You missed the vital step: Who teaches Wierwille? It's God.
Mike you missed a vital component - Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ gave the revelation to Paul, Peter, James, etc - not God. It went from God to Jesus Christ to his Church. Hes not absent.
Galatians 1:11, 12
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Just for the sake of correction – sin is NOT dismissed in Romans 8 – rather Paul shows Christians how to put to death the sinful behavior in their lives:
8 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life[d] because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.
12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.
"You are PLAF all the time which makes you Way and Weirwille all the time."
No. That is a lie now that I corrected it earlier.
Actually you offered a word salad excuse about how both were wrong so I was wrong. Nevermind the things you discuss when you come here: PLAF and Saint Vic. Both are the Way incarnate. Again, take a logic course.
24 minutes ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*
"The Word takes the place of the absent Christ ... Who teaches the Word? Weirwille. ...Therefore, Weirwille takes the place of the absent Christ."
No. I explained this earlier also.
You missed the vital step: Who teaches Wierwille? It's God.
God's Word accurately taught alive with love in the mind of a believer takes the place of the absent Christ.
As Saint Vic was brimming over with love (/sarc off), which God are we talking about?
24 minutes ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*
"Also, in all that thinking you did overnight, did you figure out why I shouldn't follow Saint Vics example and let grace abound?"
His example is not what I am advocating we follow. It is what God taught him and he, with many other loving, smart, spiritual helpers, put into written form that I advocate we follow.
I am fully aware of the Romans section you are referring to. I dont violate it here.
But leadership sets example, right?
And if God is no respecter of persons then why should we even bother with the bible. Like Saint Vic we should all live in sin and let that sweet, sweet grace abound.
As far as that section of Romans, you violate it by the claim Saint Vic recieved so much grace that God entrusted a man I wouldn't trust to feed my dogs with important Christian doctrine.
You think if I lived in sin, letting grace abound God would give me some heavy revie?
And for further needed corrections…we are rescued from the dominion of sin…as my previous post shows – we are no longer under sin’s dominion. We have a new Lord…in Romans 8 we are challenged to walk in the lifestyle of Christ Jesus in order to put to death sinful behavior.
Pursuant to that challenge means a constant vigil of our behavior. Any bad behavior that crops up - or is exposed - needs our immediate focus in order to deal with it properly (according to Rom. 8). It has come to my attention that some may misinterpret the following Philippians passage to mean we can procrastinate or kid ourselves into thinking we’re overcoming any bad behavior by NOT thinking about the bad behavior…read the passage again – I understand these noble attitudes should always be running in the background of our thoughts – like standing orders – that gives impetus to our “war” efforts – we are in a constant battle against sin - both within and without (that is what Romans 6 & 7 teach):
8 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. 9 Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.
Mike you missed a vital component - Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ gave the revelation to Paul, Peter, James, etc - not God. It went from God to Jesus Christ to his Church. Hes not absent.
Galatians 1:11, 12
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
He, the flesh and bones man, is absent.
The verse you quoted needs work. The preposition "by" could mean a lot of things.
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.
Similarly, the burning bush Moses talked to was an angel doing the vision, imitating God.
I am rusty on these things. I have seen others handle these items well. Maybe I can find my sources on this. Probably Walter C.
The verse you quoted needs work. The preposition "by" could mean a lot of things.
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.
Similarly, the burning bush Moses talked to was an angel doing the vision, imitating God.
I am rusty on these things. I have seen others handle these items well. Maybe I can find my sources on this. Probably Walter C.
Christ is no longer flesh and blood - he is changed forever more. You can change scripture all you want, because that is exactly what you are doing.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit..
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mike - wierwille's works are inherently anti-Christ. The only way any of his doctrines work is to minimize Jesus Christ as absent so the words of wierwille have free course, not the Word of the Lord!
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.
I believe those are figures of speech and very important. I am not at all alone in this.
Acts 1 is literal; he split; he's coming back.
You have very little actual faith in Christian doctrine. These are not figures of speech...which figure would that be?
Because others agree with you doesn't mean that all of you arent wrong.
