Nobody here is able to read your mind. It MIGHT be easier to figure out what you really mean if we were face to face. We're not, so there's no body language to enhance your communication.
Bottom line is you HAVE said essentially the meaning/message Socrates responded to NUMEROUS times. One time acknowledging you might not always be right doesn't outweigh.
Really, Mike, you are overmatched on GSC and always have been.
I don't believe you when you claim you have won GSC hearts over to your side/view.
IF you see (read) that you have been misunderstood, telling the person they are wrong is an unfruitful way to clarify your message.
IF you see (read) someone and you believe the person has misunderstood you, you might be more effective to say "It appears I wasn't clear, here's another way for me to state my message. I hope I succeed in making it clear.
ANY time you blame the other person for getting your meaning wrong, you are BLAMING them, when they aren't able to control how you convey your intended message.
That's ONE key to why people don't accept your 20 years of saying the same damn thing.
"The GREAT positive I believe is that God works with sinners like me and you and VPW, as far as we are willing to go.
The great positive that went right in VPW's life is that God worked with him to pull together what God wanted. This process was aided by lots of smart people with great spiritual ability.
It is the finished product that I preach is to be thankful for and that is the collaterals, in their final edit. God worked with the editors. I knew some personally. I heavily interviewed most of them, including Karen Martin a little. I need to get back to her, because we were interrupted by her brother's death.
I believe the collaterals are God-breathed and good food for us to master.
That is the best of the best in this ministry.
I study them, and they help me read deeper into the Bible."
[The thing is, Mike, that we're adults. We've all heard several song-and-dance routines before, including the twi/pfal/vpw line of patter. We also know to be careful of unmarked vans where kids are offered candy by strangers.
Right now, you may be saying "that's it", but we know that's not it. Your entire doctrine is founded upon shifting sands. We've examined the foundations, and none of us want to enter the building you're advertising.
It all starts with 'The 1942 Promise." That's been disproven beyond any REASONABLE doubt. You've accused people of idolatry here, but have inflated vpw's abilities to make him sound superhuman when, as we've seen, he was strictly average at everything except plagiarism and delivering sermons written by others.
You've previously been clear that pfal has REPLACED the Bible. Now, you're not quite saying that- but you refuse to discuss changing your position from pfal replacing the Bible- as you said- and pfal being about keys to understanding the Bible- which actually is said in the class and the Orange Book. The message that sends is that you STILL believe pfal replaced the Bible, but you don't want to lead in with that because you want to reel in the suckers first, then slowly introduce pfal as replacing the Bible, vpw as The Teacher, and so on.
We're old enough to know better, and we've seen you on this same treadmill for over 20 years, while the rest of us moved on with out lives.
If it was only a matter of "pfal had a lot of good stuff in it", a lot of people would agree with you (and a lot of people would disagree with you.) If you wanted to actually have a reasonable discussion about that, we COULD have one- but that's not your purpose here at all.
In case anyone's wondering, yes, I know, Mike's reading my posts through his filter, and only God knows how it shows up in the censored version in his head. I'm writing to him, but I'm also recapping for those following along at home.]
Sorry WW. I didn't see any of your posts in here, maybe because you didn't quote me and, I was up to my ears just responding to notifications.
If any were important or on topic, can you please repeat them here?
[Whenever someone asks the same of you, you refuse, usually with many words to obfucate that you're refusing. (Like a long post that takes a long time to write, that explains you don't have time.)
My post you quoted was on the preceding page. You're a big boy, you can go back a page like everybody else. Seriously, I'm not sure if the laziness or the double-standard is more obnoxious. ]
[Whenever someone asks the same of you, you refuse, usually with many words to obfucate that you're refusing. (Like a long post that takes a long time to write, that explains you don't have time.)
My post you quoted was on the preceding page. You're a big boy, you can go back a page like everybody else. Seriously, I'm not sure if the laziness or the double-standard is more obnoxious. ]
I put zero stock in what seems to you to be accurate about me.
You have not earned my respect, and I care not about your assessments.
And this is any different then it usually is...how?
38 minutes ago, Mike said:
Your applications or God's Word to events of 40 years ago don't interest me.
Kind of like how we're not interested in how YOU think PLAF is God breathe. Yet that doesn't stop you does it?
38 minutes ago, Mike said:
Besides, you haven't had TIME to digest how WRONG you were about me just a few posts ago.
You day I'm wrong as somebody who knows deeply I was spot on would say.
38 minutes ago, Mike said:
You got my pitch wrong, dead wrong. REMEMBER ???
Did I? Is PLAF Saint Vic? And who's promoting PLAF, besides you? The Way, maybe? So where was I wrong for saying with you it's Way and Weirwille all the time? (I phrased it that way because I liked the illiterate on.)
38 minutes ago, Mike said:
Take some time to digest it before you spout off your church lady judgements to me.
As you can see I did take some time and they were spot on.
38 minutes ago, Mike said:
WHAT? Did you just blow that off?
That you got my pitch SO innacurate?
How did you miss how accurate my assessment was
38 minutes ago, Mike said:
Go take a nap and sleep on it a while.
Good idea, why don't you follow your own advise?
38 minutes ago, Mike said:
I went through all these items before and see no reason to do it again. It's a distraction and way off my mission, and .... of course off topic.
So what your saying is you don't have an answer to why I shouldn't follow in Saint Vic's footsteps and let grace abound.
Take your own advise and sleep on it.
As I've been over this before is one of your all purpose excuses for not responding to a logica
You've previously been clear that pfal has REPLACED the Bible. Now, you're not quite saying that- but you refuse to discuss changing your position from pfal replacing the Bible- as you said- and pfal being about keys to understanding the Bible- which actually is said in the class and the Orange Book. The message that sends is that you STILL believe pfal replaced the Bible
Hmmm. There has been a 20 year evolution of my ideas, and a deliberate attempt to explain it better and better. .....AND to many more audiences than just here.
