The Absent Christ?

[Mike]

28 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

 

Bolshevik asked you three questions...

 

 

He asked me ONE question, and TWO essay questions.

I briefly answered the first one, and assigned him an essay question in return.

Did you miss those items?

*/*/*/*/*

But while we are here, off the rails again, talking about me pointlessly again, this is my chance to bring up something totally off the topic.

Does anyone here know much about ChatGPT?  How about Eliza circa 1964?

I was thinking of feeding ChatGPT my minFW chapter 1 on free will, and ask for a review.  Or maybe my NT Canon paper.

Is this doable stuff?  I went to the free trial website, but there was a Star Wars like line out and around the building.

*/*/*/*/*

Ok, let's hoist this trippy train back on the tracks.

 

[Nathan_Jr]

10 minutes ago, Mike said:

Did you miss those items?

No. Where? When?

[Raf]

I'd like to reboot the thread, maybe make it a little less Mikish and a little more what were we talking about again?

 

No longer having a stake in the "rightly-divided" answer opens up various avenues of exploration.

I've seen you guys discussing this "absent Christ" issue for years now, and I honestly don't even remember the various things I've said about it. Is it possible, in my desire to find fault with VPW, that I hopped on the "how dare he say Christ is absent" bandwagon? It would have been easy. CES (STFI, John Lynn, Schoenheit, et al) criticized the "absent Christ" doctrine without overly criticizing Wierwille. 

I know I've recently said some variation of the following, and I stand by it:

To some extent, Christ MUST be absent, or anticipating his return would be rather pointless. At the last supper, Jesus says do this "in remembrance" of me. You don't "remember" something that's present. You recognize it. You acknowledge it. You don't remember it. Christ must in some way be absent.

But let's go a little further (as I believe some of you have). The Bible does not speak of a "return" of Christ, or a "second coming." The word translated "coming" is better translated "presence," as in, it's his presence, not his return, that is the hope of the Christian. Now you may say, same thing. And I may agree, except God (or Paul, or whoever chose the word paraousia) has a purpose for everything he says... So if your hope is in his return (Biblically, his presence), then the current state of affairs must necessarily imply, in some manner, his absence.

So I don't think the "absent Christ" is unBiblical at all. It's the present Christ that needs defending, for if he is currently present, how can his presence be your hope? 

And yes, I understand there are ways in which he is present as well. They've been articulated effectively. The problem, as I see it, is this need to have one answer be correct and the other incorrect, when the Bible clearly teaches both.

He is present with us by way of (the H)holy (S)spirit [I am not taking sides on that one]. He is present with us in prayer. He is the Word, and as such is present where his word is taught. 

"The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is a problematic statement, but not because it posits an absent Christ. The Bible posits an absent Christ. "The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is problematic because it doesn't. At least not completely. No one thing takes the place of the absent Christ. But all these things together do. The Word. The spirit. Fellowship. Prayer. Love. Mercy. The manifestation of the spirit. The fruitage of the spirit. YOU. YOU take the place of the absent Christ.

Isn't God wonderful? 

[Nathan_Jr]

31 minutes ago, Mike said:

He asked me ONE question, and TWO essay questions.

I briefly answered the first one, and assigned him an essay question in return.

You answered a different question about figurative language.

For the three questions you have yet to answer, he specifically asked for BRIEF SUMMARIES, not essays.

 

Edited January 27, 2023 by Nathan_Jr
Gloves

[Mike]

14 minutes ago, Raf said:

I'd like to reboot the thread, maybe make it a little less Mikish and a little more what were we talking about again?

 

No longer having a stake in the "rightly-divided" answer opens up various avenues of exploration.

I've seen you guys discussing this "absent Christ" issue for years now, and I honestly don't even remember the various things I've said about it. Is it possible, in my desire to find fault with VPW, that I hopped on the "how dare he say Christ is absent" bandwagon? It would have been easy. CES (STFI, John Lynn, Schoenheit, et al) criticized the "absent Christ" doctrine without overly criticizing Wierwille. 

