I was in the woods with the geese, ducks, bass, deer, pigs, raccoons, skunks, armadillos, bobcats, trees, flowers, plants, and water.
Its amazing how easily you can see and hear God when you remove your nose from a book and your ears from a sermon.
Yes. Those who stayed at the level of receiving only a sermon did not grow much. It's receive, retain, release that leads to growth. Retain means making the Word your own, seeing the sermon (and more) as you work the scriptures and versions.
I was taught this early, so I did it. I made it my own. This canon talk is one example how within months after taking the class I was doing my own research in the KJV best I could.
Im curious. If Jesus is hidden away from sight forever more until the return, then how does this make sense?
Acts 23:11
And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said,Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
Looks like an active Lord strengthening his people, talking with Paul and encouraging him in dire circumstances.
In the Advance Class we were taught that God will make a revelation in such a way as to be perfectly understood by the recipient. Here we sit struggling to understand ADVANCED TOPICS Christ in us, and Christ seated at God's right hand, and the hidden Christ, Ambassadors for Christ. It took years for God to get all that through to Paul.
In the heat of a battles Paul was in before all that revelation was completed, a vision or a voice like how God communicated to him on the Road to Damascus could be worded the way you quoted.
How Jesus does things seated at God's right hand I do not understand. All we are given is what we need for us to grow up in him and be effective ambassadors. What Paul needed the most at that time was the assurance that God and Christ had a solid handle on the situation. That Jesus would stop being hidden and do a mini-Return just for Paul seems unnecessary. It was the assurance of safety and more missions that Paul needed, not the flesh and bones presence of Jesus.
That is the best I understand.
This is basically an advanced JCNG issue. I did all my JCNG study in the 70s and felt no need to advance it to include the absent Christ... until recently. A lot of others HAVE studied these aspects, and if you search around you will probably find it. I hear John Lynn and John Scoeinheit did an advanced version of JCNG, but I can't remember the name of it. The PROBABLY handled these things, like what is Jesus doing up there?
Also Walter Cummins probably did work on this topic.
In the Advance Class we were taught that God will make a revelation in such a way as to be perfectly understood by the recipient. Here we sit struggling to understand ADVANCED TOPICS Christ in us, and Christ seated at God's right hand, and the hidden Christ, Ambassadors for Christ. It took years for God to get all that through to Paul.
In the heat of a battles Paul was in before all that revelation was completed, a vision or a voice like how God communicated to him on the Road to Damascus could be worded the way you quoted.
How Jesus does things seated at God's right hand I do not understand. All we are given is what we need for us to grow up in him and be effective ambassadors. What Paul needed the most at that time was the assurance that God and Christ had a solid handle on the situation. That Jesus would stop being hidden and do a mini-Return just for Paul seems unnecessary. It was the assurance of safety and more missions that Paul needed, not the flesh and bones presence of Jesus.
That is the best I understand.
This is basically an advanced JCNG issue. I did all my JCNG study in the 70s and felt no need to advance it to include the absent Christ... until recently. A lot of others HAVE studied these aspects, and if you search around you will probably find it. I hear John Lynn and John Scoeinheit did an advanced version of JCNG, but I can't remember the name of it. The PROBABLY handled these things, like what is Jesus doing up there?
Also Walter Cummins probably did work on this topic.
Respectfully, you sure danced expertly around that one. You didn't answer the question. And to be clear, I am not struggling to understand anything except your position. I can clearly read what scripture says and understand it fine. It's when it get's rationalized away that I get curious as to why the rationalazation.
Why did he wait almost 2000 years? Doesn't sound fair.
I often wondered that.
There were other gaps of nothingness like that, like between Malachi and John the Baptist.
There is an astounding verse in Acts that seems to address this, along with other scriptures. I collected LOTS of verses on this topic, but never had the time to work them. This one verse still fascinates me and seems to say "Don't worry about it. God knows how to keep it all fair and make sure no one who wants Him misses out."
Acts 17
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Respectfully, you sure danced expertly around that one. You didn't answer the question. And to be clear, I am not struggling to understand anything except your position. I can clearly read what scripture says and understand it fine. It's when it get's rationalized away that I get curious as to why the rationalazation.