Different audiences require different techniques.
Maybe I did change my stated position.
I'd like to see my quotes from yesteryear.
I know this audience here is different from the one in 2003.
I do remember needing more shock and awe to fight back against attacks.
Things like "tattered remnants" are phrases that were great shock value here, but terrible with other grads. So I pulled way back on that, I know. It's still roughly true, but that phrase is admittedly such a tiny piece of the story that, I did not need it there, like I thought I needed it here and way back then.
I don't think much has changed in the ideas. Being obedient to them has grown so I understand them better, and I understand better how others misconstrue them.... or I poorly state them.
*/*/**
It's late, and I am tired.
You could have a point.
When you did that thread I didn't respond because my ideas have not fundamentally changed. Not that you mention it, I think some ways I express them have changed.
I still don't think I actually said REPLACE the Bible.
A necessary augmentation, yes.
A necessary window to the ancient understanding, yes.
A product of God working in lots of people to get it printed and distributed lovngly, yes.
But it can't REPLACE the Bible.
The Bible is it's main focus.
The collaterals, that is.
Yes, I'd like to see the context of any quotes you have of me saying REPLACE.
Yes, this is an outrageously wonderful thing, that God gave us a window to His Word.
I still don't think I actually said REPLACE the Bible.
A necessary augmentation, yes.
A necessary window to the ancient understanding, yes.
A product of God working in lots of people to get it printed and distributed lovngly, yes.
Really, Mike, you ARE overmatched. You have not demonstrated any (significant) growth in understanding, communication skills, or ability to relate to the people you allegedly love and try to reach HERE with the "greatness of God's Word." In 20 effing YEARS.
Maybe it IS time for you to take a time out (for at least a year).
Really, Mike, you ARE overmatched. You have not demonstrated any (significant) growth in understanding, communication skills, or ability to relate to the people you allegedly love and try to reach HERE with the "greatness of God's Word." In 20 effing YEARS.
Maybe it IS time for you to take a time out (for at least a year).
Rocky, you don’t get it; what is really important to me.
I don’t come here to match wits and be the winner. Nor do I need to convince you, for me to feel I accomplished my mission.
I’m also not here to UN-learn what I have committed to.
If your definition of me growing is dropping what gives me life and take on a sin focused religion, then forget me learning, please!I wont be doing THAT kind of learning!
Part of my mission is to demonstrate that over and over you folks criticize what you don’t understand or remember, and that means you don’t understand the essence of what we were taught in writing. THEREFORE, you aren’t credible critics of it in my eyes.
You may have the scoop on the greatest collection of sins and shortcomings of some people, but that kind of religiosity I left WAY behind in the Catholic Church.
I wonder if Dana Carvey was RC?
I limit myself. I deliberately use filters. We’re supposed to, once we find the truth.
I don’t even try to prove that the collaterals are God-breathed.
The limited thing I show is that VPW “stated” they were God-breathed, if you put together ALL his words on this topic. Those who claim that VPW didn’t claim they were of God, missed his MANY such claims.I once was posting some 22 of them, but only got to 18, I think.
I am interested in learning better ways to express what I have chosen to live by.
My approach to TWI people is totally different on this.They already hold the collaterals to be good these days, and have shook off that “old wineskins” baloney.
Actually, living it all is even more important to me these days.
That’s the best expression of it.
It is easier in person than through ASCII text.
Mike: "Yes, I'd like to see the context of any quotes you have of me saying REPLACE."
[See, this is what I was talking about. We've been down this road before. This is playing those silly-@$$ games we don't respect.
I don't remember you using the exact word "replace." (You may have, but I didn't note it.) What you DID do is use the CONCEPT "replace" quite clearly.
You said the Bibles we had were "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants." You said that God Almighty had to reissue His Word as pfal because there was no chance to get to the original by reading the modern Bibles.
This was especially egregious because at least 2 posters (I was the 2nd) were able to quote, directly from the Orange Book, how that contradicted the Orange Book. vpw had specified techniques and said these were what WE were to use, and that, once WE had done this, we could say, "Thus saith the LORD." At the time, I was at least a bit shocked that you responded at least once to that by saying that this was how vpw did so, but WE were not able to do so, that WE were not supposed to try to do so, and that if WE tried, we wouldn't get that result.
You referred to the Bible as "not God-breathed" and the pfal books as "God-breathed."
Now, either you remember all that, or you don't. Either you meant all that, or you didn't. If your usage of "replace" is meant to say that you didn't MEAN "replace" because you evaded usage of that exact word despite expressing that concept pretty clearly, then you should already know what we all think of that without me telling you. ]
Mike: "Yes, I'd like to see the context of any quotes you have of me saying REPLACE."
[See, this is what I was talking about. We've been down this road before. This is playing those silly-@$$ games we don't respect.
I don't remember you using the exact word "replace." (You may have, but I didn't note it.) What you DID do is use the CONCEPT "replace" quite clearly.
Just woke up, and only read this far in your text, so far.
Last night you didn't get it when I was joking with you, so I had to tell you it was a joke. And then when I get serious and more open (vulnerable? Rocky?) and you think I'm joking.
*/*/*/*
I was going with your flow, last night WW and you just missed it, and read evil into my posting.
So_crates did the same thing, and wildly read evil (error) into my "pitch." Then blew it off as if it was only a minor error on his part.
You did the exact same and read "replace" into my pitch years ago, and now can't find ANY quotes? Sloppy criticism of me, both of you, just like sloppy criticism of what we were taught.
If I did use the word “replace” that would be TERRIBLY inaccurate compared to how I express the same ideas today, 20 years later.
I would actually LOVE to see me quoted saying “replace.” Memory glitches fascinate me.I hang out with brain scientists, and we talk about things like that a lot. I have done experiments on my own memory (long stories) and I may search the archives to see if I said that. The context would explain to me why i said it, IF I said it.
