If you don't like the word "absent" then I suggest finding another, so that that big change on the day of the Ascension isn't forgotten.
I tried "hidden" and you didn't like that. Are you subconsciously trying to nullify that change God made on the day of the Ascension?
Your asking me if I can change scripture?
I disagree with hidden because he isnt hidden. Jesus Christ has been proclaimed to the ends of the earth...would God have witnesses of Christ proclaim a hidden saviour? No, he is a risen Saviour. Why dont you change yourself to align with scripture. All those verses I posted and the points I am making require only reading and accepting whats written. I didnt write the book, your issues are with management not me.
I have known Christians and even a few grads who have gone off the deep end with their emotions and wrong doctrines of all sorts involving their personal experiences with what they think is Jesus
I have literally shared 0 personal experiences with you and have stuck with scripture. I have many I could share but whats the point: You dont believe the scripture as written, why would you believe my experiences?
How is it you can spend all sorts of time trying to disctract from the topic and post in discussion but you dont have the time to discuss the actual content?
What are some examples of academic failures that are covered up?
Sorry, I have only time to answer one item in your post. I am already about 2 or maybe responses behind with OldSkool, and i REALLY have to get to work soon.
It's mostly in the sciences I see it clearly. I only got a tiny taste of how it works in Biblical academia 50 years ago.
But in general, academia is one of those "kingdoms" that the adversary divvies out to whom he wills.
What I saw happen in Physics at the University level from 1970 to 1995 was appalling to me. It was whole changeover of attitudes on what they tolerate regarding the spiritual realm. I know it has gotten oodles worse since then. It was like extreme atheism is the new State Religion.
It resembled what I studied about in Physics history back in the mid 1800s when they thought they were real close to "knowing it all." The "all knowing" attitude extends into the spiritual only a tiny bit back then, almost 200 years ago. But this time, in the 2000s, the successes of modern science has propelled the leaders of academia to be judges of God for the students, and they judge Him guilty.
How is it you can spend all sorts of time trying to disctract from the topic and post in discussion but you dont have the time to discuss the actual content?
Because I have to think MUCH HARDER on those more difficult topics. I speak from experience.
Because I have to think MUCH HARDER on those more difficult topics. I speak from experience.
2 hours ago, OldSkool said:
John 3:35
The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand
--> God has literally given all things into Christs hands...when will Jesus Christ give it all back?
1 Corinthians 15:24-28
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
--> So God has given all things into Christs hands and Jesus Christ will subdue all things under his feet and give it all back to God that God may be all in all!
Dude...my comments are just restating what scripture says. No Greek words, no academia, no way corps, no way international: Just simply quoting scripture and making remedial comments mostly restating whats written. Im not adding, changing, or subtracting anything.
Sorry, I have only time to answer one item in your post. I am already about 2 or maybe responses behind with OldSkool, and i REALLY have to get to work soon.
It's mostly in the sciences I see it clearly. I only got a tiny taste of how it works in Biblical academia 50 years ago.
But in general, academia is one of those "kingdoms" that the adversary divvies out to whom he wills.
What I saw happen in Physics at the University level from 1970 to 1995 was appalling to me. It was whole changeover of attitudes on what they tolerate regarding the spiritual realm. I know it has gotten oodles worse since then. It was like extreme atheism is the new State Religion.
It resembled what I studied about in Physics history back in the mid 1800s when they thought they were real close to "knowing it all." The "all knowing" attitude extends into the spiritual only a tiny bit back then, almost 200 years ago. But this time, in the 2000s, the successes of modern science has propelled the leaders of academia to be judges of God for the students, and they judge Him guilty.
I am in awe at how much I have no idea what was just said here.
Sorry, I have only time to answer one item in your post. I am already about 2 or maybe responses behind with OldSkool, and i REALLY have to get to work soon.
It's mostly in the sciences I see it clearly. I only got a tiny taste of how it works in Biblical academia 50 years ago.
But in general, academia is one of those "kingdoms" that the adversary divvies out to whom he wills.
What I saw happen in Physics at the University level from 1970 to 1995 was appalling to me. It was whole changeover of attitudes on what they tolerate regarding the spiritual realm. I know it has gotten oodles worse since then. It was like extreme atheism is the new State Religion.