Close. I have very little faith in TRADITIONAL Christian doctrine.
Are you familiar with the chapter in ADAN where it is shown that it was a VISION on the mount of the transfiguration, and not literally Moses and Elijah that Peter and John saw? That labeling of the event as a "vision" was done by Jesus, and it is right there in the text at the end.
There are verses scattered about, like in Hebrews maybe, that say Moses had a vision and a voice from the burning bush that were done by an angel.
Similarly with Paul. Did you know that the Road to Damascus incident appears in Acts THREE times? First in the narrative, and twice as flashbacks. If you look at all 3, I think you will see Paul say "angel" or "vision" to label the event.
Like I say, I am rusty on this, and may have time to get it all out. I'm only just now remembering more details.
Mike - wierwille's works are inherently anti-Christ. The only way any of his doctrines work is to minimize Jesus Christ as absent so the words of wierwille have free course, not the Word of the Lord!
No, that is not the way it works for me. Not at all.
Read the introduction and preface to JCNG.
A lot of grads skip that... or totally forgot that.
Close. I have very little faith in TRADITIONAL Christian doctrine.
I know, because the Bible contains traditional Christian doctrine and you prefer cobbled together, stolen materials that wierwille put together to serve his purposes. Purposes of adultery, drunkenness, love of money, etc.
No, that is not the way it works for me. Not at all.
And here you show how deep your cognitive dissonance really runs. You are on the wierwille train and you will go where his doctrines take you. This is why you feel attacked and have to reconcile the Bible to pflap.
Something I’ve noticed with fundamentalism is their myopic assumption that the transcendence and immanence of Christ are two distinct experiences/attributes which are separated by time. We read in Acts Christ ascended into heaven…we read that He’s seated at the right hand of God. We read he will return someday…Yet Christ also said I am with you always and in Mark it says the Lord worked with them confirming their message…we read He is head of the Chruch.
I think wierwille’s fundamentalist tendences put limits on God…From page 19 of Lifelines: Quotations of Victor Paul wierwille,the believer’s fear binds the omnipotence of God… ...he had the same damn attitude about Christ…I think wierwille promoted the absent Christ as a way to "eliminate the competition" – cuz you need wierwille’s skewed interpretation – “The Word” to take his place…I can almost hear he’s argument “Because logically class, Jesus Christ can’t be in two places at the same time.”
Now addressing wierwille fans: At the risk of stating the obvious – no one is holding a gun to your head and making you stay inside wierwille’s cramped theological box…try thinking outside the box. Consider the transcendence and immanence of Christ. He might be absent from your thoughts, teachings, and decision-making but that does not cancel the reality that Christ is an ever-present Lord working with His Church.
I think wierwille’s fundamentalist tendences put limits on God…From page 19 of Lifelines: Quotations of Victor Paul wierwille,the believer’s fear binds the omnipotence of God… ...he had the same damn attitude about Christ…I think wierwille promoted the absent Christ as a way to "eliminate the competition" – cuz you need wierwille’s skewed interpretation – “The Word” to take his place…
Most definately. the way international (and by default wierwille) loves(d) to come up with ways to limit God/Christ. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere ever, have I heard so many ways God can or can't do something. But the hypocrisy is glaring to those who want to think for two seconds about what the heck is going on.
Example: By default any wierwille follower will express that the word says what it means and means what it says. That goofy statement leaves a person to draw the conclusion that the word = the Bible. Mike demonstrates for us what it really means. The word is what wierwille said it meant and where the Bible differs from wierwille then the Bible is wrong and it doesn't really mean what it says but what wierwille says takes precedence. T-Bone you hit the nail on the head with your myopia reference.
Mike: "Yes, I'd like to see the context of any quotes you have of me saying REPLACE."
[See, this is what I was talking about. We've been down this road before. This is playing those silly-@$$ games we don't respect.
I don't remember you using the exact word "replace." (You may have, but I didn't note it.) What you DID do is use the CONCEPT "replace" quite clearly.
You said the Bibles we had were "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants." You said that God Almighty had to reissue His Word as pfal because there was no chance to get to the original by reading the modern Bibles.