But the idea of the collaterals REPLACING the ancient scriptures is CRAZY!
The collaterals point to the scriptures on nearly every page….Sometimes with the heavy implication that we should spend time with them; NEVER to replace them.
I may have used the word “replace” referring to something else, and it was read wrong by you and others in the heat of battle.False memories are also fascinating to any fan of brain science.
*/*/**
You wrote:
“I don't remember you using the exact word "replace." (You may have, but I didn't note it.) What you DID do is use the CONCEPT "replace" quite clearly.
No, I contest this also.I just did above. The collaterals clearly augment the scriptures, and doing away with them is contrary to that.
I think you got the target of the word “replace” mixed up in your memory as being the scriptures.
OR, you heard someone else mis-characterize me with that word “replace” and ascribed it to me in your mind. FALSE MEMORIES either way.
*/*/*/*
I will read the rest of your post later.
Let’s go back to my admitted joke last night.It was actually a veiled way of throwing you a bone like I did with Rocky, and someone else… just yesterday.
The joke was that I was implying that most of what you had just posted (and I had missed because of a notification storm) was NOT important to you.
Well that is clearly not true to fact. Everything we post here, we think is important.We labor at our keyboards for important things, and even the light hearted breaks we take are calculated.
Go back and read again how I put it.I was, in a veiled way, saying I’d answer any one most important objection you had against me, like I did with Rocky and someone else, yesterday.
It looks like you may have sensed it in an intuitive way, and came up with this “replace” mem-not.Remember that term I coined back then?A mem-not is a false memory, while mem-rot is a distorted memory. Emotion and the heat of battle also contribute to these common conditions. It happens to me too. Maybe I used “replace” after all and I have a serious mem-rot going.The quotes will tell all.
It seemed like you did sense that I was saying “hit me with your best shot” and so you did, with “replace.” I can see how that would bother you, if I did use the word “replace.” The possibility that I used it bothers ME a little.
I was also very surprised that your best shot at me was NOT that Tom Strange dual that went on for years, and got quite distorted itself.From your mentioning that dual and “Jesus with the Orange Book in hand” a few times in recent months, I thought for sure that was your best shot, BECAUSE it seemed obvious that you missed me spilling the beans on that one about a year or maybe two years ago.I mentioned my bean spilling briefly recently and you let it fly by.
Anyway, in recent years I have felt the heat of the “Mike Wars” diminish enough for me to lighten up a little.I suggest you do the same…. and do your archive search magic on the word “replace” or it’s variants.
I may have little to nothing to post today,because I will be visiting friends, so feel free to flood the thread with your findings. Hopefully some will be on topic.LoL
You referred to the Bible as "not God-breathed" and the pfal books as "God-breathed."
This stood out.
Above we were discussing the many definitions the phrase "the Bible" can have, so let's be careful.
Of course the originals of the Bible were God-breathed, because that is what the collaterals teach. But what happened to the originals (NT mostly)? They were lost.
So what DO we have? An intact Bible from AD 800 that is written in Latin. That's a translation of the Greek, which is a translation of the Aramaic, with 800 years of the devil playing the party game "telephone" with it. We have nearly complete Greek and Aramaic Bibles going back to what centuries 4th or 5th? Older than that we have partial books of the Bible. Going back even farther to the early centuries and we have fragments of pages and fragments of verses.
The critical Greek texts were relatively modern scholarly attempts to reconstruct the originals, which were THANKFULLY accurate a lot of the time, but way off some of the time. And where they were good and where they were bad was hard to tell, and the reconstructing scholars often disagreed with each other.
We were taught that all the punctuation in the ancient surviving manuscripts were DEVOID of AUTHORITY. Well, the same thing holds for many of the verses and words. This means NOT God-breathed any more in many places, many somewhat unknown places. This is a problem. The collaterals being God-breathed solves it neatly. It gives us something solid we never have to question. I need that.
Because the collaterals are God-breathed we have a handle on how to spot the accurate sections in the scholarly reconstructions that the Critical Greek Texts are. With the authority of the collaterals we can spot the inaccurate sections in the Critical Greek Texts. We also have a simple handle on the most important figures of speech and Orientalism we need to fully see the originals in the reconstructions.
Summary:
With the collaterals in hand and mind, the ancient surviving scriptures are cleaned up.
Without the collaterals all ancient scripture reconstructions are forever unfinished, corrupted, obfuscated, and not-God breathed in a practical sense.
Instead of replacing the ancient scriptures, the collaterals revive them.
You said that God Almighty had to reissue His Word as pfal because there was no chance to get to the original by reading the modern Bibles.
Yes, I remember writing like that. I'm pretty sure I don't like using the word "re-issue" any more. Maybe because it has a trace of "replace" in it? It requires too much explaining what I mean by it. In a nutshell I mean God sees the dilemma we are in having the originals lost, and other obfuscating factors like Orientalisms, and things like that. God sees that the God-breathed authority in the Critical Greek texts is wobbly. So, God does a new breathing of His authority into some texts that VPW and many of his helpers were eager to work. That sounds like a "re-issueing" without a replacement. But it is complicated.
Anyway, maybe you have a point, the a trace of "replace" (UNINTENDED) can pop up in the word "re-issue" so I slowly stopped using the word. I was unaware of it until now. Again, I don't mind checking the archives. I am all for changing my stated position somewhat, like fine tuning it. At this point I feel that "re-issue" has too much baggage, and requires a lot of contextual support to avoid the taint of "replace."
*/*/*/*
Just thought of something.
With the teaching of VPW (and his helpers) what should be in the final form of the collaterals, He effectively replaces the Critical Greek Texts as our most authoritative set of texts with the collaterals. That use of "replace" I like.
I may have been writing on that theme at times, and it was read poorly in the heat of battle. Or maybe I wrote it poorly once and that stuck in your craw. If we have time to search out all this in the archives (unlikely) I will be fascinated at seeing the results. I think it will help me make my message more clear.
