So if his advocacy is figurative, then that figure is there to help us in our believing with something solid to hold on that is easy to picture. We need that when we first begin believing God's Word. As we grow, we can graduate from the advocate figure of speech, to the "Christ in you, the hope of glory" which is another figure of speech. Christ in you really means God's permanent and pure connection in you that makes you belong to God and not the devil any more.
Mike - unfortunately, you have let wierwille and his extremely sloppy so called research methods define scripture for you. Where it says he is our advocate he is literally our advocate -- it's not figurative that the devil accuses the brethren day and night before our God and it's not figurative that he is our advocate, making intercession for the saints before our God in our defence. That's just one of Jesus Christ's current function in his non-absent role as God's right hand man.
Getting too hung up in man-made technicalities causes one to miss the forest for the trees. This was one of the great stumbling blocks for victor and bullinger.
The Mediator, the Advocate... these are functional titles. They are descriptive, they are not mysterious linguistic codes. Now, "at the right hand of God" is, indeed, a figure of speech.
These titles and figures of speech are NOT in conflict with each other, nor are they in conflict with "Christ in you." Just because it SEEMS to be mysterious or difficult or ill-fitting a man-made theological proposition, doesn't mean it's any of these.
Where is God? Far away on a cloud with a long beard and a lightning bolt?
Where is God? Is God near to you? How close is God? Can you measure the distance? Try it. I submit to you if you can measure the distance in inches or feet or miles, that is not God.
Is Christ in you? Where is Christ? At God's right hand? Where is God? Is God absent? Where is Christ? Is Christ in you? Is Christ at God's right hand? Is Christ absent?
Find out for yourself - no one else can find out for you.
Cutting off one's fingers in order to MAKE the hand fit the glove is stupid.
If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit; if they don't fit, it is not true to fact that OJ is the murderer. BULL$HIT.
Except the gloves DO fit, they are HIS gloves, and he IS the murderer.
If you really don't want to look more and more the fool, then you should stop patronizing everyone. We read you like a comic book. All this "this next part will blow your mind" stuff makes it look like your expectations are extremely low, especially compared to the rest of us here.
Otherwise, go ahead, keep it up. No need to pretend you're not you.
Didn't Paul say he got his gospel directly from the Lord, Christ Jesus, who had already ascended? Though Paul quoted (sometimes misquoted) the Septuagint, did he ever say that his interpretation of it through research keys replaced Christ?
How can you receive something from an absent source? If Christ was absent when Paul was running the streets, from what or whom did Paul receive his gospel?
Not only did Paul get his gospel directly from the Lord Jesus Christ, Christ is also the one who poured out holy spirit on the day of pentecost...not bad for someone supposedly absent...lmao
Acts 2:33
Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Here's a cool link on the figure of speech "righ hand of God"
(disclaimer: I know nothing more about the author of the page I linked and do not wish to engage in a logic fallacy based argument because the author uses green shoe laces or some other off topic point..lol)
Has there ever been a discussion of the “idiom of permission” here at GreaseSpot?
Is there a different crew in the Doctrinal Dungeon? Maybe they would know better.I will be checking myself, but I thought I'd mention it here because it can be described in different ways, like "Viewpoints - God's and Mans" does. I don't think the phrase “idiom of permission” comes up there, but it is similar. I’m obviously rusty on it, so I plan a re-fresh.
T-Bone, with all your thoroughness, you seemed to miss mentioning the idiom of permission. Is that because you don’t know it well, like me? By “know” I mean “able to call up most of the details from memory.”
One of the most interesting places where this idiom is displayed is in the Book of Job. It has both the human (sans spirit) 5-senses perspective, where Job (and others I think) say things like “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.” But then it also has the spiritual perspective, where it is plain that it was the devil that trashed Job’s family and possessions, and God was reluctantly allowing (permission) this destruction. But notice that God sternly drew the line at Job’s life. He protected Job from the consequences of his negative believing as best He could.”