I know I've recently said some variation of the following, and I stand by it:

To some extent, Christ MUST be absent, or anticipating his return would be rather pointless. At the last supper, Jesus says do this "in remembrance" of me. You don't "remember" something that's present. You recognize it. You acknowledge it. You don't remember it. Christ must in some way be absent.

But let's go a little further (as I believe some of you have). The Bible does not speak of a "return" of Christ, or a "second coming." The word translated "coming" is better translated "presence," as in, it's his presence, not his return, that is the hope of the Christian. Now you may say, same thing. And I may agree, except God (or Paul, or whoever chose the word paraousia) has a purpose for everything he says... So if your hope is in his return (Biblically, his presence), then the current state of affairs must necessarily imply, in some manner, his absence.

So I don't think the "absent Christ" is unBiblical at all. It's the present Christ that needs defending, for if he is currently present, how can his presence be your hope? 

And yes, I understand there are ways in which he is present as well. They've been articulated effectively. The problem, as I see it, is this need to have one answer be correct and the other incorrect, when the Bible clearly teaches both.

He is present with us by way of (the H)holy (S)spirit [I am not taking sides on that one]. He is present with us in prayer. He is the Word, and as such is present where his word is taught. 

"The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is a problematic statement, but not because it posits an absent Christ. The Bible posits an absent Christ. "The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is problematic because it doesn't. At least not completely. No one thing takes the place of the absent Christ. But all these things together do. The Word. The spirit. Fellowship. Prayer. Love. Mercy. The manifestation of the spirit. The fruitage of the spirit. YOU. YOU take the place of the absent Christ.

Isn't God wonderful? 

Raf, thank you.

After reading that extremely Gamaliel-like bit of common sense, I am willing to help you with whatever re-booting this thread means to you.

I'm willing to bow out of the thread, and let the chips settle where they may.

*/*/*/*/*

I would like it if, OldSkool, you could complete your Blue Scripture list. I have an old folder labeled "The Post Pentecost Ministry of Jesus Christ" and your current list is in it now.

 

Edited January 27, 2023 by Mike

[T-Bone]

1 hour ago, Raf said:

I'd like to reboot the thread, maybe make it a little less Mikish and a little more what were we talking about again?

 

No longer having a stake in the "rightly-divided" answer opens up various avenues of exploration.

I've seen you guys discussing this "absent Christ" issue for years now, and I honestly don't even remember the various things I've said about it. Is it possible, in my desire to find fault with VPW, that I hopped on the "how dare he say Christ is absent" bandwagon? It would have been easy. CES (STFI, John Lynn, Schoenheit, et al) criticized the "absent Christ" doctrine without overly criticizing Wierwille. 

I know I've recently said some variation of the following, and I stand by it:

To some extent, Christ MUST be absent, or anticipating his return would be rather pointless. At the last supper, Jesus says do this "in remembrance" of me. You don't "remember" something that's present. You recognize it. You acknowledge it. You don't remember it. Christ must in some way be absent.

But let's go a little further (as I believe some of you have). The Bible does not speak of a "return" of Christ, or a "second coming." The word translated "coming" is better translated "presence," as in, it's his presence, not his return, that is the hope of the Christian. Now you may say, same thing. And I may agree, except God (or Paul, or whoever chose the word paraousia) has a purpose for everything he says... So if your hope is in his return (Biblically, his presence), then the current state of affairs must necessarily imply, in some manner, his absence.

So I don't think the "absent Christ" is unBiblical at all. It's the present Christ that needs defending, for if he is currently present, how can his presence be your hope? 

And yes, I understand there are ways in which he is present as well. They've been articulated effectively. The problem, as I see it, is this need to have one answer be correct and the other incorrect, when the Bible clearly teaches both.

He is present with us by way of (the H)holy (S)spirit [I am not taking sides on that one]. He is present with us in prayer. He is the Word, and as such is present where his word is taught. 

"The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is a problematic statement, but not because it posits an absent Christ. The Bible posits an absent Christ. "The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is problematic because it doesn't. At least not completely. No one thing takes the place of the absent Christ. But all these things together do. The Word. The spirit. Fellowship. Prayer. Love. Mercy. The manifestation of the spirit. The fruitage of the spirit. YOU. YOU take the place of the absent Christ.