It resembled what I studied about in Physics history back in the mid 1800s when they thought they were real close to "knowing it all." The "all knowing" attitude extends into the spiritual only a tiny bit back then, almost 200 years ago. But this time, in the 2000s, the successes of modern science has propelled the leaders of academia to be judges of God for the students, and they judge Him guilty.
There is only one question to be answered, but you still didn't answer it. If you misspoke about the cover ups of academic failures, fine. Just say so and we can end it.
Otherwise, here's the question, again:
What are some examples of academic failures that are covered up?
I feel most work in the field of relationships with Christ are trying (maybe unconsciously) to undo what God did on the day of the Ascension.
1 John 1:3
that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and withHis Son Jesus Christ.
I would say what you feel is contrary to scripture.
Dude...my comments are just restating what scripture says. No Greek words, no academia, no way corps, no way international: Just simply quoting scripture and making remedial comments mostly restating whats written. Im not adding, changing, or subtracting anything.
I was out the door to work when you posted that; just got back and read a lot of your long list of scriptures. Some I can handle fast, some I need a refresher, having put them down decades ago, satisfied I understood them. Explaining them to others is another deal.
I saw the pattern to the questions, though, and can try to “mass answer” them with a few words.Then, when time permits, I can go into each individual scripture.
*/*/*/*
Now, let’s get up front about something.No matter what I write as a summary of handling that list, and no matter what amount of text I devote to each scripture, you will find SOMETHING(s) about it to totally reject it, and even if lose the argument with me, you’ll find another set of arguments to maintain your position. Isn’t that so?
In other words you don’t have ANY odd feeling right now like you did with the Moody Bible people, right?You aren’t thinking, “What am I going to do if Mike unravels my anti-idol that I’ve built my religious service faith on protecting people from?”I just want you to know that I know that. And of course, you will (and have often) accuse me of the exact same; isn’t that right?You were sure you were right when you slaved for TWI, but now your are sure you are right, again. But THIS time you are really right….
*/*/*/*
So now I will begin my first attempt to answer you that will surely be rejected for something.
I have noticed that God uses angels to do a lot of things. In one account of the burning bush it looks like it is God himself, inside the bush talking to Moses. (Let’s keep the topic unde-railed by Great Principle talk here. Moses probably got spirit before this.)
In another account it talks about an angel in the bush operating the Ham Radio for God to speak to Moses. (or something like that)
*/*/*/*
On the Mount of the Transfiguration, there was a vision of Moses and Elijah, but we don’t hear that it was a vision until after it’s over and Jesus told them to be quiet about it.But that vision must have done a lot for them.It was for their believing, and Jesus’ also. But it wasn’t really Moses and Elijah present and alive and conscious. It looked that way to teach them something.
*/*/*/*
I have long tracked with “what is Jesus doing up there” ever since before that 1970s Way Magazine article appeared with that title.I was very eager to read it, but thought it did not go far enough, so I kept studying.
I came to realize that Jesus took Lucifer’s place as a leader (or coordinator) of angels.
God used angels in the OT a lot.There is an interesting account in the OT about this; I think in Daniel.If that is right, Daniel was praying and praying for some help with something, and nothing happens for a long time. Suddenly one day an angel shows up, and says something like “I’m here to help. Sorry I’m so late. I was detained for weeks struggling with some “big guy” out there.”
So, I get the impression that, though God has infinite power, He has limited it for various reasons, and must work within His own constructed framework.The spiritual battle in the OT is often one of God just barely winning, but often very cleverly. I get the impression He limits Himself to some kind of Intervention Budget, SO THAT He can limit the devil to the same one.I should start a thread on this someday.
So, where is this heading?
God’s budget in the spiritual battle got a big boost when Jesus joined Him on His right hand.Jesus now co-ordinates the angels and gets more done than God was able to in the OT.
I don't know where this "Let's forget Jesus, since he's absent" heresy came from, but I never got it from the collaterals or classes or SNT tapes or mag articles. I think it is a Corps related TVT that I never was hit with. I heard it in whisps at times, but I thought it was just people trying to "think it through." I know lots got bizzarre after 1986, and that heresy may have grown a lot then.