Well, I dont have any problem with God giving Paul some revelations that sounded and looked like Jesus the man. Do you?
It does upset traditional applecarts, but I don't see any real problem with that.
There were other gaps of nothingness like that, like between Malachi and John the Baptist.
No - that wasn't a gap of nothingness. While the last written Prophet was Malachi there was the book of Maccabees that details what happened in that 400 years span. It was dropped from the Canon that our Bibles are based on and probably never should have been dropped. But either way you can check it out if you haven't read it.
.I only saw one statement bold fonted by you there.
Here are the 2 statements you made that seem to conflict:
*God did not intervene to help make the KJV happen.
*He had his hand on the process all along.
40 minutes ago, Mike said:
I disagree with your statement: "Matthew and Luke are sourced from the information in Matthew." Did you mean to write?: "Mark and Luke are sourced from the information in Matthew."
No. I meant to say that Matthew is sourced from Mark and Luke, Mark being the first written, along with another source which has since been lost.
Why did the blood change...it was sinless. What scripture reference tells us his blood changed but the rest was flesh and bones. Whatever form Jesus Christ is today is different from what he was before he was resureccted. Im thinking this is more word salad.
But....let's play.
So....Im going to forego verse quotes but my logic comes straight from scripture.
Mankind is corrupted via the sin nature due to Adam's disobediance. Jesus Christ comes but doesnt have a sin nature, skipping the polluted blood part because sin nature appearantly has to do with blood. Don't claim to understand that part - it's just what it is; Jesus blood was sinless. Christ died to redeem mankind, taking our place in judgement and wrath. Jesus is resurected and is ascended to the right hand of God. Scripture notes he still has flesh and bones but scripture also calls him a life quickening SPIRIT. Again, don't claim to know how the watch works but I am looking at the time.
Now - Scripture states that those born again shall be changed from our current state of corruption to Christ's state of glorious incorruption as he will never again die and neither shall we.
If Christ is still flesh and bones the same as when during his monstry to Israel, then why does scripture plainly state that flesh and blood shall not inhereit the kingdom of God. Don't try and discount what I am saying because you are saying flesh and bones from a reference in the gospels. Flesh representing our current bodies, simply cannot inherit the kingdom of God. So Christ being flesh and bones the way he was when he walked the earth makes no sense and it's scripture that delieneates the difference.
So am I to understand that when we are changed to be like Christ on that day that we are going to just change back into what we were? You say I don't have an overall scope of the topic and I disagree. Your logic is circular at best. Jesus has changed from flesh and blood to flesh and bones? Christians will be changed from flesh and blood into what Christ is which is flesh and bones...?
Let me put this forth: Whatever the heck God changed Jesus Chrst into at his resurection is beyond what we can comprehend at this time but whatever it is it's not what we are today. We get more than a blood transfusion when we are fully redeemed.
Mike - I know you have a lot coming at you at the moment - but please try and respond when you get a chance. Thanks.
Let me put this forth: Whatever the heck God changed Jesus Chrst into at his resurection is beyond what we can comprehend at this time but whatever it is it's not what we are today. We get more than a blood transfusion when we are fully redeemed.
I’m with you on this…I no longer entertain the bizarre contradictory pseudo-science speculations of wierwille…consider the following wierwille- theories along with some counterarguments I’ve thrown in the mix:
1.Life is in the blood…God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul… so which is it? Is the “lifeforce” (?) in the blood or in the breath?
2.Adam and Eve were originally formed, made, and created as body, soul and spirit…the body is made of matter. What is the soul made of? What is the spirit made of? how is soul different from spirit?
3.If breathing is a bodily function (see point 1 & 2 ) then would a more accurate concept of human beings be a dichotomy? Humans are just body and soul – whatever “soul” is.