This was especially egregious because at least 2 posters (I was the 2nd) were able to quote, directly from the Orange Book, how that contradicted the Orange Book. vpw had specified techniques and said these were what WE were to use, and that, once WE had done this, we could say, "Thus saith the LORD." At the time, I was at least a bit shocked that you responded at least once to that by saying that this was how vpw did so, but WE were not able to do so, that WE were not supposed to try to do so, and that if WE tried, we wouldn't get that result.
You referred to the Bible as "not God-breathed" and the pfal books as "God-breathed."
Now, either you remember all that, or you don't. Either you meant all that, or you didn't. If your usage of "replace" is meant to say that you didn't MEAN "replace" because you evaded usage of that exact word despite expressing that concept pretty clearly, then you should already know what we all think of that without me telling you. ]
---------------------------------
Mike: "Last night you didn't get it when I was joking with you, so I had to tell you it was a joke. And then when I get serious and more open (vulnerable? Rocky?) and you think I'm joking."
============
WordWolf: [You're wrong twice. I don't buy your claim you were joking, and. again, your credibility is at a low. As for now, I didn't say you were "joking." When you change the word of WordWolf, you no longer have the word of WordWolf. You're actually pulling the "I didn't use the word "replace", so I never used the concept "replace", and if I did, it obviously was either a joke or taken out of context, so that's all your fault for misreading me."
We understood what you posted just fine. I don't have any problem with you changing your positions. Frankly, I was hoping that, over the years, you'd abandoned that previous doctrine of pfal being a new Bible that supplanted the old, and gave you a chance to let everyone know. This "I never held that position" thing is wildly dishonest. If you really want a shred of credibility here, you really have to cut that out. The worst part, is that I think you really think you never posted that- which means that your memory process is really, really prone to radical editing. It doesn't affect the rest of us, but that's not useful to you. I'm sure it LOOKS like an advantage to forever convince yourself you've never been corrected or lost an argument, or held an error-filled position then reversed it, but, really, that only works in your head and, again, causes conflict once you leave it.
It was never about YOU- although you've often (and inconsistently) maintained it was. People called you on blatantly-wrong doctrine. This "I'm never wrong, I'm misquoted or joking" thing flies in politics, but we don't do politics here.]
Where have I heard thisraiders of the lostarkWordparody before?
Oh yeah, using Grease Spot’s The Other Side of The Way way-back machine I addressed the pretentious nonsense of wierwille’s supposed competency and research skills…and it bears repeating here…the following is copied from my comments on another thread( here) :
I think we can shorten the discussion by just getting right to the heart of the matter; two notable scholars F.F. Bruce and Sir Frederic Kenyon – both with expertise in the historical reliability of the New Testament have stated that very little has been lost as to what was originally written in the New Testament docs, in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by FF Bruce... it says on pages 14 and 15:
“The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism. This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least. When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists’ errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.
To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:
‘The Interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.’ “
== == == == ==
Bruce’s point is simple – with the increase of hand-copies comes the possibility of scribal errors – but that also means you have that many more “witnesses” as to what was originally said. And another thing to consider is what type of scribal errors occurred. Was a word misspelled, or repeated or transposed, etc. - - these would be easy to spot and corrected by comparing other copies...
It appears wierwille is somewhat removed from analyzing the actual texts that are still in existence; in the PFAL book, page 128 in chapter 11, “The Translations of the Word of God”, wierwille states:
“Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all verses.”
== == == == ==
I see two issues with wierwille’s approach:
First: He’s off by about a century and a half on the oldest manuscripts in existence – Bruce notes on page 10 of his book that there are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part and that the best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350.
Second: wierwille is not comparing Greek manuscripts – instead he is comparing translations or versions of the Bible! That’s like playing the telephone game - the first person states a message and by the time it goes through a whole line of people the message might sound somewhat different from the original. wierwille is at the end of the line - comparing how one translator interprets a phrase in the Greek to how another translator handles the same phrase. Frankly I don’t have much faith in wierwille’s ability to see beyond his own doctrinal preferences to note differences or similarities in translations since he would come up with goofy phrases that blurred variations like “all without exception” and “all without distinction” – which is the same thing.