Isn't God wonderful? 

Where the hell were you 67 pages ago?

just kidding - great post, Raf!

[Bolshevik]

1 hour ago, Raf said:

I'd like to reboot the thread, maybe make it a little less Mikish and a little more what were we talking about again?

 

No longer having a stake in the "rightly-divided" answer opens up various avenues of exploration.

I've seen you guys discussing this "absent Christ" issue for years now, and I honestly don't even remember the various things I've said about it. Is it possible, in my desire to find fault with VPW, that I hopped on the "how dare he say Christ is absent" bandwagon? It would have been easy. CES (STFI, John Lynn, Schoenheit, et al) criticized the "absent Christ" doctrine without overly criticizing Wierwille. 

I know I've recently said some variation of the following, and I stand by it:

To some extent, Christ MUST be absent, or anticipating his return would be rather pointless. At the last supper, Jesus says do this "in remembrance" of me. You don't "remember" something that's present. You recognize it. You acknowledge it. You don't remember it. Christ must in some way be absent.

But let's go a little further (as I believe some of you have). The Bible does not speak of a "return" of Christ, or a "second coming." The word translated "coming" is better translated "presence," as in, it's his presence, not his return, that is the hope of the Christian. Now you may say, same thing. And I may agree, except God (or Paul, or whoever chose the word paraousia) has a purpose for everything he says... So if your hope is in his return (Biblically, his presence), then the current state of affairs must necessarily imply, in some manner, his absence.

So I don't think the "absent Christ" is unBiblical at all. It's the present Christ that needs defending, for if he is currently present, how can his presence be your hope? 

And yes, I understand there are ways in which he is present as well. They've been articulated effectively. The problem, as I see it, is this need to have one answer be correct and the other incorrect, when the Bible clearly teaches both.

He is present with us by way of (the H)holy (S)spirit [I am not taking sides on that one]. He is present with us in prayer. He is the Word, and as such is present where his word is taught. 

"The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is a problematic statement, but not because it posits an absent Christ. The Bible posits an absent Christ. "The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is problematic because it doesn't. At least not completely. No one thing takes the place of the absent Christ. But all these things together do. The Word. The spirit. Fellowship. Prayer. Love. Mercy. The manifestation of the spirit. The fruitage of the spirit. YOU. YOU take the place of the absent Christ.

Isn't God wonderful? 

According to Jung, Christ is symbolic of the self.  So, you.  

And The Word is VPW.  His views, his thoughts, his concerns.  His repurposed stolen nonsense.

And since the Great Principle is a Trojan horse, in which the self is willingly subdued and diminished,

The Word takes the place of the Absent Christ.

That IS what VPW was doing?

[Nathan_Jr]

4 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

According to Jung, Christ is symbolic of the self.  So, you.  

And The Word is VPW.  His views, his thoughts, his concerns.  His repurposed stolen nonsense.

And since the Great Principle is a Trojan horse, in which the self is willingly subdued and diminished,

The Word takes the place of the Absent Christ.

That IS what VPW was doing?

Just doing some simple math based on theses postulates: VPW takes the place of the absent Christ?

[Bolshevik]

11 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Just doing some simple math based on theses postulates: VPW takes the place of the absent Christ?

VPW takes the place of you.

[Nathan_Jr]

5 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

VPW takes the place of you.

Right! I see it now. It's logical. It fits like a hand in a...

Math was never my strength.

Edited January 28, 2023 by Nathan_Jr
Imitate him... stand on his shoulders

[Bolshevik]

15 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Right! I see it now. It's logical. It fits like a hand in a...

Math was never my strength.

*shrug*

https://medium.com/narcissistic-abuse-recovery-collaborators/the-voices-in-my-head-a318c27ddc2c

[Nathan_Jr]

11 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

*shrug*

https://medium.com/narcissistic-abuse-recovery-collaborators/the-voices-in-my-head-a318c27ddc2c

This was difficult to read. It's true. All of it.