This was especially egregious because at least 2 posters (I was the 2nd) were able to quote, directly from the Orange Book, how that contradicted the Orange Book. vpw had specified techniques and said these were what WE were to use, and that, once WE had done this, we could say, "Thus saith the LORD."
<my reformatting into 2 paragraphs>
At the time, I was at least a bit shocked that you responded at least once to that by saying that this was how vpw did so, but WE were not able to do so, that WE were not supposed to try to do so, and that if WE tried, we wouldn't get that result.
I vaguely remember this.
That vague memory also contains this: that the "we" can get back to the originals and authority is in the context of "the teacher with his students" comprising that "we."
But you folks were advocating that the "we" could just as well mean "us GSC posters who seek to destroy this teacher-student relationship by contradicting the teacher."
That is where we disagreed way back then, I think. Again quotes, or even just page numbers would help us reconstruct that. The "we" that VPW was referring to was different from the "we" you were referring to in the Orange Book.
Where have I heard thisraiders of the lostarkWordparody before?
Oh yeah, using Grease Spot’s The Other Side of The Way way-back machine I addressed the pretentious nonsense of wierwille’s supposed competency and research skills…and it bears repeating here…the following is copied from my comments on another thread( here) :
I think we can shorten the discussion by just getting right to the heart of the matter; two notable scholars F.F. Bruce and Sir Frederic Kenyon – both with expertise in the historical reliability of the New Testament have stated that very little has been lost as to what was originally written in the New Testament docs, in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by FF Bruce... it says on pages 14 and 15:
“The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism. This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least. When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists’ errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.
To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:
‘The Interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.’ “
== == == == ==
Bruce’s point is simple – with the increase of hand-copies comes the possibility of scribal errors – but that also means you have that many more “witnesses” as to what was originally said. And another thing to consider is what type of scribal errors occurred. Was a word misspelled, or repeated or transposed, etc. - - these would be easy to spot and corrected by comparing other copies...
It appears wierwille is somewhat removed from analyzing the actual texts that are still in existence; in the PFAL book, page 128 in chapter 11, “The Translations of the Word of God”, wierwille states:
“Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all verses.”
== == == == ==
I see two issues with wierwille’s approach:
First: He’s off by about a century and a half on the oldest manuscripts in existence – Bruce notes on page 10 of his book that there are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part and that the best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350.
Second: wierwille is not comparing Greek manuscripts – instead he is comparing translations or versions of the Bible! That’s like playing the telephone game - the first person states a message and by the time it goes through a whole line of people the message might sound somewhat different from the original. wierwille is at the end of the line - comparing how one translator interprets a phrase in the Greek to how another translator handles the same phrase. Frankly I don’t have much faith in wierwille’s ability to see beyond his own doctrinal preferences to note differences or similarities in translations since he would come up with goofy phrases that blurred variations like “all without exception” and “all without distinction” – which is the same thing.
== == == == ==
Here are multiple challenges:
First challenge: how can wierwille claim he can get back to the authentic prophecy when it was first given if he is only looking at translations and versions instead of the manuscripts written in the original biblical languages? In my humble opinion, it is doubtful wierwille was even competent to read and understand any of the biblical languages anyway.
Second challenge: what standard or criteria are you using to declare that the KJV or other translations lack validity and authority in matters of the Christian faith?
Third challenge: specifically what errors are there in the KJV - or in other translations, for that matter - that need to be addressed because it is mission critical to the church and/or one’s Christian faith? Or to put it another way - what errors does your manifesto confront and resolve to make your unique creed a better version of Christianity?
Fourth challenge: How is PFAL God-breathed if all wierwille did to put it together was just supposedly compare translations /versions …oh and plagiarize the work of others too?
Fifth challenge: If God’s breath gave life to scripture (II Timothy 3:16) and in a way that represents an extension of God himself then doesn’t that make God a liar and thief if you believe that a bundle of plagiarized material (aka PFAL) is God-breathed?
Edited January 7, 2018 by T-Bone
(end of my copied post)
~ ~ ~ ~
I trust that folks are aware of the current context of this thread and my direct challenges here to figure out to whom it is addressed
Rocky, you don’t get it; what is really important to me.
I don’t come here to match wits and be the winner. Nor do I need to convince you, for me to feel I accomplished my mission.
Translation: I'm going to ram this down your throats whether you want me to or not. I'm going to use big fant in a feeble attempt to overcome any feedback. This is important (by my standards) damnit and I don't care how you feel.
6 hours ago, Mike said:
I’m also not here to UN-learn what I have committed to.
If your definition of me growing is dropping what gives me life and take on a sin focused religion, then forget me learning, please!I wont be doing THAT kind of learning!
Translation: It gives me life to ignore the sins of Saint Vic and there's no way you can tell me otherwise. So there!
6 hours ago, Mike said:
Part of my mission is to demonstrate that over and over you folks criticize what you don’t understand or remember, and that means you don’t understand the essence of what we were taught in writing. THEREFORE, you aren’t credible critics of it in my eyes.
Translation: You guys missed the boat. Out of all of you who post here, only I know the truth and I'm going to force it on you.
6 hours ago, Mike said:
You may have the scoop on the greatest collection of sins and shortcomings of some people, but that kind of religiosity I left WAY behind in the Catholic Church.
I wonder if Dana Carvey was RC?
Translation: Let's ignore how evil Saint Vic is and focus on how this evil man somehow created something good.
6 hours ago, Mike said:
I limit myself. I deliberately use filters. We’re supposed to, once we find the truth.
Translation: Truth is just one big head game and we're supposed to reflect that once we think we find it.
If your definition of me growing is dropping what gives me life and take on a sin focused religion, then forget me learning, please!