*/*/*/*/*
Ok, I think that above are the basic pieces to start to put together an understanding of all the scriptures of personal visits by Jesus in the scriptures, and in modern testimonies of healings as well.
Some of them could be the “real” Jesus showing up, just like angels would sometimes show up in OT situations.Some of them could be a “projected” Jesus for the believing of the recipient, like the way Peter, James, John, and Jesus were shown a teaching vision of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration.
Maybe some of the scriptures’ grammar configurations can tell us which type of “visit” the scripture is reporting on; maybe not.
**/*/*/*/*/*
Ok that is the short version.I gave you an hour. writing and polishing.I will look at the long list of scriptures you posted again, because some already have notes. I can respond more; but not now.
I just wanted to give you this preview summary, so that you could give me your preview summary of rejection.
*/*/*/*
And now for the excuses:
I have neglected all the other boys and girls here, so I want to pay attention to them also. You can wait for me, just like they have been patiently waiting.I know you can do it.
I also want to read Penworks’ book more, and work on my PFAL-T report for my TWI-4 friends.
AND one last big excuse:I am going dancing in a half hour.And I have a super early Believer Breakfast at Denny’s tomorrow (interdenominational). And then I have to work again, but I will bring a note from my boss (me), excusing me from blame.
You were sure you were right when you slaved for TWI, but now your are sure you are right, again. But THIS time you are really right….
As you were sure you were right before you got into the ministry, and again when you were in the ministry, and again when you left the ministry, and now...
Now, let’s get up front about something.No matter what I write as a summary of handling that list, and no matter what amount of text I devote to each scripture, you will find SOMETHING(s) about it to totally reject it, and even if lose the argument with me, you’ll find another set of arguments to maintain your position. Isn’t that so?
If this accusation were any more ironic Andrew Lloyd Webber would be writing a song about it.
Talk about projection!
One could easily prove this is your agenda to the letter.
"Now, let’s get up front about something.No matter what I write as a summary of handling that list, and no matter what amount of text I devote to each scripture, you will find SOMETHING(s) about it to totally reject it, and even if lose the argument with me, you’ll find another set of arguments to maintain your position. Isn’t that so?
In other words you don’t have ANY odd feeling right now like you did with the Moody Bible people, right?You aren’t thinking, “What am I going to do if Mike unravels my anti-idol that I’ve built my religious service faith on protecting people from?”I just want you to know that I know that. And of course, you will (and have often) accuse me of the exact same; isn’t that right?You were sure you were right when you slaved for TWI, but now your are sure you are right, again. But THIS time you are really right…."
Frankly, Mike, I think that's as neat a description of part of your own M.O. as anyone's ever written. No matter what we post, you will construct some pretext to reject it, and never move from your position no matter what evidence or the truth says in any amounts. You can't tell the difference between steadfastness and stubbornness.
As for me ever considering changing positions, I'm open to the possibility, and may actually do so- provided sufficient evidence is provided. I have proof of that, too- I've reversed positions on something as the direct result of a discussion(s) here. The more fundamental a thing you want me to consider, however, the more firepower you'll need to bring. I'm fairly confident you don't have it and never will, but I read and consider your posts anyway. One, I might be surprised, and two, there may be something useful in there even if it's posted by accident. But I'm a LOT more respectful of your posts than you are of mine, and I actually read them. My positions are secure enough to withstand some actual scrutiny, so I am not afraid to look things over.
One of the easiest things to refute is the silly position you've manufactured for posters here.
"“What am I going to do if Mike unravels my anti-idol that I’ve built my religious service faith on protecting people from?”
The " anti-idol" thing is a term you made up, to name a concept you made up, which is an extreme caricature of other posters' positions. It's your favorite strawman.
The idea that people here have "built their religious service faith" on posting here is fascinating. It's also irrelevant to anyone who's posted here so far. Nobody has claimed anything resembling that. In fact, it only resembles your position- the building of religious service faith on what you'd term an " idol" if it was someone else saying it. The rest of us have lives outside of here that are more important to us, including to our walks as Christians (those of us who ARE Christians.)
As a whole, we're fine discussing all sorts of things about vpw, twi, etc, and we do whether or not you are here. We've even discussed positive things- I started a few of those threads myself- but according to your caricature of my thinking, I can't even consider doing that. We're not afraid of examining what we know, and learning more.