== == == == ==
Here are multiple challenges:
First challenge: how can wierwille claim he can get back to the authentic prophecy when it was first given if he is only looking at translations and versions instead of the manuscripts written in the original biblical languages? In my humble opinion, it is doubtful wierwille was even competent to read and understand any of the biblical languages anyway.
Second challenge: what standard or criteria are you using to declare that the KJV or other translations lack validity and authority in matters of the Christian faith?
Third challenge: specifically what errors are there in the KJV - or in other translations, for that matter - that need to be addressed because it is mission critical to the church and/or one’s Christian faith? Or to put it another way - what errors does your manifesto confront and resolve to make your unique creed a better version of Christianity?
Fourth challenge: How is PFAL God-breathed if all wierwille did to put it together was just supposedly compare translations /versions …oh and plagiarize the work of others too?
Fifth challenge: If God’s breath gave life to scripture (II Timothy 3:16) and in a way that represents an extension of God himself then doesn’t that make God a liar and thief if you believe that a bundle of plagiarized material (aka PFAL) is God-breathed?
Edited January 7, 2018 by T-Bone
(end of my copied post)
~ ~ ~ ~
I trust that folks are aware of the current context of this thread and my direct challenges here to figure out to whom it is addressed
(Please deal with the material the link leads to and I will quote a little here -- no logic fallacies please)
The KJV is an essentially literal translation. Many new translations (NIV, NLT) are based on a translation philosophy called “Dynamic Equivalence” made popular by Eugene Nida of the American Bible Society. With Dynamic Equivalence, translators act as interpreters rather than translators. Thus readers of these dynamic translations end up reading the interpretations of scholars rather than the actual biblical text. The NKJV, NASB and ESV are also essentially literal translations. For an excellent introduction on the subject, please read this [online booklet] written by Leland Ryken, a member of the ESV committee.
Quote
The New Testament of the KJV, as with the NKJV, is based on the Textus Receptus, a variety of the Byzantine family of New Testament manuscripts. Many popular translations (e.g. NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB) are based on the Nestle-Aland text (i.e. NA 27, UBS 4), which is based on the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. Translations based on these Alexandrian readings omit or cast doubt on many important words and verses: e.g. The ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), The story of the adulteress (John 8:1-11), The conclusion to the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:13), The angel at the pool (John 5:4), The confession of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:37), Matthew 12:47, Matthew 17:21, Mathew 18:11, Matthew 21:44, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 22:43, Luke 22:44, Luke 23:17, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24, 1 John 5:7. It is generally accepted even by proponents of the Alexandrian texts that the Textus Receptus readings are doctrinally superior.
Quote
The KJV preserves lexicographical and syntactical Hebraisms (William Rosenau, Hebraisms in the Authorized Version of the Bible). Many contemporary translations, in an attempt to make the Bible sound more familiar to readers, dilute the Hebrew feel of the Bible. Much of the peculiarity of the language of the KJV is due to its faithful mimicry of the Hebrew language.
Quote
The King James Version has been carefully proof-read for 400 years. Today’s editions are reliable, having all printing errors corrected.
But we should take wierwille's word that the Bible is unreliable without his so called Biblical research?
Something I’ve noticed with fundamentalism is their myopic assumption that the transcendence and immanence of Christ are two distinct experiences/attributes which are separated by time. We read in Acts Christ ascended into heaven…we read that He’s seated at the right hand of God. We read he will return someday…Yet Christ also said I am with you always and in Mark it says the Lord worked with them confirming their message…we read He is head of the Chruch.
I think wierwille’s fundamentalist tendences put limits on God…From page 19 of Lifelines: Quotations of Victor Paul wierwille,the believer’s fear binds the omnipotence of God… ...he had the same damn attitude about Christ…I think wierwille promoted the absent Christ as a way to "eliminate the competition" – cuz you need wierwille’s skewed interpretation – “The Word” to take his place…I can almost hear he’s argument “Because logically class, Jesus Christ can’t be in two places at the same time.”