Sorry to break this to you - Christianity is a sin focused movement. The entire book of Romans centers around sin (not only Romans either). It explains the law was given to convict sin. From a literary stand point the book of Romans starts with an outer section that deals with sins people commit (addresses gentiles and Israel seperately and in turn) and moves into an innersection that deals with the corrupted nature of mankind called the sin nature in all of it's ugliness. The entire old testament law, aka Mosaic law, aka The Torah was given to convict sin and bring people to Christ. Then we are taken into the new birth and walking in the spirit, the new creation, the new man that nullifies the sin nature when people press into the spirit instead of the flesh.
The problem you are having is you are blinded by wierwille, a man who rationalized his sin and hid them while letting his lusts run wild, posing as a man of God....P.T. Barnum style....greatest man of God since Jesus Christ who pulled the greatest doctrines together since the first century from God almighty. Christianity is sin focused and offers the final solution - the real Jesus Christ - not the absent one.
So_crates did the same thing, and wildly read evil (error) into my "pitch." Then blew it off as if it was only a minor error on his part.
If you torture this language anymore, it's going to be crippled for life.
You are PLAF all the time which makes you Way and Weirwille all the time. Then you post a bible verse about Christ's joy going to the crucification. What were we talking about? Weirwille and PLAF. Seeing as PLAF has no ability to feel joy, you must have been comparing Weirwille to Jesus Christ.
It also fits logically:
The Word takes the place of the absent Christ
Who teaches the Word? Weirwille.
Therefore, Weirwille takes the place of the absent Christ.
If you still have trouble understanding Mike, take a logic course.
Also, in all that thinking you did overnight, did you figure out why I shouldn't follow Saint Vics example and let grace abound?
Sorry to break this to you - Christianity is a sin focused movement. The entire book of Romans centers around sin. It explains the law was given to convict sin.
Ohh I Know that sin is addresed, and then dismissed at the end of Romans 7 and into the whole next chapter.
Our rescue from sin is the FOCUS of the NT.
Sin itself should no longer be the focus:
"Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you."
Ohh I Know that sin is addresed, and then dismissed at the end of Romans 7 and into the whole next chapter.
Our rescue from sin is the FOCUS of the NT.
Sin itself should no longer be the focus:
"Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you."
And how does this fit into your claims people are trying to trip you up and pounce on you?
Ohh I Know that sin is addresed, and then dismissed at the end of Romans 7
Take off the rose colored glasses. It is never dismissed anywhere but always exposed and condemned - especially throughout the Church epistles. That's the problem with having on those blinders that we learn from pflap and other way ministry gobbledy gook.
Fake absent Christ - not involved in christians lives other than a name sake on the end of prayers. Bask in his accomplished works so you can have an abundance of material crap. Otherwise, Christ is absent and only deal with God.
Real ever-present Jesus Christ - vitally involved in lives of Christians in an intimate fellowship with the believer, Father, and Son. Sin is recognized, repented of, confessed, forgiven by our identification with Christ - we are led into our walk in the spirit by Jesus Christ who is the head of the body, directs the affairs of the Church, gives eternal life, is our advocate, etc, etc. That is the real book of Acts put into play.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
427
271
423
257
Popular Days
Feb 14
142
Oct 13
105
Jan 18
101
Oct 8
88
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 427 posts
T-Bone 271 posts
OldSkool 423 posts
Nathan_Jr 257 posts
Popular Days
Feb 14 2023
142 posts
Oct 13 2022
105 posts
Jan 18 2023
101 posts
Oct 8 2022
88 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
First off, Biblically speaking, Christ has never been absent...that doctrine does not come close to occuring anywhere in the Bible. Yet the way international teaches the word of God takes the place of
Bolshevik
Mike's apparent anger toward Christ and emphasis on obedience . . . that's Wayworld . . . that's the annihilation of the individual
waysider
Soooo...He used ONE verse from the Amplified Bible, HALF a chapter from the New English Bible and required PFAL '77 students to get some version from the 1800's that has a name so unremarkable you can
Posted Images
WordWolf
[True.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I put zero stock in what seems to you to be accurate about me.
You have not earned my respect, and I care not about your assessments.
Your applications or God's Word to events of 40 years ago don't interest me.
Besides, you haven't had TIME to digest how WRONG you were about me just a few posts ago.
Edited by MikeYou got my pitch wrong, dead wrong. REMEMBER ???
Take some time to digest it before you spout off your church lady judgements to me.
WHAT? Did you just blow that off?
That you got my pitch SO innacurate?
Go take a nap and sleep on it a while.
I went through all these items before and see no reason to do it again. It's a distraction and way off my mission, and .... of course off topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sorry WW. I didn't see any of your posts in here, maybe because you didn't quote me and, I was up to my ears just responding to notifications.
If any were important or on topic, can you please repeat them here?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[Whenever someone asks the same of you, you refuse, usually with many words to obfucate that you're refusing. (Like a long post that takes a long time to write, that explains you don't have time.)
My post you quoted was on the preceding page. You're a big boy, you can go back a page like everybody else. Seriously, I'm not sure if the laziness or the double-standard is more obnoxious. ]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I was joking with you. LoL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
But I was serious about "on topic."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And this is any different then it usually is...how?
Kind of like how we're not interested in how YOU think PLAF is God breathe. Yet that doesn't stop you does it?
You day I'm wrong as somebody who knows deeply I was spot on would say.
Did I? Is PLAF Saint Vic? And who's promoting PLAF, besides you? The Way, maybe? So where was I wrong for saying with you it's Way and Weirwille all the time? (I phrased it that way because I liked the illiterate on.)
As you can see I did take some time and they were spot on.
How did you miss how accurate my assessment was
Good idea, why don't you follow your own advise?
So what your saying is you don't have an answer to why I shouldn't follow in Saint Vic's footsteps and let grace abound.
Take your own advise and sleep on it.
As I've been over this before is one of your all purpose excuses for not responding to a logica
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hmmm. There has been a 20 year evolution of my ideas, and a deliberate attempt to explain it better and better. .....AND to many more audiences than just here.