4.When Adam and Eve sinned, their spirit died…they were just reduced to body and soul…they no longer had the image and likeness of God…there are several passages of Scripture written after Genesis 3 that suggest humans still retain God’s image – even though now through sin it is a tarnished image if you will – verses like Genesis 9:6and James 3:9
5.Is it possible to speculate on what the resurrected body of Jesus Christ is like? Sure ! But that doesn’t prove anything – and doesn’t settle anything since it’s all based on conjecture. I read a fascinating book by an astrophysicist Beyond the Cosmos: The Tridimensionality Of God by Hugh Rossand in it the author gets into superstring theory and other dimensions. Maybe there’s something to it – maybe not. Observation and experimentation of the scientific method as far as I know so far are incapable of analyzing the extra-dimensions of superstring theory and for that matter-- anything in the spiritual realm – whatever that is.
6.I Corinthians 15 tells us things are going to change but it doesn’t give a scientific textbook version of it: But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.
So God who cannot lie, impersonated Jesus Christ in a revelation to Paul?
I do not look at something like that as a lie. God and Jesus are in perfect harmony, with Jesus completely done (seated) with his work for a while. If they WEREN'T in total harmony (and had differing goals or positions) then I would have a problem with God mis-representing Jesus' position.
No - that wasn't a gap of nothingness. While the last written Prophet was Malachi there was the book of Maccabees that details what happened in that 400 years span. It was dropped from the Canon that our Bibles are based on and probably never should have been dropped. But either way you can check it out if you haven't read it.
If you have any light on that Acts 17 verse I would like to hear it. Usually no one does. I can't explain it any better than quoting it and rough and gereral paraphrasing it the way I did.
I don't accept the Apocrapha. It is never quoted by the NT writers. That was one question about the "non-canon" VPW answered for me at Rock'72. He said he tried to include the Apocrypha, but could not make it fit. I vaguely remember lots of difficult items in it, but it's been over 45 years since seeing it. I wont bother with it.
Why did the blood change...it was sinless. What scripture reference tells us his blood changed but the rest was flesh and bones. Whatever form Jesus Christ is today is different from what he was before he was resureccted. Im thinking this is more word salad.
But....let's play.
So....Im going to forego verse quotes but my logic comes straight from scripture.
Mankind is corrupted via the sin nature due to Adam's disobediance. Jesus Christ comes but doesnt have a sin nature, skipping the polluted blood part because sin nature appearantly has to do with blood. Don't claim to understand that part - it's just what it is; Jesus blood was sinless. Christ died to redeem mankind, taking our place in judgement and wrath. Jesus is resurected and is ascended to the right hand of God. Scripture notes he still has flesh and bones but scripture also calls him a life quickening SPIRIT. Again, don't claim to know how the watch works but I am looking at the time.
Now - Scripture states that those born again shall be changed from our current state of corruption to Christ's state of glorious incorruption as he will never again die and neither shall we.
If Christ is still flesh and bones the same as when during his monstry to Israel, then why does scripture plainly state that flesh and blood shall not inhereit the kingdom of God. Don't try and discount what I am saying because you are saying flesh and bones from a reference in the gospels. Flesh representing our current bodies, simply cannot inherit the kingdom of God. So Christ being flesh and bones the way he was when he walked the earth makes no sense and it's scripture that delieneates the difference.
So am I to understand that when we are changed to be like Christ on that day that we are going to just change back into what we were? You say I don't have an overall scope of the topic and I disagree. Your logic is circular at best. Jesus has changed from flesh and blood to flesh and bones? Christians will be changed from flesh and blood into what Christ is which is flesh and bones...?
Let me put this forth: Whatever the heck God changed Jesus Chrst into at his resurection is beyond what we can comprehend at this time but whatever it is it's not what we are today. We get more than a blood transfusion when we are fully redeemed.
My best understanding of Jesus post Resurrection body was that it changed and it seemed to have different properties. Flesh and blood were two big items to a person, yet I see "blood" missing from Jesus' assurance to the apostles that it was really him and NOT a vision or a spirit or a phantom. That is why I think SOMETHING was different about his blood was related to something different about his body. Maybe that change meant he could no longer be tempted to sin.
Here are the 2 statements you made that seem to conflict:
*God did not intervene to help make the KJV happen.
*He had his hand on the process all along.