I know that seems odd and foreign to you, but we're not thinking the same way you are- you're deliberately limiting the way you think, congratulating yourself for it as if it's a positive thing and a benefit to you, and imagining we're doing the same.
I am in awe at how much I have no idea what was just said here.
Yeah, I can understand that. I never really finished, but I wanted to at least say something in the short time I had for it. I was on my way to work at the time.
I thought of about 4 specific examples of the general description I gave. What I was describing in general was what some people are now calling "scientism." It is the quasi-religious belief that science is the only way to know for sure.
Here is one example. The Big Bang is presented as a sure thing. It is anything but that. They never proved that the Red Shift is a Doppler Effect and ONLY a Doppler Effect. A lot of Physicists knew this in the mid 60s, but the only competing theory at the time, Steady State, was not as dramatic and as sexy as the Big Bang.
There was a point in the late 60s where Science TV shows started competing with each other and the Big Bang became the favorite for Nielsen ratings purposes. The limited range that Doppler verification was forgotten, the Steady State Theory become forgotten, and the Big Bang became the "official" science religion.
Also lost in all this is the fact that science was not designed to handle non-repeatable phenomena. Repeatability in several forms is always sought when a pretty good theory is being tested for validity. To be really sure in science, repeatability is a MUST.
The problem with the Big Bang theory is that it is un-repeatable. Science cannot "run" the Universe one more time to see it the Big Bang happens again. This means the Big Bang is unverifiable, and falsifiable. That means it can't even qualify as a scientific theory. I call it a scientific conjecture.
It is like a religion that otherwise genuine scientists engage in with faith in the Big Bang. Cosmology is a genuine science with real scientists engaging in it. But when they go on TV and talk about the Big Bang as if it really happened and science proves it is a total lie, and very well covered up.
I hope this answers your awe at not understanding, Bolshevik.
The reason I answered your post is the same reason I answered Nathan_Jr's post earlier: I'm so behind in reading and responding it is ridiculous, so I could only pick one to respond to.
Wish me luck in finding time to respond to the others eventually.
There is only one question to be answered, but you still didn't answer it. If you misspoke about the cover ups of academic failures, fine. Just say so and we can end it.
Otherwise, here's the question, again:
What are some examples of academic failures that are covered up?
I just gave one example to Bolshevik a few minutes ago.
In other words you don’t have ANY odd feeling right now like you did with the Moody Bible people, right?You aren’t thinking, “What am I going to do if Mike unravels my anti-idol that I’ve built my religious service faith on protecting people from?”I just want you to know that I know that. And of course, you will (and have often) accuse me of the exact same; isn’t that right?You were sure you were right when you slaved for TWI, but now your are sure you are right, again. But THIS time you are really right….
Mike, you are missing a huge piece of the puzzle...it's not about you. I post what I post for others who may be reading along, and/or more importantly to learn and gain insight from others. You will likely never change and thats not my problem. I expect you to retort with it was phenomenon or it was God impersonating Jesus because he speaks in terms the Apostles could understand and they all knew Jesus so he appeared as Jesus or some other equally ridiculous rationalizing away of what is written. Im not giving you some hidden, gnostic theology...I just simply quoted verses and pointing out the obvious, nothing special about those verses as I could have continued with more of them. You will head off to wierwille's books and classes and look for an explanation as to why the Bible is wrong and wierwille is right. Thats to be expected. You will retort with a 50 paragraph rambling on about how what is written in scripture is in error and wierwille taught us better except he didnt. So yes, if you pop back along with what wierwille said it's fair game to get pulled apart.
What are you talking about with Moody Bible people? I have no affiliation with them and never had. Yes, I was sure wierwille was right, just like you. The difference is Im more interested in God/Jesus Christ than what some lame drunk false prophet said over a cup of Darmbuie in a cornfield. So go ahead an convince me that scripture is wrong and wierwille is right. Especially plain as the nose on your face scripture such as I quoted.
Yeah, I can understand that. I never really finished, but I wanted to at least say something in the short time I had for it. I was on my way to work at the time.
I thought of about 4 specific examples of the general description I gave. What I was describing in general was what some people are now calling "scientism." It is the quasi-religious belief that science is the only way to know for sure.