Different audiences require different techniques.
Maybe I did change my stated position.
I'd like to see my quotes from yesteryear.
I know this audience here is different from the one in 2003.
I do remember needing more shock and awe to fight back against attacks.
Things like "tattered remnants" are phrases that were great shock value here, but terrible with other grads. So I pulled way back on that, I know. It's still roughly true, but that phrase is admittedly such a tiny piece of the story that, I did not need it there, like I thought I needed it here and way back then.
I don't think much has changed in the ideas. Being obedient to them has grown so I understand them better, and I understand better how others misconstrue them.... or I poorly state them.
*/*/**
It's late, and I am tired.
You could have a point.
When you did that thread I didn't respond because my ideas have not fundamentally changed. Not that you mention it, I think some ways I express them have changed.
I still don't think I actually said REPLACE the Bible.
A necessary augmentation, yes.
A necessary window to the ancient understanding, yes.
A product of God working in lots of people to get it printed and distributed lovngly, yes.
But it can't REPLACE the Bible.
The Bible is it's main focus.
The collaterals, that is.
Yes, I'd like to see the context of any quotes you have of me saying REPLACE.
Yes, this is an outrageously wonderful thing, that God gave us a window to His Word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Really, Mike, you ARE overmatched. You have not demonstrated any (significant) growth in understanding, communication skills, or ability to relate to the people you allegedly love and try to reach HERE with the "greatness of God's Word." In 20 effing YEARS.
Edited by RockyMaybe it IS time for you to take a time out (for at least a year).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rocky, you don’t get it; what is really important to me.
I don’t come here to match wits and be the winner. Nor do I need to convince you, for me to feel I accomplished my mission.
I’m also not here to UN-learn what I have committed to.
If your definition of me growing is dropping what gives me life and take on a sin focused religion, then forget me learning, please! I wont be doing THAT kind of learning!
Part of my mission is to demonstrate that over and over you folks criticize what you don’t understand or remember, and that means you don’t understand the essence of what we were taught in writing. THEREFORE, you aren’t credible critics of it in my eyes.
You may have the scoop on the greatest collection of sins and shortcomings of some people, but that kind of religiosity I left WAY behind in the Catholic Church.
I wonder if Dana Carvey was RC?
I limit myself. I deliberately use filters. We’re supposed to, once we find the truth.
I don’t even try to prove that the collaterals are God-breathed.
The limited thing I show is that VPW “stated” they were God-breathed, if you put together ALL his words on this topic. Those who claim that VPW didn’t claim they were of God, missed his MANY such claims. I once was posting some 22 of them, but only got to 18, I think.
I am interested in learning better ways to express what I have chosen to live by.
My approach to TWI people is totally different on this. They already hold the collaterals to be good these days, and have shook off that “old wineskins” baloney.
Actually, living it all is even more important to me these days.
That’s the best expression of it.
It is easier in person than through ASCII text.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike: "Yes, I'd like to see the context of any quotes you have of me saying REPLACE."
[See, this is what I was talking about. We've been down this road before. This is playing those silly-@$$ games we don't respect.
I don't remember you using the exact word "replace." (You may have, but I didn't note it.) What you DID do is use the CONCEPT "replace" quite clearly.
You said the Bibles we had were "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants." You said that God Almighty had to reissue His Word as pfal because there was no chance to get to the original by reading the modern Bibles.
This was especially egregious because at least 2 posters (I was the 2nd) were able to quote, directly from the Orange Book, how that contradicted the Orange Book. vpw had specified techniques and said these were what WE were to use, and that, once WE had done this, we could say, "Thus saith the LORD." At the time, I was at least a bit shocked that you responded at least once to that by saying that this was how vpw did so, but WE were not able to do so, that WE were not supposed to try to do so, and that if WE tried, we wouldn't get that result.
You referred to the Bible as "not God-breathed" and the pfal books as "God-breathed."
Now, either you remember all that, or you don't. Either you meant all that, or you didn't. If your usage of "replace" is meant to say that you didn't MEAN "replace" because you evaded usage of that exact word despite expressing that concept pretty clearly, then you should already know what we all think of that without me telling you. ]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What more needs said?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Just woke up, and only read this far in your text, so far.
Last night you didn't get it when I was joking with you, so I had to tell you it was a joke. And then when I get serious and more open (vulnerable? Rocky?) and you think I'm joking.
*/*/*/*
I was going with your flow, last night WW and you just missed it, and read evil into my posting.
So_crates did the same thing, and wildly read evil (error) into my "pitch." Then blew it off as if it was only a minor error on his part.
You did the exact same and read "replace" into my pitch years ago, and now can't find ANY quotes? Sloppy criticism of me, both of you, just like sloppy criticism of what we were taught.
If I did use the word “replace” that would be TERRIBLY inaccurate compared to how I express the same ideas today, 20 years later.
I would actually LOVE to see me quoted saying “replace.” Memory glitches fascinate me. I hang out with brain scientists, and we talk about things like that a lot. I have done experiments on my own memory (long stories) and I may search the archives to see if I said that. The context would explain to me why i said it, IF I said it.
But the idea of the collaterals REPLACING the ancient scriptures is CRAZY!
The collaterals point to the scriptures on nearly every page…. Sometimes with the heavy implication that we should spend time with them; NEVER to replace them.
I may have used the word “replace” referring to something else, and it was read wrong by you and others in the heat of battle. False memories are also fascinating to any fan of brain science.
*/*/**
You wrote:
“I don't remember you using the exact word "replace." (You may have, but I didn't note it.) What you DID do is use the CONCEPT "replace" quite clearly.
No, I contest this also. I just did above. The collaterals clearly augment the scriptures, and doing away with them is contrary to that.
I think you got the target of the word “replace” mixed up in your memory as being the scriptures.
OR, you heard someone else mis-characterize me with that word “replace” and ascribed it to me in your mind. FALSE MEMORIES either way.