No. I meant to say that Matthew is sourced from Mark and Luke, Mark being the first written, along with another source which has since been lost.
Ok, thanks.
I think I handled it then by guessing. I see little revelations to individuals over centuries, but not a major intervention that involves doctrine and visions and all that. Those revelations were not "game changers" but more like keeping the game going assists.
I am defining "intervention" and "intervene" on the fly. I could be wrong in that, but I thought it through a lot.
If you have any light on that Acts 17 verse I would like to hear it. Usually no one does. I can't explain it any better than quoting it and rough and gereral paraphrasing it the way I did.
I don't accept the Apocrapha. It is never quoted by the NT writers. That was one question about the "non-canon" VPW answered for me at Rock'72. He said he tried to include the Apocrypha, but could not make it fit. I vaguely remember lots of difficult items in it, but it's been over 45 years since seeing it. I wont bother with it.
You don't accept the KJV Bible either unless ... you know....let's just leave it with you accept wierwille and he is your guiding light.
You don't accept the KJV Bible either unless ... you know....let's just leave it with you accept wierwille and he is your guiding light.
I accept as my guiding lights those people whom God brings into my life, and that strengthen the light I already had. One of the first people I received some light on Jesus outside the RC was Baba Ram Dass. He was a Phd Psycholigist at Harvard, and a colleague of Timothy Leary in early LSD research. Later he became a hippie guru and wrote "Be Here Now" which gave me a lot to go on in my search for the absent Christ. Ram Dass had a lot wrong, but the little he had right was light I needed as an RC at the time.
When I am not debating the merits of the collaterals, I am leaning heavily on the KJV and a few other favorite Bible versions. They are not ALL bad! Not by a long-shot.
But when it comes to the power that can defeat the adversary, like SIT, then we have some problems. Also JCNG is a bit obfuscated in them, as is the goodness of God in places (1 Cor 3:17 for instance). ADAN shines thru pretty well, though.
But this discussion on the absent Christ, and then the canon, should be evidence that I lean on Bible versions a lot still, and always have. I am even making my own, a hybrid of the best sources I know for each verse and each word.
Many guess here how I am a sycophant for VPW, and that is completely false. The way that grads and especially Corps would idolize him long ago sickened me. It was a long slow process between 1971, when I first heard of VPW, to 1998 when I decided to accept his writings as produced largely by God, with VPW assisting by teaching what God taught him. I had to see the fruits of his teachings alive in my life before his collaterals became my solid, unmovable foundation. I myself now build on top of that foundation, often all by myself.
Many critics of PFAL outside TWI would criticize us as worshiping Paul, and that also was untrue.
Mike - Paul was blinded and it plainly says when he heard Christ's voice he fell on the ground. He didn't have a vision. It was an audible voice and those with him heard it. So much for in-spirit action to only Paul. Your speculations are wrong. Perhaps he told Agrippa he saw a vision because he would lose audience if he told Agrippa Christ was talking to him...but that's speculation.
Acts 9:7,8
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
Mike - Paul was blinded and it plainly says when he heard Christ's voice he fell on the ground. He didn't have a vision. It was an audible voice and those with him heard it. So much for in-spirit action to only Paul. Your speculations are wrong.
Acts 9:7,8
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
I think you missed my response to that. It's in Acts 26 that paul says it was a vision. I'll look for it.
I think you missed my response to that. It's in Acts 26 that paul says it was a vision. I'll look for it.
Nah. Use your research keys...the word interprets itself...right...where it is...written. Biblical words used according to biblical usage...heard a voice....says what it means and means what it says sir. This is a really clear verse so hard to understand verses can be understood in this light.
Nah. Use your research keys...the word interprets itself...right...where it is...written. Biblical words used according to biblical usage...heard a voice....says what it means and means what it says sir.
I can't find my response. In it I asked you if you had seen all 3 accounts in Acts of the Road to Damascus incident. I'll keep searching. I hope I didn't fail to hit the "Post" button. I quoted all three sections from Acts.
I can't find my response. In it I asked you if you had seen all 3 accounts in Acts of the Road to Damascus incident. I'll keep searching. I hope I didn't fail to hit the "Post" button. I quoted all three sections from Acts.