Here is one example. The Big Bang is presented as a sure thing. It is anything but that. They never proved that the Red Shift is a Doppler Effect and ONLY a Doppler Effect. A lot of Physicists knew this in the mid 60s, but the only competing theory at the time, Steady State, was not as dramatic and as sexy as the Big Bang.
There was a point in the late 60s where Science TV shows started competing with each other and the Big Bang became the favorite for Nielsen ratings purposes. The limited range that Doppler verification was forgotten, the Steady State Theory become forgotten, and the Big Bang became the "official" science religion.
Also lost in all this is the fact that science was not designed to handle non-repeatable phenomena. Repeatability in several forms is always sought when a pretty good theory is being tested for validity. To be really sure in science, repeatability is a MUST.
The problem with the Big Bang theory is that it is un-repeatable. Science cannot "run" the Universe one more time to see it the Big Bang happens again. This means the Big Bang is unverifiable, and falsifiable. That means it can't even qualify as a scientific theory. I call it a scientific conjecture.
It is like a religion that otherwise genuine scientists engage in with faith in the Big Bang. Cosmology is a genuine science with real scientists engaging in it. But when they go on TV and talk about the Big Bang as if it really happened and science proves it is a total lie, and very well covered up.
I hope this answers your awe at not understanding, Bolshevik.
The reason I answered your post is the same reason I answered Nathan_Jr's post earlier: I'm so behind in reading and responding it is ridiculous, so I could only pick one to respond to.
Wish me luck in finding time to respond to the others eventually.
I use science everyday. Everyday I have to change my thoughts.
If you're not happy with current research, get your hands dirty and share your results with the world.
I don't know what science has to do with the Absent Christ and vica versa. How do you quantify meaning, consciousness, purpose, the self and free will?
I use science everyday. Everyday I have to change my thoughts.
-Yes it is fun to change, to roll with the evidence, when emotions and lifestyle are not at stake.
If you're not happy with current research, get your hands dirty and share your results with the world.
-Yes. That is what I just did. I shared the truth about the Big Bang not being real science and how academic science covers this up.
I don't know what science has to do with the Absent Christ and vica versa. How do you quantify meaning, consciousness, purpose, the self and free will?
-We would have to trace back a couple of posts. I try to conduct several conversations here simultaneously, my memory is scrambled as to how we got onto science. I think Nathan_Jr asked me why I had a love/hate relationship with academia.
Quantifying consciousness, self, and free will should be possible IF it they are natural, and not supernatural. I am betting they are natural, like digestion is natural.
Now quantifying digestion is a very complicated task, but it is slowly getting done.
Quantifying strength of will and competing desires, if natural, is also possible in principle, but dauntingly complicated.
Quantifying meaning and purpose I have not spent much time pondering, other than seeking God's perspective there.
No, you made a bull excuse about something you believe.
For someone who claims to be scientifically trained, you sure understand very little about scientific method.
Anybody who's been academically trained in science would know the difference between a theory and "real" science.
You seem to use the word "theory" there as if it were not real science. It is, when it passes the test of what constitutes a "real" theory in real science.
In order to qualify for "real" theory status an idea/conjecture/hypothesis must be falsefiable, repeatable, and controllable. The Big Bang Conjecture does not qualify as a real theory.
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
OldSkool
Your asking me if I can change scripture?
I disagree with hidden because he isnt hidden. Jesus Christ has been proclaimed to the ends of the earth...would God have witnesses of Christ proclaim a hidden saviour? No, he is a risen Saviour. Why dont you change yourself to align with scripture. All those verses I posted and the points I am making require only reading and accepting whats written. I didnt write the book, your issues are with management not me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I have literally shared 0 personal experiences with you and have stuck with scripture. I have many I could share but whats the point: You dont believe the scripture as written, why would you believe my experiences?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
How is it you can spend all sorts of time trying to disctract from the topic and post in discussion but you dont have the time to discuss the actual content?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sorry, I have only time to answer one item in your post. I am already about 2 or maybe responses behind with OldSkool, and i REALLY have to get to work soon.
It's mostly in the sciences I see it clearly. I only got a tiny taste of how it works in Biblical academia 50 years ago.