*/*/*/*
I will read the rest of your post later.
Let’s go back to my admitted joke last night. It was actually a veiled way of throwing you a bone like I did with Rocky, and someone else… just yesterday.
The joke was that I was implying that most of what you had just posted (and I had missed because of a notification storm) was NOT important to you.
Well that is clearly not true to fact. Everything we post here, we think is important. We labor at our keyboards for important things, and even the light hearted breaks we take are calculated.
Go back and read again how I put it. I was, in a veiled way, saying I’d answer any one most important objection you had against me, like I did with Rocky and someone else, yesterday.
It looks like you may have sensed it in an intuitive way, and came up with this “replace” mem-not. Remember that term I coined back then? A mem-not is a false memory, while mem-rot is a distorted memory. Emotion and the heat of battle also contribute to these common conditions. It happens to me too. Maybe I used “replace” after all and I have a serious mem-rot going. The quotes will tell all.
It seemed like you did sense that I was saying “hit me with your best shot” and so you did, with “replace.” I can see how that would bother you, if I did use the word “replace.” The possibility that I used it bothers ME a little.
I was also very surprised that your best shot at me was NOT that Tom Strange dual that went on for years, and got quite distorted itself. From your mentioning that dual and “Jesus with the Orange Book in hand” a few times in recent months, I thought for sure that was your best shot, BECAUSE it seemed obvious that you missed me spilling the beans on that one about a year or maybe two years ago. I mentioned my bean spilling briefly recently and you let it fly by.
Anyway, in recent years I have felt the heat of the “Mike Wars” diminish enough for me to lighten up a little. I suggest you do the same…. and do your archive search magic on the word “replace” or it’s variants.
I may have little to nothing to post today,because I will be visiting friends, so feel free to flood the thread with your findings. Hopefully some will be on topic. LoL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This stood out.
Above we were discussing the many definitions the phrase "the Bible" can have, so let's be careful.
Of course the originals of the Bible were God-breathed, because that is what the collaterals teach. But what happened to the originals (NT mostly)? They were lost.
So what DO we have? An intact Bible from AD 800 that is written in Latin. That's a translation of the Greek, which is a translation of the Aramaic, with 800 years of the devil playing the party game "telephone" with it. We have nearly complete Greek and Aramaic Bibles going back to what centuries 4th or 5th? Older than that we have partial books of the Bible. Going back even farther to the early centuries and we have fragments of pages and fragments of verses.
The critical Greek texts were relatively modern scholarly attempts to reconstruct the originals, which were THANKFULLY accurate a lot of the time, but way off some of the time. And where they were good and where they were bad was hard to tell, and the reconstructing scholars often disagreed with each other.
We were taught that all the punctuation in the ancient surviving manuscripts were DEVOID of AUTHORITY. Well, the same thing holds for many of the verses and words. This means NOT God-breathed any more in many places, many somewhat unknown places. This is a problem. The collaterals being God-breathed solves it neatly. It gives us something solid we never have to question. I need that.
Because the collaterals are God-breathed we have a handle on how to spot the accurate sections in the scholarly reconstructions that the Critical Greek Texts are. With the authority of the collaterals we can spot the inaccurate sections in the Critical Greek Texts. We also have a simple handle on the most important figures of speech and Orientalism we need to fully see the originals in the reconstructions.
Summary:
With the collaterals in hand and mind, the ancient surviving scriptures are cleaned up.
Without the collaterals all ancient scripture reconstructions are forever unfinished, corrupted, obfuscated, and not-God breathed in a practical sense.
Instead of replacing the ancient scriptures, the collaterals revive them.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, I remember writing like that. I'm pretty sure I don't like using the word "re-issue" any more. Maybe because it has a trace of "replace" in it? It requires too much explaining what I mean by it. In a nutshell I mean God sees the dilemma we are in having the originals lost, and other obfuscating factors like Orientalisms, and things like that. God sees that the God-breathed authority in the Critical Greek texts is wobbly. So, God does a new breathing of His authority into some texts that VPW and many of his helpers were eager to work. That sounds like a "re-issueing" without a replacement. But it is complicated.
Anyway, maybe you have a point, the a trace of "replace" (UNINTENDED) can pop up in the word "re-issue" so I slowly stopped using the word. I was unaware of it until now. Again, I don't mind checking the archives. I am all for changing my stated position somewhat, like fine tuning it. At this point I feel that "re-issue" has too much baggage, and requires a lot of contextual support to avoid the taint of "replace."
*/*/*/*
Just thought of something.
With the teaching of VPW (and his helpers) what should be in the final form of the collaterals, He effectively replaces the Critical Greek Texts as our most authoritative set of texts with the collaterals. That use of "replace" I like.
I may have been writing on that theme at times, and it was read poorly in the heat of battle. Or maybe I wrote it poorly once and that stuck in your craw. If we have time to search out all this in the archives (unlikely) I will be fascinated at seeing the results. I think it will help me make my message more clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I vaguely remember this.
That vague memory also contains this: that the "we" can get back to the originals and authority is in the context of "the teacher with his students" comprising that "we."
But you folks were advocating that the "we" could just as well mean "us GSC posters who seek to destroy this teacher-student relationship by contradicting the teacher."
That is where we disagreed way back then, I think. Again quotes, or even just page numbers would help us reconstruct that. The "we" that VPW was referring to was different from the "we" you were referring to in the Orange Book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Where have I heard this raiders of the lost
arkWord parody before?Oh yeah, using Grease Spot’s The Other Side of The Way way-back machine I addressed the pretentious nonsense of wierwille’s supposed competency and research skills…and it bears repeating here…the following is copied from my comments on another thread ( here ) :
I think we can shorten the discussion by just getting right to the heart of the matter; two notable scholars F.F. Bruce and Sir Frederic Kenyon – both with expertise in the historical reliability of the New Testament have stated that very little has been lost as to what was originally written in the New Testament docs, in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by FF Bruce... it says on pages 14 and 15:
“The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism. This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least. When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists’ errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.