Scrambling it seems. Mike - I am keying off the post you are acting like you cant find: its on page 24. Don't search too hard there buddy.
Best I see it, on the Road to Damascus God gave Paul a vision of Jesus, much like the visions of Moses and Elijah that Peter and John saw at Jesus' Transfiguration.
On 10/9/2022 at 8:55 AM, OldSkool said:
That was Jesus Christ himself - not a vision. Jesus Christ appears to many in the book of Acts and he gives vision through the spirit. You should know this, Mike.
I mentioned elsewhere that there are 3 separate accounts of the Paul's conversion on the Road to Damascus. The first one is in the narrative, and is at Acts 9:4-16, with Luke as the narrator. The second one is a flashback, with Paul speaking, and is at Acts 22:7-11.
Here is the third, at Acts 26:13-20:
13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way
a light from heaven, above the brightness
of the sun, shining round about me and
them which journeyed with me.
14 And when we were all fallen to the
earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me,
and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul,
Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard
for thee to kick against the pricks.
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he
said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet:
for I have appeared unto thee for this
purpose, to make thee a minister and a
witness both of these things which thou
hast seen, and of those things in the
which I will appear unto thee;
17 Delivering thee from the people,
and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I
send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them
from darkness to light, and from the
power of Satan unto God, that they may
receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance
among them which are sanctified
by faith that is in me.
19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was
not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus,
and at Jerusalem, and throughout
all the coasts of Judaea, and then to
the Gentiles, that they should repent and
turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
*/*/*/*/*
What Paul saw was a heavenly vision. It had to be a vision, because the flesh and blood man, Jesus, was hidden from sight in Acts 1 by God, for good reasons.
Later Paul teaches that we know not Christ after the flesh, so that we can know him in a BETTER way, with his spirit inside us and growing.
Jesus got up from the dead in flesh and bones form, and he is coming back that way: this same Jesus the angels in Acts 1 said is coming back.
*/*/*/*/*
OldSkool, I am assuming that the vision had sound, like on the Transfiguration Mount.
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
Mike
Yes. Those who stayed at the level of receiving only a sermon did not grow much. It's receive, retain, release that leads to growth. Retain means making the Word your own, seeing the sermon (and more) as you work the scriptures and versions.
I was taught this early, so I did it. I made it my own. This canon talk is one example how within months after taking the class I was doing my own research in the KJV best I could.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Why did he wait almost 2000 years? Doesn't sound fair.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
In the Advance Class we were taught that God will make a revelation in such a way as to be perfectly understood by the recipient. Here we sit struggling to understand ADVANCED TOPICS Christ in us, and Christ seated at God's right hand, and the hidden Christ, Ambassadors for Christ. It took years for God to get all that through to Paul.
In the heat of a battles Paul was in before all that revelation was completed, a vision or a voice like how God communicated to him on the Road to Damascus could be worded the way you quoted.
How Jesus does things seated at God's right hand I do not understand. All we are given is what we need for us to grow up in him and be effective ambassadors. What Paul needed the most at that time was the assurance that God and Christ had a solid handle on the situation. That Jesus would stop being hidden and do a mini-Return just for Paul seems unnecessary. It was the assurance of safety and more missions that Paul needed, not the flesh and bones presence of Jesus.
That is the best I understand.
This is basically an advanced JCNG issue. I did all my JCNG study in the 70s and felt no need to advance it to include the absent Christ... until recently. A lot of others HAVE studied these aspects, and if you search around you will probably find it. I hear John Lynn and John Scoeinheit did an advanced version of JCNG, but I can't remember the name of it. The PROBABLY handled these things, like what is Jesus doing up there?
Also Walter Cummins probably did work on this topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Respectfully, you sure danced expertly around that one. You didn't answer the question. And to be clear, I am not struggling to understand anything except your position. I can clearly read what scripture says and understand it fine. It's when it get's rationalized away that I get curious as to why the rationalazation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I often wondered that.
There were other gaps of nothingness like that, like between Malachi and John the Baptist.