The idiom of permission started because before Pentecost most of the people, most of the time who heard or read the written Word had only body and soul, sans spirit. God had things written with figures of speech like this, and abbreviations, and condescensions, so that super important parts of life were super clear to natural-man humans and children. And which god among lots of available gods a child chose was very important in their whole education system. Everything was set up for children to grow up accepting the true God, including the language idioms.
The spiritual “mechanics” of what happened in Job during the heaven scenes was way over the head of children and adults with no spirit. They had to have a more simple algorithm to walk with the true God: FEAR of the Lord, when they were out of fellowship. The algorithm with the idiom of permission strongly resembled a parent punishing them when they were bad, and blessing them when they were good.
I’m sure there is a Church Lady debunking of this idiom somewhere without thoroughly explaining it, but I am looking for a thorough explanation of it. Maybe Bullinger?
*/*/*/*
LoL! As usual, this discussion has degenerated to resemble a political battle, with lots of memes on TV deliberately mis-characterizing the opponent’s position.
It seems to me you’re trying to reconceptualizethe book of Job with aconfirmation biasI suspect you may have. I’m aware that you tend to interpret or recall information in a way that supports your belief in the value of wierwille / PFAL.
wierwille often interpreted the Bible through several myopic lenses – a couple of which are fundamentalism and spiritualism. That much is evident by your comments. wierwille’s tendency to enforce his rigid dogma and pretentious pseudo-spirituality never failed to play havoc with the linguistic and cultural resources embedded in the Bible.
19 Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’ “One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’
22 “‘By what means?’ the Lord asked. “‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said. “‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’ 23 “So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.”I Kings 22:19-23
~ ~ ~ ~
One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”Job 1:6
~ ~ ~ ~
My summary of The NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible comments on the above verses:
In the ancient world, most cultures believed in many gods, imagining that the business of the gods was done in council – as typically happened in human governance. Unlike Israel’s understanding of Yahweh, the gods of other cultures had no overarching plan – it seems most decisions were made ad hoc. This corporate operation reflected an idea in the ancient world that one’s identity was found in their community. Just as the most significant identity is in one’s own clan, so the gods also acted in corporate solidarity.
The idea that the gods operated in community, however posed serious problems in Israel’s theology, in which only Yahweh had the ultimate divine authority over all other “gods”. Israel’s theology did not eradicate the concept of a divine council from their thinking – instead the council was transformed. Rather than being comprised of various gods, the council featured the “sons of God” over whom Yahweh presided and whose activities he delegated. These council members were not considered gods with autonomous divine authority equal to Yahweh’s. Rather they were spirit beings given a role in Yahweh’s governance of the world. This may also lend credence to the idiom of permission.
The pantheon of gods was often characterized by a hierarchy - cosmic gods, national gods, city patrons, clan deities, ancestral deities - and also differentiated by jurisdiction, manifestations ( NOT the PFAL kind ) and attributes. We can surmise that it was very difficult for the Israelites to adjust to a single God spanning all levels of hierarchy and all categories of jurisdiction.
Another factor that debunks wierwille’s literal interpretation of the divine council in Job is that every time the word “Satan” occurs in Job it is preceded by the definite article “hassatan”. This is strong evidence that satanis NOTa personal name, because Hebrew does not put a definite article in front of personal names. There’s little reason to equate this character with the devil since it can be used to describe other individuals by function – Numbers 22:22; I Samuel 29:4; I Kings 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25; Psalm 109:6.
God’s policies are the true focus of the challenge in the divine council. Job’s character is only the test case. The challenge therefore does not necessarily imply some flaw in God or Job.
Central to the book of Job is the question of human suffering – especially why people who are seemingly innocent suffer, which in turn raises the question about the righteousness of a loving God. Job deals with the question of retribution, the popular theology that the righteous prosper but the wicked suffer – this attempts to vindicate God – theodicy. Wisdom accounts of innocent suffering are found across the ancient Near East – which shows a universal concern from olden times and is still a contemporary issue.
