisha I very much appreciate the loving latitude you afford us in this thread.
Geisha, that's pretty much what I meant by God perfecting the language of our lives. Sorry if I was unclear. Maybe I should follow my own advice & stick to the language of the Word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OperaBuff
Golly, I'm glad you said that because there's something I've never understood.
Circumcision, and tongues.
Why did God chose circumcision as a sign? Of all things!! Let's say there were some Old Testament guys walking down a road, minding their own business, and then another group of guys passed by and stopped them to ask, "Hey, are you guys Jews?" Did the Jews like whip out their penises and say, "Yeah, buddy! Jews here!" I mean, wtf?
And then tongues. Why did God chose tongues as a sign for Christians? Of all things!! Maybe He chose it so that, instead of Christians having to whip out our penises to show people, we could just stick out our tongues. That's what I think.
Is this off topic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oh, Freud would have had a holiday with this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Really! God has the Jews cut off part of their penis. There can't be any more humiliating thing to do to a man. And they turn it into a sign that they are better than everyone else. God has Christians SIT - so absolutely simple that you don't even have to use your understanding to do it. Zero cause for ego enhancement. So much so that so many perceive it as false & you as stupid, gullible, & assinine if you do it, & think it is real. And Christians turn it into a sign that they are better than everyone else. People are messed up.
Edited by TomLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I never said stupid or asinine!
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.