There is an astounding verse in Acts that seems to address this, along with other scriptures. I collected LOTS of verses on this topic, but never had the time to work them. This one verse still fascinates me and seems to say "Don't worry about it. God knows how to keep it all fair and make sure no one who wants Him misses out."
Acts 17
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, I dont have any problem with God giving Paul some revelations that sounded and looked like Jesus the man. Do you?
It does upset traditional applecarts, but I don't see any real problem with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
So God who cannot lie, impersonated Jesus Christ in a revelation to Paul?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No - that wasn't a gap of nothingness. While the last written Prophet was Malachi there was the book of Maccabees that details what happened in that 400 years span. It was dropped from the Canon that our Bibles are based on and probably never should have been dropped. But either way you can check it out if you haven't read it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here are the 2 statements you made that seem to conflict:
*God did not intervene to help make the KJV happen.
*He had his hand on the process all along.
No. I meant to say that Matthew is sourced from Mark and Luke, Mark being the first written, along with another source which has since been lost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Mike - I know you have a lot coming at you at the moment - but please try and respond when you get a chance. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’m with you on this…I no longer entertain the bizarre contradictory pseudo-science speculations of wierwille…consider the following wierwille- theories along with some counterarguments I’ve thrown in the mix:
1. Life is in the blood…God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul… so which is it? Is the “lifeforce” (?) in the blood or in the breath?
2. Adam and Eve were originally formed, made, and created as body, soul and spirit…the body is made of matter. What is the soul made of? What is the spirit made of? how is soul different from spirit?
3. If breathing is a bodily function (see point 1 & 2 ) then would a more accurate concept of human beings be a dichotomy? Humans are just body and soul – whatever “soul” is.
4. When Adam and Eve sinned, their spirit died…they were just reduced to body and soul…they no longer had the image and likeness of God…there are several passages of Scripture written after Genesis 3 that suggest humans still retain God’s image – even though now through sin it is a tarnished image if you will – verses like Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9
5. Is it possible to speculate on what the resurrected body of Jesus Christ is like? Sure ! But that doesn’t prove anything – and doesn’t settle anything since it’s all based on conjecture. I read a fascinating book by an astrophysicist Beyond the Cosmos: The Tridimensionality Of God by Hugh Ross and in it the author gets into superstring theory and other dimensions. Maybe there’s something to it – maybe not. Observation and experimentation of the scientific method as far as I know so far are incapable of analyzing the extra-dimensions of superstring theory and for that matter -
- anything in the spiritual realm – whatever that is.
6. I Corinthians 15 tells us things are going to change but it doesn’t give a scientific textbook version of it: But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I do not look at something like that as a lie. God and Jesus are in perfect harmony, with Jesus completely done (seated) with his work for a while. If they WEREN'T in total harmony (and had differing goals or positions) then I would have a problem with God mis-representing Jesus' position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
If you have any light on that Acts 17 verse I would like to hear it. Usually no one does. I can't explain it any better than quoting it and rough and gereral paraphrasing it the way I did.
I don't accept the Apocrapha. It is never quoted by the NT writers. That was one question about the "non-canon" VPW answered for me at Rock'72. He said he tried to include the Apocrypha, but could not make it fit. I vaguely remember lots of difficult items in it, but it's been over 45 years since seeing it. I wont bother with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
My best understanding of Jesus post Resurrection body was that it changed and it seemed to have different properties. Flesh and blood were two big items to a person, yet I see "blood" missing from Jesus' assurance to the apostles that it was really him and NOT a vision or a spirit or a phantom. That is why I think SOMETHING was different about his blood was related to something different about his body. Maybe that change meant he could no longer be tempted to sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ok, thanks.
I think I handled it then by guessing. I see little revelations to individuals over centuries, but not a major intervention that involves doctrine and visions and all that. Those revelations were not "game changers" but more like keeping the game going assists.