Hope that helps
Edited by T-Bone fixing typos = idiom of remission
It seems to me you’re trying to reconceptualizethe book of Job with aconfirmation biasI suspect you may have. I’m aware that you tend to interpret or recall information in a way that supports your belief in the value of wierwille / PFAL.
We all need to hear the Word from a messenger.
How can I understand unless some man should guide me?
My belief is not in what you describe as "the value of wierwille / PFAL."
What I believe is the God I saw in the KJV, as that man, VPW, guided me to. Once I got my wings a few years later, I could fly alone not with him but with God and His Son. I got a family relationship with them that I deeply enjoy and proclaim to others who need it. Most of the time, with new people, I rarely mention VPW until they are ready to get serious and study.
The god you seem to be propping up, and academic churchianity professes, I would have a hard time being faithful to and loving with all my heart. It reminds me of 1950s Roman Catholic nuns' doctrine. That is not a god I would loving tell others about; I'd be too embarrassed. That god is no good.
We all need to hear the Word from a messenger. How can I understand unless some man should guide me?
how ironic – on a thread about Christ being absent from wierwille’s theology this post of yours actually concurs with that theme.
Malachi 3talks oftwo legitimate authorized messengers- John the Baptist and Jesus Christ – I’m assuming you’ve heard of them:
“I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty.
~ ~ ~ ~
Anything wrong with those guys or letting God the Father / Jesus Christ / The Holy Spirit guide you?
I think you may have fell for wierwille's bull$hit line "you can't go beyond what you're taught" says who?!?! wierwille that's who.
Besides cognitive skills, I think understanding from God the Father / Jesus Christ / The Holy Spirit is something wierwille did not have a clue about...maybe stubbornness, moral depravity, seared conscience, pride and delusions of grandeur gunked up his receptivity - I dunno...just a guess
how ironic – on a thread about Christ being absent from wierwille’s theology this post of yours actually concurs with that theme.
Malachi 3talks oftwo legitimate authorized messengers- John the Baptist and Jesus Christ – I’m assuming you’ve heard of them:
“I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty.
~ ~ ~ ~
Anything wrong with those guys or letting God the Father / Jesus Christ / The Holy Spirit guide you?
I think you may have fell for wierwille's bull$hit line "you can't go beyond what you're taught" says who?!?! wierwille that's who.
Besides cognitive skills, I think understanding from God the Father / Jesus Christ / The Holy Spirit is something wierwille did not have a clue about...
You wrote:
"how ironic – on a thread about Christ being absent from wierwille’s theology this post of yours actually concurs with that theme."
No, the thread is about Christ being temporarily absent from the physical realm.
*/*/*/*/*
I was quoting a line from Acts, and pointing out that we need some currently alive man to teach us about the scriptural messengers you point to. I find them great, and I read them to learn more. You seem to have missed that totally in your zeal to discredit VPW. There are lots of things that hate blinds the mind to.
*/*/*/*
You wrote:
"Besides cognitive skills, I think understanding from God the Father / Jesus Christ / The Holy Spirit is something wierwille did not have a clue about..."
Actually, I spent a lot of time working the KJV on the trinity, BEFORE JCNG came out. I had in my research found a few more points of proof beyond what was in that book. He also had some points that I missed.
One of my scoops over JCNG regards the Holy Spirit, and I find it very powerful in discussing the trinity and Jesus being God to those in that prison.
We all need to hear the Word from a messenger.
How can I understand unless some man should guide me?
What I believe is the God I saw in the KJV, as that man, VPW, guided me to.
The Word is NOT the Bible, right? The Word is no translation nor version of the Bible, right? But you can see God in the King James Version of the Bible?
The god you think you see in that version and translation of the Bible is a god put together by the thoughts of a mortal man, the one who guided you.