Now addressing wierwille fans: At the risk of stating the obvious – no one is holding a gun to your head and making you stay inside wierwille’s cramped theological box…try thinking outside the box. Consider the transcendence and immanence of Christ. He might be absent from your thoughts, teachings, and decision-making but that does not cancel the reality that Christ is an ever-present Lord working with His Church.
[It either "seems so obvious" or "is absolutely amazing" or "ridiculous", depending on your level of understanding, from profound to shallow.]
Part of my mission is to demonstrate that over and over you folks criticize what you don’t understand or remember, and that means you don’t understand the essence of what we were taught in writing. THEREFORE, you aren’t credible critics of it in my eyes.
You aren't accomplishing that mission. Your communications skills are easily overmatched. By that, I mean, your rhetoric is clumsy, your responses to being challenged on any point are easily picked apart, refuted. Do you not realize that everyone here realizes you completely dismiss the essence of anything and everything anyone says to you?
Are you even honest with yourself about your "mission?"
But we should take wierwille's word that the Bible is unreliable without his so called Biblical research?
Excellent post OldSkool !
Thanks for that link on the article Why Read the Bible in the King James Version? by Lana Vrz.
Great article stating some solid reasons!
I usually read NIV and NLT the most – but one of the reasons I often go back to KJV and NASB when doing deeper study is because some of my resources are keyed to KJV or NASB.
And probably another reason is just out of an old habit. For 12 years in TWI, I read KJV. Even memorized a few of my favorite chapters. The upside of loving KJV is it comes in handy during a discussion – because it’s easy for me to retrieve a word, phrase, or passage from memory – even if I can’t remember the chapter and verse...and sometimes it's just the odd King Jimmy phraseology that makes it so easy to recall – then I just get on the internet and type in “lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” and I find that it’s in Matthew 28- man, I’m a walking talking fuzzy memory concordance baby!
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 you missed a vital component - Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ gave the revelation to Paul, Peter, James, etc - not God. It went from God to Jesus Christ to his Church. Hes not absent.
Galatians 1:11, 12
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Just for the sake of correction – sin is NOT dismissed in Romans 8 – rather Paul shows Christians how to put to death the sinful behavior in their lives:
8 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life[d] because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.
12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.
Romans 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Actually you offered a word salad excuse about how both were wrong so I was wrong. Nevermind the things you discuss when you come here: PLAF and Saint Vic. Both are the Way incarnate. Again, take a logic course.
As Saint Vic was brimming over with love (/sarc off), which God are we talking about?
But leadership sets example, right?
And if God is no respecter of persons then why should we even bother with the bible. Like Saint Vic we should all live in sin and let that sweet, sweet grace abound.
As far as that section of Romans, you violate it by the claim Saint Vic recieved so much grace that God entrusted a man I wouldn't trust to feed my dogs with important Christian doctrine.
You think if I lived in sin, letting grace abound God would give me some heavy revie?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
And for further needed corrections…we are rescued from the dominion of sin…as my previous post shows – we are no longer under sin’s dominion. We have a new Lord…in Romans 8 we are challenged to walk in the lifestyle of Christ Jesus in order to put to death sinful behavior.
Pursuant to that challenge means a constant vigil of our behavior. Any bad behavior that crops up - or is exposed - needs our immediate focus in order to deal with it properly (according to Rom. 8). It has come to my attention that some may misinterpret the following Philippians passage to mean we can procrastinate or kid ourselves into thinking we’re overcoming any bad behavior by NOT thinking about the bad behavior…read the passage again – I understand these noble attitudes should always be running in the background of our thoughts – like standing orders – that gives impetus to our “war” efforts – we are in a constant battle against sin - both within and without (that is what Romans 6 & 7 teach):
8 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. 9 Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.
Philippians 4 NIV
Edited by T-Bonehow noble of the editor to fix my typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
He, the flesh and bones man, is absent.
The verse you quoted needs work. The preposition "by" could mean a lot of things.
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.
Similarly, the burning bush Moses talked to was an angel doing the vision, imitating God.