I am defining "intervention" and "intervene" on the fly. I could be wrong in that, but I thought it through a lot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
You don't accept the KJV Bible either unless ... you know....let's just leave it with you accept wierwille and he is your guiding light.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I accept as my guiding lights those people whom God brings into my life, and that strengthen the light I already had. One of the first people I received some light on Jesus outside the RC was Baba Ram Dass. He was a Phd Psycholigist at Harvard, and a colleague of Timothy Leary in early LSD research. Later he became a hippie guru and wrote "Be Here Now" which gave me a lot to go on in my search for the absent Christ. Ram Dass had a lot wrong, but the little he had right was light I needed as an RC at the time.
When I am not debating the merits of the collaterals, I am leaning heavily on the KJV and a few other favorite Bible versions. They are not ALL bad! Not by a long-shot.
But when it comes to the power that can defeat the adversary, like SIT, then we have some problems. Also JCNG is a bit obfuscated in them, as is the goodness of God in places (1 Cor 3:17 for instance). ADAN shines thru pretty well, though.
But this discussion on the absent Christ, and then the canon, should be evidence that I lean on Bible versions a lot still, and always have. I am even making my own, a hybrid of the best sources I know for each verse and each word.
Many guess here how I am a sycophant for VPW, and that is completely false. The way that grads and especially Corps would idolize him long ago sickened me. It was a long slow process between 1971, when I first heard of VPW, to 1998 when I decided to accept his writings as produced largely by God, with VPW assisting by teaching what God taught him. I had to see the fruits of his teachings alive in my life before his collaterals became my solid, unmovable foundation. I myself now build on top of that foundation, often all by myself.
Many critics of PFAL outside TWI would criticize us as worshiping Paul, and that also was untrue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Mike - Paul was blinded and it plainly says when he heard Christ's voice he fell on the ground. He didn't have a vision. It was an audible voice and those with him heard it. So much for in-spirit action to only Paul. Your speculations are wrong. Perhaps he told Agrippa he saw a vision because he would lose audience if he told Agrippa Christ was talking to him...but that's speculation.
Acts 9:7,8
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think you missed my response to that. It's in Acts 26 that paul says it was a vision. I'll look for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Nah. Use your research keys...the word interprets itself...right...where it is...written. Biblical words used according to biblical usage...heard a voice....says what it means and means what it says sir. This is a really clear verse so hard to understand verses can be understood in this light.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I can't find my response. In it I asked you if you had seen all 3 accounts in Acts of the Road to Damascus incident. I'll keep searching. I hope I didn't fail to hit the "Post" button. I quoted all three sections from Acts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Scrambling it seems. Mike - I am keying off the post you are acting like you cant find: its on page 24. Don't search too hard there buddy.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Found it. Here it is:
I mentioned elsewhere that there are 3 separate accounts of the Paul's conversion on the Road to Damascus. The first one is in the narrative, and is at Acts 9:4-16, with Luke as the narrator. The second one is a flashback, with Paul speaking, and is at Acts 22:7-11.
Here is the third, at Acts 26:13-20:
13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way
a light from heaven, above the brightness
of the sun, shining round about me and
them which journeyed with me.
14 And when we were all fallen to the
earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me,
and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul,
Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard
for thee to kick against the pricks.
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he
said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet:
for I have appeared unto thee for this
purpose, to make thee a minister and a
witness both of these things which thou
hast seen, and of those things in the
which I will appear unto thee;
17 Delivering thee from the people,
and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I
send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them
from darkness to light, and from the
power of Satan unto God, that they may
receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance
among them which are sanctified
by faith that is in me.
19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was
not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus,
and at Jerusalem, and throughout
all the coasts of Judaea, and then to
the Gentiles, that they should repent and
turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
*/*/*/*/*
What Paul saw was a heavenly vision. It had to be a vision, because the flesh and blood man, Jesus, was hidden from sight in Acts 1 by God, for good reasons.
Later Paul teaches that we know not Christ after the flesh, so that we can know him in a BETTER way, with his spirit inside us and growing.
Jesus got up from the dead in flesh and bones form, and he is coming back that way: this same Jesus the angels in Acts 1 said is coming back.
*/*/*/*/*
OldSkool, I am assuming that the vision had sound, like on the Transfiguration Mount.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Your basically saying it had to be a vision because it doesn't fit with the what vic taught you.
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.