If one's only source of understanding is the guidance of some man, then one will only understand as that man does. This can only ever be a limited understanding of opinion and private interpretation. One MUST go beyond what one has been taught by mortal man to see that which is eternal, infinite, that which cannot be named by thoughts put together by man.
The god you seem to be propping up, and academic churchianity professes, I would have a hard time being faithful to and loving with all my heart. It reminds me of 1950s Roman Catholic nuns' doctrine. That is not a god I would loving tell others about; I'd be too embarrassed. That god is no good.
Whereas a "god" promoted by a liar and a thief (not to mention various other faults) is a good god??????????
Remember that the thief comes to steal, kill and destroy, so just be a bit careful about the god you cling to, Mike.
The Word is NOT the Bible, right? The Word is no translation nor version of the Bible, right? But you can see God in the King James Version of the Bible?
The god you think you see in that version and translation of the Bible is a god put together by the thoughts of a mortal man, the one who guided you.
If one's only source of understanding is the guidance of some man, then one will only understand as that man does. This can only ever be a limited understanding of opinion and private interpretation. One MUST go beyond what one has been taught by mortal man to see that which is eternal, infinite, that which cannot be named by thoughts put together by man.
Yikes! You are STILL misreading or overlooking what I actually write.
The KJV is NOT the Word of God, not in every passage and verse. But with PFAL we are given keys that unlock this delima. Before PFAL the Word was buried in the debris of the Temple, in Western theology baloney. After working PFAL into my Cambridge and mind and loving walk, I have the Word. I build on that word daily, and now 50 years later I am teaching you the Word of God.
*/*/*/*
The part you overlooked is how I responded to T-Bone above. He had the same accusation of ignorance and not able to go beyond one man's perspective that you had. Looks like you overlooked his challenge, not knowing I'd answer the same again, thusly:
T-Bone had written:
"I think you may have fell for wierwille's bull$hit line "you can't go beyond what you're taught" says who?!?! wierwille that's who. ... Besides cognitive skills, I think understanding from God the Father / Jesus Christ / The Holy Spirit is something wierwille did not have a clue about..."
Then I answered with:
Actually, I spent a lot of time working the KJV on the trinity, BEFORE JCNG came out. I had in my research found a few more points of proof beyond what was in that book. He also had some points that I missed.
One of my scoops over JCNG regards the Holy Spirit, and I find it very powerful in discussing the trinity and Jesus being God to those in that prison.
I simply ask them "Who fathered Jesus?"
Do you know who fathered Jesus?
Nathan-Jr, do you have any idea who fathered Jesus, accorting to God's Word... AND the KJV? This means you have to THINK, instead of playing word salad with my posts. It requires you to go beyond what your GreaseSpot teachers have taught you. Are you ready.
Who fathered Jesus?
Hint: It wasn't Joseph.
Try using a Concordance, or a simple word search in a text file of the KJV.
I was quoting a line from Acts, and pointing out that we need some currently alive man to teach us about the scriptural messengers you point to. I find them great, and I read them to learn more. You seem to have missed that totally in your zeal to discredit VPW.
So why confine your reading to, basically, one discredited man? And not study the works of a number of reputable theologians, authors, etc. T-Bone recommends some very good sources. And he always references his sources.
So why confine your reading to, basically, one discredited man? And not study the works of a number of reputable theologians, authors, etc. T-Bone recommends some very good sources. And he always references his sources.
I'm just an old hippie, and I stand against the established "official" kingdoms of this world. I think I got that idea from Jesus. Not the hippie part, because I have never had the hair to grow long. But the official system of churchiness had corrupted by then pretty bad, so he took a stand against it.
I credit VPW for teaching me about the man Christ Jesus who is the only mediator between me and God.
It's funny that you would warn me, in an earlier post, to be careful..... as if I wasn't aware of the stakes 50 years ago.
I think you should be wary of what you and the others fill your mind with: sin and negatives. You become what you look at if you look at it hard enough:
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
I think you ought to be careful that you don't fill your mind with the opposite thoughts.