I am rusty on these things. I have seen others handle these items well. Maybe I can find my sources on this. Probably Walter C.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Christ is no longer flesh and blood - he is changed forever more. You can change scripture all you want, because that is exactly what you are doing.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That quickening spirit is the gift of holy spirit inside us.
The man sits at the right had of God and is our mediator. He is coming back because he is absent right now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Mike - wierwille's works are inherently anti-Christ. The only way any of his doctrines work is to minimize Jesus Christ as absent so the words of wierwille have free course, not the Word of the Lord!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
NO!
the last Adam was made a quickening spirit..
The last Adam is Jesus Christ. He is a man but he has been changed in form and function to a lifegiving spirit.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I believe those are figures of speech and very important. I am not at all alone in this.
Acts 1 is literal; he split; he's coming back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
You have very little actual faith in Christian doctrine. These are not figures of speech...which figure would that be?
Because others agree with you doesn't mean that all of you arent wrong.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Close. I have very little faith in TRADITIONAL Christian doctrine.
Are you familiar with the chapter in ADAN where it is shown that it was a VISION on the mount of the transfiguration, and not literally Moses and Elijah that Peter and John saw? That labeling of the event as a "vision" was done by Jesus, and it is right there in the text at the end.
There are verses scattered about, like in Hebrews maybe, that say Moses had a vision and a voice from the burning bush that were done by an angel.
Similarly with Paul. Did you know that the Road to Damascus incident appears in Acts THREE times? First in the narrative, and twice as flashbacks. If you look at all 3, I think you will see Paul say "angel" or "vision" to label the event.
Like I say, I am rusty on this, and may have time to get it all out. I'm only just now remembering more details.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, that is not the way it works for me. Not at all.
Read the introduction and preface to JCNG.
A lot of grads skip that... or totally forgot that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I know, because the Bible contains traditional Christian doctrine and you prefer cobbled together, stolen materials that wierwille put together to serve his purposes. Purposes of adultery, drunkenness, love of money, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
And here you show how deep your cognitive dissonance really runs. You are on the wierwille train and you will go where his doctrines take you. This is why you feel attacked and have to reconcile the Bible to pflap.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Something I’ve noticed with fundamentalism is their myopic assumption that the transcendence and immanence of Christ are two distinct experiences/attributes which are separated by time. We read in Acts Christ ascended into heaven…we read that He’s seated at the right hand of God. We read he will return someday…Yet Christ also said I am with you always and in Mark it says the Lord worked with them confirming their message…we read He is head of the Chruch.
I think wierwille’s fundamentalist tendences put limits on God…From page 19 of Lifelines: Quotations of Victor Paul wierwille, the believer’s fear binds the omnipotence of God…
...he had the same damn attitude about Christ…I think wierwille promoted the absent Christ as a way to "eliminate the competition" – cuz you need wierwille’s skewed interpretation – “The Word” to take his place…I can almost hear he’s argument “Because logically class, Jesus Christ can’t be in two places at the same time.”
Now addressing wierwille fans: At the risk of stating the obvious – no one is holding a gun to your head and making you stay inside wierwille’s cramped theological box…try thinking outside the box. Consider the transcendence and immanence of Christ. He might be absent from your thoughts, teachings, and decision-making but that does not cancel the reality that Christ is an ever-present Lord working with His Church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Most definately. the way international (and by default wierwille) loves(d) to come up with ways to limit God/Christ. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere ever, have I heard so many ways God can or can't do something. But the hypocrisy is glaring to those who want to think for two seconds about what the heck is going on.
Example: By default any wierwille follower will express that the word says what it means and means what it says. That goofy statement leaves a person to draw the conclusion that the word = the Bible. Mike demonstrates for us what it really means. The word is what wierwille said it meant and where the Bible differs from wierwille then the Bible is wrong and it doesn't really mean what it says but what wierwille says takes precedence. T-Bone you hit the nail on the head with your myopia reference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike: "Yes, I'd like to see the context of any quotes you have of me saying REPLACE."