But in general, academia is one of those "kingdoms" that the adversary divvies out to whom he wills.
What I saw happen in Physics at the University level from 1970 to 1995 was appalling to me. It was whole changeover of attitudes on what they tolerate regarding the spiritual realm. I know it has gotten oodles worse since then. It was like extreme atheism is the new State Religion.
It resembled what I studied about in Physics history back in the mid 1800s when they thought they were real close to "knowing it all." The "all knowing" attitude extends into the spiritual only a tiny bit back then, almost 200 years ago. But this time, in the 2000s, the successes of modern science has propelled the leaders of academia to be judges of God for the students, and they judge Him guilty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Because I have to think MUCH HARDER on those more difficult topics. I speak from experience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Dude...my comments are just restating what scripture says. No Greek words, no academia, no way corps, no way international: Just simply quoting scripture and making remedial comments mostly restating whats written. Im not adding, changing, or subtracting anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I am in awe at how much I have no idea what was just said here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Says the guy who writes 50 paragraph posts.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
There is only one question to be answered, but you still didn't answer it. If you misspoke about the cover ups of academic failures, fine. Just say so and we can end it.
Otherwise, here's the question, again:
What are some examples of academic failures that are covered up?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
1 John 1:3
that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
I would say what you feel is contrary to scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I was out the door to work when you posted that; just got back and read a lot of your long list of scriptures. Some I can handle fast, some I need a refresher, having put them down decades ago, satisfied I understood them. Explaining them to others is another deal.
I saw the pattern to the questions, though, and can try to “mass answer” them with a few words. Then, when time permits, I can go into each individual scripture.
*/*/*/*
Now, let’s get up front about something. No matter what I write as a summary of handling that list, and no matter what amount of text I devote to each scripture, you will find SOMETHING(s) about it to totally reject it, and even if lose the argument with me, you’ll find another set of arguments to maintain your position. Isn’t that so?
In other words you don’t have ANY odd feeling right now like you did with the Moody Bible people, right? You aren’t thinking, “What am I going to do if Mike unravels my anti-idol that I’ve built my religious service faith on protecting people from?” I just want you to know that I know that. And of course, you will (and have often) accuse me of the exact same; isn’t that right? You were sure you were right when you slaved for TWI, but now your are sure you are right, again. But THIS time you are really right….
*/*/*/*
So now I will begin my first attempt to answer you that will surely be rejected for something.
I have noticed that God uses angels to do a lot of things. In one account of the burning bush it looks like it is God himself, inside the bush talking to Moses. (Let’s keep the topic unde-railed by Great Principle talk here. Moses probably got spirit before this.)
In another account it talks about an angel in the bush operating the Ham Radio for God to speak to Moses. (or something like that)
*/*/*/*
On the Mount of the Transfiguration, there was a vision of Moses and Elijah, but we don’t hear that it was a vision until after it’s over and Jesus told them to be quiet about it. But that vision must have done a lot for them. It was for their believing, and Jesus’ also. But it wasn’t really Moses and Elijah present and alive and conscious. It looked that way to teach them something.
*/*/*/*
I have long tracked with “what is Jesus doing up there” ever since before that 1970s Way Magazine article appeared with that title. I was very eager to read it, but thought it did not go far enough, so I kept studying.
I came to realize that Jesus took Lucifer’s place as a leader (or coordinator) of angels.
God used angels in the OT a lot. There is an interesting account in the OT about this; I think in Daniel. If that is right, Daniel was praying and praying for some help with something, and nothing happens for a long time. Suddenly one day an angel shows up, and says something like “I’m here to help. Sorry I’m so late. I was detained for weeks struggling with some “big guy” out there.”
So, I get the impression that, though God has infinite power, He has limited it for various reasons, and must work within His own constructed framework. The spiritual battle in the OT is often one of God just barely winning, but often very cleverly. I get the impression He limits Himself to some kind of Intervention Budget, SO THAT He can limit the devil to the same one. I should start a thread on this someday.
So, where is this heading?
God’s budget in the spiritual battle got a big boost when Jesus joined Him on His right hand. Jesus now co-ordinates the angels and gets more done than God was able to in the OT.