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
Mike - unfortunately, you have let wierwille and his extremely sloppy so called research methods define scripture for you. Where it says he is our advocate he is literally our advocate -- it's not figurative that the devil accuses the brethren day and night before our God and it's not figurative that he is our advocate, making intercession for the saints before our God in our defence. That's just one of Jesus Christ's current function in his non-absent role as God's right hand man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Except when it is.
Getting too hung up in man-made technicalities causes one to miss the forest for the trees. This was one of the great stumbling blocks for victor and bullinger.
The Mediator, the Advocate... these are functional titles. They are descriptive, they are not mysterious linguistic codes. Now, "at the right hand of God" is, indeed, a figure of speech.
These titles and figures of speech are NOT in conflict with each other, nor are they in conflict with "Christ in you." Just because it SEEMS to be mysterious or difficult or ill-fitting a man-made theological proposition, doesn't mean it's any of these.
Where is God? Far away on a cloud with a long beard and a lightning bolt?
Where is God? Is God near to you? How close is God? Can you measure the distance? Try it. I submit to you if you can measure the distance in inches or feet or miles, that is not God.
Is Christ in you? Where is Christ? At God's right hand? Where is God? Is God absent? Where is Christ? Is Christ in you? Is Christ at God's right hand? Is Christ absent?
Find out for yourself - no one else can find out for you.
Cutting off one's fingers in order to MAKE the hand fit the glove is stupid.
If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit; if they don't fit, it is not true to fact that OJ is the murderer. BULL$HIT.
Except the gloves DO fit, they are HIS gloves, and he IS the murderer.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Don't patronise me, Mike.
Just.
Don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'm not. I am teaching others who read this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If you really don't want to look more and more the fool, then you should stop patronizing everyone. We read you like a comic book. All this "this next part will blow your mind" stuff makes it look like your expectations are extremely low, especially compared to the rest of us here.
Otherwise, go ahead, keep it up. No need to pretend you're not you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Not only did Paul get his gospel directly from the Lord Jesus Christ, Christ is also the one who poured out holy spirit on the day of pentecost...not bad for someone supposedly absent...lmao
Acts 2:33
Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Here's a cool link on the figure of speech "righ hand of God"
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/what-is-the-meaning-of-the-right-hand-of-god/
(disclaimer: I know nothing more about the author of the page I linked and do not wish to engage in a logic fallacy based argument because the author uses green shoe laces or some other off topic point..lol)
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
You know with the Way I actually think the practice is worse than the doctrine.
The DVD play button takes the place of the absent Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
It seems to me you’re trying to reconceptualize the book of Job with a confirmation bias I suspect you may have. I’m aware that you tend to interpret or recall information in a way that supports your belief in the value of wierwille / PFAL.
wierwille often interpreted the Bible through several myopic lenses – a couple of which are fundamentalism and spiritualism. That much is evident by your comments. wierwille’s tendency to enforce his rigid dogma and pretentious pseudo-spirituality never failed to play havoc with the linguistic and cultural resources embedded in the Bible.
NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: Bringing to Life the Ancient World of Scripture editors John H. Walton and Craig S. Keener offers some scholarly insight of the book of Job & Kings – on pages 615, 819 and 820. Here are verses in I Kings 22 and Job 1 that speak of a spiritual assembly that the study Bible addresses on those pages:
19 Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’ “One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’
22 “‘By what means?’ the Lord asked. “‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said. “‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’ 23 “So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.” I Kings 22:19-23
~ ~ ~ ~
One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Job 1:6
~ ~ ~ ~
My summary of The NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible comments on the above verses:
In the ancient world, most cultures believed in many gods, imagining that the business of the gods was done in council – as typically happened in human governance. Unlike Israel’s understanding of Yahweh, the gods of other cultures had no overarching plan – it seems most decisions were made ad hoc. This corporate operation reflected an idea in the ancient world that one’s identity was found in their community. Just as the most significant identity is in one’s own clan, so the gods also acted in corporate solidarity.