[See, this is what I was talking about. We've been down this road before. This is playing those silly-@$$ games we don't respect.
I don't remember you using the exact word "replace." (You may have, but I didn't note it.) What you DID do is use the CONCEPT "replace" quite clearly.
You said the Bibles we had were "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants." You said that God Almighty had to reissue His Word as pfal because there was no chance to get to the original by reading the modern Bibles.
This was especially egregious because at least 2 posters (I was the 2nd) were able to quote, directly from the Orange Book, how that contradicted the Orange Book. vpw had specified techniques and said these were what WE were to use, and that, once WE had done this, we could say, "Thus saith the LORD." At the time, I was at least a bit shocked that you responded at least once to that by saying that this was how vpw did so, but WE were not able to do so, that WE were not supposed to try to do so, and that if WE tried, we wouldn't get that result.
You referred to the Bible as "not God-breathed" and the pfal books as "God-breathed."
Now, either you remember all that, or you don't. Either you meant all that, or you didn't. If your usage of "replace" is meant to say that you didn't MEAN "replace" because you evaded usage of that exact word despite expressing that concept pretty clearly, then you should already know what we all think of that without me telling you. ]
---------------------------------
Mike: "Last night you didn't get it when I was joking with you, so I had to tell you it was a joke. And then when I get serious and more open (vulnerable? Rocky?) and you think I'm joking."
============
WordWolf: [You're wrong twice. I don't buy your claim you were joking, and. again, your credibility is at a low. As for now, I didn't say you were "joking." When you change the word of WordWolf, you no longer have the word of WordWolf. You're actually pulling the "I didn't use the word "replace", so I never used the concept "replace", and if I did, it obviously was either a joke or taken out of context, so that's all your fault for misreading me."
We understood what you posted just fine. I don't have any problem with you changing your positions. Frankly, I was hoping that, over the years, you'd abandoned that previous doctrine of pfal being a new Bible that supplanted the old, and gave you a chance to let everyone know. This "I never held that position" thing is wildly dishonest. If you really want a shred of credibility here, you really have to cut that out. The worst part, is that I think you really think you never posted that- which means that your memory process is really, really prone to radical editing. It doesn't affect the rest of us, but that's not useful to you. I'm sure it LOOKS like an advantage to forever convince yourself you've never been corrected or lost an argument, or held an error-filled position then reversed it, but, really, that only works in your head and, again, causes conflict once you leave it.
It was never about YOU- although you've often (and inconsistently) maintained it was. People called you on blatantly-wrong doctrine. This "I'm never wrong, I'm misquoted or joking" thing flies in politics, but we don't do politics here.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
(Please deal with the material the link leads to and I will quote a little here -- no logic fallacies please)
https://www.kjvtoday.com/read-bible-in-king-james-version/
But we should take wierwille's word that the Bible is unreliable without his so called Biblical research?
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[It either "seems so obvious" or "is absolutely amazing" or "ridiculous", depending on your level of understanding, from profound to shallow.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You aren't accomplishing that mission. Your communications skills are easily overmatched. By that, I mean, your rhetoric is clumsy, your responses to being challenged on any point are easily picked apart, refuted. Do you not realize that everyone here realizes you completely dismiss the essence of anything and everything anyone says to you?
Are you even honest with yourself about your "mission?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Excellent post OldSkool !
Thanks for that link on the article Why Read the Bible in the King James Version? by Lana Vrz.
Great article stating some solid reasons!
I usually read NIV and NLT the most – but one of the reasons I often go back to KJV and NASB when doing deeper study is because some of my resources are keyed to KJV or NASB.
And probably another reason is just out of an old habit. For 12 years in TWI, I read KJV. Even memorized a few of my favorite chapters. The upside of loving KJV is it comes in handy during a discussion – because it’s easy for me to retrieve a word, phrase, or passage from memory – even if I can’t remember the chapter and verse...and sometimes it's just the odd King Jimmy phraseology that makes it so easy to recall – then I just get on the internet and type in “lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” and I find that it’s in Matthew 28 - man, I’m a walking talking fuzzy memory concordance baby!
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.