I don't know where this "Let's forget Jesus, since he's absent" heresy came from, but I never got it from the collaterals or classes or SNT tapes or mag articles. I think it is a Corps related TVT that I never was hit with. I heard it in whisps at times, but I thought it was just people trying to "think it through." I know lots got bizzarre after 1986, and that heresy may have grown a lot then.
*/*/*/*/*
Ok, I think that above are the basic pieces to start to put together an understanding of all the scriptures of personal visits by Jesus in the scriptures, and in modern testimonies of healings as well.
Some of them could be the “real” Jesus showing up, just like angels would sometimes show up in OT situations. Some of them could be a “projected” Jesus for the believing of the recipient, like the way Peter, James, John, and Jesus were shown a teaching vision of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration.
Maybe some of the scriptures’ grammar configurations can tell us which type of “visit” the scripture is reporting on; maybe not.
**/*/*/*/*/*
Ok that is the short version. I gave you an hour. writing and polishing. I will look at the long list of scriptures you posted again, because some already have notes. I can respond more; but not now.
I just wanted to give you this preview summary, so that you could give me your preview summary of rejection.
*/*/*/*
And now for the excuses:
I have neglected all the other boys and girls here, so I want to pay attention to them also. You can wait for me, just like they have been patiently waiting. I know you can do it.
I also want to read Penworks’ book more, and work on my PFAL-T report for my TWI-4 friends.
AND one last big excuse: I am going dancing in a half hour. And I have a super early Believer Breakfast at Denny’s tomorrow (interdenominational). And then I have to work again, but I will bring a note from my boss (me), excusing me from blame.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
As you were sure you were right before you got into the ministry, and again when you were in the ministry, and again when you left the ministry, and now...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
If this accusation were any more ironic Andrew Lloyd Webber would be writing a song about it.
Talk about projection!
One could easily prove this is your agenda to the letter.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Now, let’s get up front about something. No matter what I write as a summary of handling that list, and no matter what amount of text I devote to each scripture, you will find SOMETHING(s) about it to totally reject it, and even if lose the argument with me, you’ll find another set of arguments to maintain your position. Isn’t that so?
In other words you don’t have ANY odd feeling right now like you did with the Moody Bible people, right? You aren’t thinking, “What am I going to do if Mike unravels my anti-idol that I’ve built my religious service faith on protecting people from?” I just want you to know that I know that. And of course, you will (and have often) accuse me of the exact same; isn’t that right? You were sure you were right when you slaved for TWI, but now your are sure you are right, again. But THIS time you are really right…."
Frankly, Mike, I think that's as neat a description of part of your own M.O. as anyone's ever written. No matter what we post, you will construct some pretext to reject it, and never move from your position no matter what evidence or the truth says in any amounts. You can't tell the difference between steadfastness and stubbornness.
As for me ever considering changing positions, I'm open to the possibility, and may actually do so- provided sufficient evidence is provided. I have proof of that, too- I've reversed positions on something as the direct result of a discussion(s) here. The more fundamental a thing you want me to consider, however, the more firepower you'll need to bring. I'm fairly confident you don't have it and never will, but I read and consider your posts anyway. One, I might be surprised, and two, there may be something useful in there even if it's posted by accident. But I'm a LOT more respectful of your posts than you are of mine, and I actually read them. My positions are secure enough to withstand some actual scrutiny, so I am not afraid to look things over.
One of the easiest things to refute is the silly position you've manufactured for posters here.
"“What am I going to do if Mike unravels my anti-idol that I’ve built my religious service faith on protecting people from?”
The " anti-idol" thing is a term you made up, to name a concept you made up, which is an extreme caricature of other posters' positions. It's your favorite strawman.
The idea that people here have "built their religious service faith" on posting here is fascinating. It's also irrelevant to anyone who's posted here so far. Nobody has claimed anything resembling that. In fact, it only resembles your position- the building of religious service faith on what you'd term an " idol" if it was someone else saying it. The rest of us have lives outside of here that are more important to us, including to our walks as Christians (those of us who ARE Christians.)
As a whole, we're fine discussing all sorts of things about vpw, twi, etc, and we do whether or not you are here. We've even discussed positive things- I started a few of those threads myself- but according to your caricature of my thinking, I can't even consider doing that. We're not afraid of examining what we know, and learning more.