The idea that the gods operated in community, however posed serious problems in Israel’s theology, in which only Yahweh had the ultimate divine authority over all other “gods”. Israel’s theology did not eradicate the concept of a divine council from their thinking – instead the council was transformed. Rather than being comprised of various gods, the council featured the “sons of God” over whom Yahweh presided and whose activities he delegated. These council members were not considered gods with autonomous divine authority equal to Yahweh’s. Rather they were spirit beings given a role in Yahweh’s governance of the world. This may also lend credence to the idiom of permission.
The pantheon of gods was often characterized by a hierarchy - cosmic gods, national gods, city patrons, clan deities, ancestral deities - and also differentiated by jurisdiction, manifestations ( NOT the PFAL kind
) and attributes. We can surmise that it was very difficult for the Israelites to adjust to a single God spanning all levels of hierarchy and all categories of jurisdiction.
Another factor that debunks wierwille’s literal interpretation of the divine council in Job is that every time the word “Satan” occurs in Job it is preceded by the definite article “hassatan”. This is strong evidence that satan is NOT a personal name, because Hebrew does not put a definite article in front of personal names. There’s little reason to equate this character with the devil since it can be used to describe other individuals by function – Numbers 22:22; I Samuel 29:4; I Kings 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25; Psalm 109:6.
God’s policies are the true focus of the challenge in the divine council. Job’s character is only the test case. The challenge therefore does not necessarily imply some flaw in God or Job.
Central to the book of Job is the question of human suffering – especially why people who are seemingly innocent suffer, which in turn raises the question about the righteousness of a loving God. Job deals with the question of retribution, the popular theology that the righteous prosper but the wicked suffer – this attempts to vindicate God – theodicy . Wisdom accounts of innocent suffering are found across the ancient Near East – which shows a universal concern from olden times and is still a contemporary issue.
Hope that helps
Edited by T-Bonefixing typos = idiom of remission
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
We all need to hear the Word from a messenger.
How can I understand unless some man should guide me?
My belief is not in what you describe as "the value of wierwille / PFAL."
What I believe is the God I saw in the KJV, as that man, VPW, guided me to. Once I got my wings a few years later, I could fly alone not with him but with God and His Son. I got a family relationship with them that I deeply enjoy and proclaim to others who need it. Most of the time, with new people, I rarely mention VPW until they are ready to get serious and study.
The god you seem to be propping up, and academic churchianity professes, I would have a hard time being faithful to and loving with all my heart. It reminds me of 1950s Roman Catholic nuns' doctrine. That is not a god I would loving tell others about; I'd be too embarrassed. That god is no good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
how ironic – on a thread about Christ being absent from wierwille’s theology this post of yours actually concurs with that theme.
Malachi 3 talks of two legitimate authorized messengers - John the Baptist and Jesus Christ – I’m assuming you’ve heard of them:
“I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty.
~ ~ ~ ~
Anything wrong with those guys or letting God the Father / Jesus Christ / The Holy Spirit guide you?
I think you may have fell for wierwille's bull$hit line "you can't go beyond what you're taught" says who?!?! wierwille that's who.
Besides cognitive skills, I think understanding from God the Father / Jesus Christ / The Holy Spirit is something wierwille did not have a clue about...maybe stubbornness, moral depravity, seared conscience, pride and delusions of grandeur gunked up his receptivity - I dunno...just a guess
that's all for now
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You wrote:
"how ironic – on a thread about Christ being absent from wierwille’s theology this post of yours actually concurs with that theme."
No, the thread is about Christ being temporarily absent from the physical realm.
*/*/*/*/*
I was quoting a line from Acts, and pointing out that we need some currently alive man to teach us about the scriptural messengers you point to. I find them great, and I read them to learn more. You seem to have missed that totally in your zeal to discredit VPW. There are lots of things that hate blinds the mind to.