To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:
‘The Interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.’ “
== == == == ==
Bruce’s point is simple – with the increase of hand-copies comes the possibility of scribal errors – but that also means you have that many more “witnesses” as to what was originally said. And another thing to consider is what type of scribal errors occurred. Was a word misspelled, or repeated or transposed, etc. - - these would be easy to spot and corrected by comparing other copies...
It appears wierwille is somewhat removed from analyzing the actual texts that are still in existence; in the PFAL book, page 128 in chapter 11, “The Translations of the Word of God”, wierwille states:
“Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all verses.”
== == == == ==
I see two issues with wierwille’s approach:
First: He’s off by about a century and a half on the oldest manuscripts in existence – Bruce notes on page 10 of his book that there are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part and that the best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350.
Second: wierwille is not comparing Greek manuscripts – instead he is comparing translations or versions of the Bible! That’s like playing the telephone game - the first person states a message and by the time it goes through a whole line of people the message might sound somewhat different from the original. wierwille is at the end of the line - comparing how one translator interprets a phrase in the Greek to how another translator handles the same phrase. Frankly I don’t have much faith in wierwille’s ability to see beyond his own doctrinal preferences to note differences or similarities in translations since he would come up with goofy phrases that blurred variations like “all without exception” and “all without distinction” – which is the same thing.
== == == == ==
Here are multiple challenges:
First challenge: how can wierwille claim he can get back to the authentic prophecy when it was first given if he is only looking at translations and versions instead of the manuscripts written in the original biblical languages? In my humble opinion, it is doubtful wierwille was even competent to read and understand any of the biblical languages anyway.
Second challenge: what standard or criteria are you using to declare that the KJV or other translations lack validity and authority in matters of the Christian faith?
Third challenge: specifically what errors are there in the KJV - or in other translations, for that matter - that need to be addressed because it is mission critical to the church and/or one’s Christian faith? Or to put it another way - what errors does your manifesto confront and resolve to make your unique creed a better version of Christianity?
Fourth challenge: How is PFAL God-breathed if all wierwille did to put it together was just supposedly compare translations /versions …oh and plagiarize the work of others too?
Fifth challenge: If God’s breath gave life to scripture (II Timothy 3:16) and in a way that represents an extension of God himself then doesn’t that make God a liar and thief if you believe that a bundle of plagiarized material (aka PFAL) is God-breathed?
Edited January 7, 2018 by T-Bone
(end of my copied post)
~ ~ ~ ~
I trust that folks are aware of the current context of this thread and my direct challenges here to figure out to whom it is addressed
Edited by T-Bonethe way way back editor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Translation: I'm going to ram this down your throats whether you want me to or not. I'm going to use big fant in a feeble attempt to overcome any feedback. This is important (by my standards) damnit and I don't care how you feel.
Translation: It gives me life to ignore the sins of Saint Vic and there's no way you can tell me otherwise. So there!
Translation: You guys missed the boat. Out of all of you who post here, only I know the truth and I'm going to force it on you.
Translation: Let's ignore how evil Saint Vic is and focus on how this evil man somehow created something good.
Translation: Truth is just one big head game and we're supposed to reflect that once we think we find it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Sorry to break this to you - Christianity is a sin focused movement. The entire book of Romans centers around sin (not only Romans either). It explains the law was given to convict sin. From a literary stand point the book of Romans starts with an outer section that deals with sins people commit (addresses gentiles and Israel seperately and in turn) and moves into an innersection that deals with the corrupted nature of mankind called the sin nature in all of it's ugliness. The entire old testament law, aka Mosaic law, aka The Torah was given to convict sin and bring people to Christ. Then we are taken into the new birth and walking in the spirit, the new creation, the new man that nullifies the sin nature when people press into the spirit instead of the flesh.
The problem you are having is you are blinded by wierwille, a man who rationalized his sin and hid them while letting his lusts run wild, posing as a man of God....P.T. Barnum style....greatest man of God since Jesus Christ who pulled the greatest doctrines together since the first century from God almighty. Christianity is sin focused and offers the final solution - the real Jesus Christ - not the absent one.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
If you torture this language anymore, it's going to be crippled for life.
You are PLAF all the time which makes you Way and Weirwille all the time. Then you post a bible verse about Christ's joy going to the crucification. What were we talking about? Weirwille and PLAF. Seeing as PLAF has no ability to feel joy, you must have been comparing Weirwille to Jesus Christ.
It also fits logically:
The Word takes the place of the absent Christ
Who teaches the Word? Weirwille.
Therefore, Weirwille takes the place of the absent Christ.
If you still have trouble understanding Mike, take a logic course.
Also, in all that thinking you did overnight, did you figure out why I shouldn't follow Saint Vics example and let grace abound?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ohh I Know that sin is addresed, and then dismissed at the end of Romans 7 and into the whole next chapter.
Our rescue from sin is the FOCUS of the NT.
Sin itself should no longer be the focus:
"Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And how does this fit into your claims people are trying to trip you up and pounce on you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Take off the rose colored glasses. It is never dismissed anywhere but always exposed and condemned - especially throughout the Church epistles. That's the problem with having on those blinders that we learn from pflap and other way ministry gobbledy gook.
Fake absent Christ - not involved in christians lives other than a name sake on the end of prayers. Bask in his accomplished works so you can have an abundance of material crap. Otherwise, Christ is absent and only deal with God.
Real ever-present Jesus Christ - vitally involved in lives of Christians in an intimate fellowship with the believer, Father, and Son. Sin is recognized, repented of, confessed, forgiven by our identification with Christ - we are led into our walk in the spirit by Jesus Christ who is the head of the body, directs the affairs of the Church, gives eternal life, is our advocate, etc, etc. That is the real book of Acts put into play.
Edited by OldSkoolLink 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.