I know that seems odd and foreign to you, but we're not thinking the same way you are- you're deliberately limiting the way you think, congratulating yourself for it as if it's a positive thing and a benefit to you, and imagining we're doing the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yeah, I can understand that. I never really finished, but I wanted to at least say something in the short time I had for it. I was on my way to work at the time.
I thought of about 4 specific examples of the general description I gave. What I was describing in general was what some people are now calling "scientism." It is the quasi-religious belief that science is the only way to know for sure.
Here is one example. The Big Bang is presented as a sure thing. It is anything but that. They never proved that the Red Shift is a Doppler Effect and ONLY a Doppler Effect. A lot of Physicists knew this in the mid 60s, but the only competing theory at the time, Steady State, was not as dramatic and as sexy as the Big Bang.
There was a point in the late 60s where Science TV shows started competing with each other and the Big Bang became the favorite for Nielsen ratings purposes. The limited range that Doppler verification was forgotten, the Steady State Theory become forgotten, and the Big Bang became the "official" science religion.
Also lost in all this is the fact that science was not designed to handle non-repeatable phenomena. Repeatability in several forms is always sought when a pretty good theory is being tested for validity. To be really sure in science, repeatability is a MUST.
The problem with the Big Bang theory is that it is un-repeatable. Science cannot "run" the Universe one more time to see it the Big Bang happens again. This means the Big Bang is unverifiable, and falsifiable. That means it can't even qualify as a scientific theory. I call it a scientific conjecture.
It is like a religion that otherwise genuine scientists engage in with faith in the Big Bang. Cosmology is a genuine science with real scientists engaging in it. But when they go on TV and talk about the Big Bang as if it really happened and science proves it is a total lie, and very well covered up.
I hope this answers your awe at not understanding, Bolshevik.
The reason I answered your post is the same reason I answered Nathan_Jr's post earlier: I'm so behind in reading and responding it is ridiculous, so I could only pick one to respond to.
Wish me luck in finding time to respond to the others eventually.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I just gave one example to Bolshevik a few minutes ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Holy macaroni.
You could make Stretch Armstrong look stiff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Mike, you are missing a huge piece of the puzzle...it's not about you. I post what I post for others who may be reading along, and/or more importantly to learn and gain insight from others. You will likely never change and thats not my problem. I expect you to retort with it was phenomenon or it was God impersonating Jesus because he speaks in terms the Apostles could understand and they all knew Jesus so he appeared as Jesus or some other equally ridiculous rationalizing away of what is written. Im not giving you some hidden, gnostic theology...I just simply quoted verses and pointing out the obvious, nothing special about those verses as I could have continued with more of them. You will head off to wierwille's books and classes and look for an explanation as to why the Bible is wrong and wierwille is right. Thats to be expected. You will retort with a 50 paragraph rambling on about how what is written in scripture is in error and wierwille taught us better except he didnt. So yes, if you pop back along with what wierwille said it's fair game to get pulled apart.
What are you talking about with Moody Bible people? I have no affiliation with them and never had. Yes, I was sure wierwille was right, just like you. The difference is Im more interested in God/Jesus Christ than what some lame drunk false prophet said over a cup of Darmbuie in a cornfield. So go ahead an convince me that scripture is wrong and wierwille is right. Especially plain as the nose on your face scripture such as I quoted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That’s it!
Stretched-Armstrong Coffee
The coffee that goes the extra session
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I use science everyday. Everyday I have to change my thoughts.
If you're not happy with current research, get your hands dirty and share your results with the world.
I don't know what science has to do with the Absent Christ and vica versa. How do you quantify meaning, consciousness, purpose, the self and free will?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Well,
In the beginning was The Word. And the Word was with God. And The Word was God.
. . .
Nope, no big bang or absentee list.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
No, you made a bull excuse about something you believe.
For someone who claims to be scientifically trained, you sure understand very little about scientific method.
Anybody who's been academically trained in science would know the difference between a theory and "real" science.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You seem to use the word "theory" there as if it were not real science. It is, when it passes the test of what constitutes a "real" theory in real science.
In order to qualify for "real" theory status an idea/conjecture/hypothesis must be falsefiable, repeatable, and controllable. The Big Bang Conjecture does not qualify as a real theory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.