*/*/*/*
You wrote:
"Besides cognitive skills, I think understanding from God the Father / Jesus Christ / The Holy Spirit is something wierwille did not have a clue about..."
Actually, I spent a lot of time working the KJV on the trinity, BEFORE JCNG came out. I had in my research found a few more points of proof beyond what was in that book. He also had some points that I missed.
One of my scoops over JCNG regards the Holy Spirit, and I find it very powerful in discussing the trinity and Jesus being God to those in that prison.
I simply ask them "Who fathered Jesus?"
Do you know who fathered Jesus?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
It most definately is not and I started the thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Where's Maury Povich when you really need him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The Word is NOT the Bible, right? The Word is no translation nor version of the Bible, right? But you can see God in the King James Version of the Bible?
The god you think you see in that version and translation of the Bible is a god put together by the thoughts of a mortal man, the one who guided you.
If one's only source of understanding is the guidance of some man, then one will only understand as that man does. This can only ever be a limited understanding of opinion and private interpretation. One MUST go beyond what one has been taught by mortal man to see that which is eternal, infinite, that which cannot be named by thoughts put together by man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Jerry Springer takes the place of the absent Maury Povich.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Whereas a "god" promoted by a liar and a thief (not to mention various other faults) is a good god??????????
Remember that the thief comes to steal, kill and destroy, so just be a bit careful about the god you cling to, Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yikes! You are STILL misreading or overlooking what I actually write.
The KJV is NOT the Word of God, not in every passage and verse. But with PFAL we are given keys that unlock this delima. Before PFAL the Word was buried in the debris of the Temple, in Western theology baloney. After working PFAL into my Cambridge and mind and loving walk, I have the Word. I build on that word daily, and now 50 years later I am teaching you the Word of God.
*/*/*/*
The part you overlooked is how I responded to T-Bone above. He had the same accusation of ignorance and not able to go beyond one man's perspective that you had. Looks like you overlooked his challenge, not knowing I'd answer the same again, thusly:
T-Bone had written:
"I think you may have fell for wierwille's bull$hit line "you can't go beyond what you're taught" says who?!?! wierwille that's who. ... Besides cognitive skills, I think understanding from God the Father / Jesus Christ / The Holy Spirit is something wierwille did not have a clue about..."
Then I answered with:
Actually, I spent a lot of time working the KJV on the trinity, BEFORE JCNG came out. I had in my research found a few more points of proof beyond what was in that book. He also had some points that I missed.
One of my scoops over JCNG regards the Holy Spirit, and I find it very powerful in discussing the trinity and Jesus being God to those in that prison.
I simply ask them "Who fathered Jesus?"
Do you know who fathered Jesus?
Nathan-Jr, do you have any idea who fathered Jesus, accorting to God's Word... AND the KJV? This means you have to THINK, instead of playing word salad with my posts. It requires you to go beyond what your GreaseSpot teachers have taught you. Are you ready.
Who fathered Jesus?
Hint: It wasn't Joseph.
Try using a Concordance, or a simple word search in a text file of the KJV.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
So why confine your reading to, basically, one discredited man? And not study the works of a number of reputable theologians, authors, etc. T-Bone recommends some very good sources. And he always references his sources.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
And there are lots of things that a blinded mind hates. Truth, for one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Says the guy who posting on a 12 page thread and doesn't grasp the topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'm just an old hippie, and I stand against the established "official" kingdoms of this world. I think I got that idea from Jesus. Not the hippie part, because I have never had the hair to grow long. But the official system of churchiness had corrupted by then pretty bad, so he took a stand against it.
I credit VPW for teaching me about the man Christ Jesus who is the only mediator between me and God.
It's funny that you would warn me, in an earlier post, to be careful..... as if I wasn't aware of the stakes 50 years ago.
I think you should be wary of what you and the others fill your mind with: sin and negatives. You become what you look at if you look at it hard enough:
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
I think you ought to be careful that you don't fill your mind with the opposite thoughts.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Most definately not.
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.