[Charity]

On 1/25/2023 at 11:25 AM, OldSkool said:

Well, let's look at Jesus Christ from scripture and try to gain a more comprehensive viewpoint of how he interacts with his Church. My comments are in blue...hopefully that helps with readibility.

First we will establish that we ARE to have fellowship with God's son Jesus Christ. The way international forbids their followers from interacting with Jesus Christ, yet scripture says:

1 John 1:3

That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Second, let's handle the obvious: Jesus Christ is not present on earth in a flesh and blood body as recorded in the gospels. Jesus Christ was ascended to the right hand of God as recorded in the book of Acts. Please note in the Book of Acts and in the Church epistles as well as the Gospels when the word Lord is used it usually refers to Jesus Christ with some exceptions where the old Testament is quoted, etc.

John 16:7

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. ( Notice Jesus says I will send him unto you)

Acts 1:8,9

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

--> Now this is where wierwille's doctrine stops. Jesus Christ is ascended and is seated at the right hand of God and doesnt do much except have his name attached to the end of a prayer and we benefit from his accomplsished works. Half truths at best. Now let's see how Jesus Christ himself interacted with his Church in the book of Acts, Epistles, etc. I wont comment much because scripture is quite obvious, as is the nature of most scripture. First off, though, a quick trip to the gospels to establish something important.

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!

--> Jesus said in John 16:7 that he (Jesus) would send the comforter. In the book of Acts that prophecy is fullfilled:

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.

--> Literally Jesus received of the Father the gift of holy spirit and poured it out on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.

Acts 2:47

Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”

--> Jesus Christ adds to the Church, Jesus Christ is in charge of people being born again and it is the Lord that adds to his body.

Acts 9:10

And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. 11And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, 

--> Jesus Christ appears to Ananias in a vision. He also appeared to Saul.

Galatians 1:12

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

--> Jesus Christ taught Paul by Revelation the content of the epistles he authored. This pattern holds true all throughout the new Testamend.

I am being brief on purpose. This is literally the tip of the iceberg. Once I chucked the absent Christ heresay and actually started reading what the Bible actually says it was very revealing. Christ is very active in interactin with his Church. He has never been absent. He has been changed into a life giving spirit and is no longer flesh and blood: Something wierwille never could come to grips with.

------------------------------------------

Continuing onwards: 1/25

There are those that say (I used to be one of "those") that fellowshipping with Jesus Christ dishonors God. Well, God is the one who elevated Jesus Christ to second in command, so to not respect the "pecking order" instituted by God what actually dishonors God. God honored Jesus Christ, clothed him in majesty, and set him over all things until all things are subdued under his feet. In turn Jesus Christ honors God by always doing the Fathers will. God and his Christ are inseperable in union and purpose. While I am showing verses that show Jesus Christ is active and not absent I also wanted to show a section where the Apostles prayed to God in regards to their stand for Jesus Christ, well, because God isnt absent either although he has highly elevated Jesus Christ. Note they call him Lord as he was called in the Old Testament and the distinction is clear:

Acts 4:24-31

And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

25Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

26The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

27For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

28For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

29And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,

30By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.

31And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

With the record of Stephen's stoning in Acts 7 we again see God and Jesus Christ working in tandem, yet Stephen says Lord Jesus receive my spirit, recognizing Jesus lordship while respecting and recognizing God's sovereignty.

Acts 7:55-60

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

57Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,

58And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

59And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

60And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

I also want to note there are numerous records in Acts showing Angels at Jesus command, actually something even wierwille acknowledged when he wasnt downplaying Jesus Lordship. If anyone is interested search "Angel of the Lord" to check it out. My point is Jesus Christ is directing the angels to give specific instruction to his Church. Jesus is the head of his Body and that Lordship is very active, not absent.

Well, I couldn't skip Acts 9 so here those records are, once again showing Jesus himself interacting with his Church. Its notable that Saul's companions also heard a voice yet saw no man and Saul himself saw no man either -- makes sense since he was blinded but the emphasis is clear. This is an audible voice from Jesus Christ to flesh and blood beings with no spirit connection so once again disproving wierwille's great principle.

Acts 9:3-8

And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

8And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

Now with Ananias

Acts 9:10-17

And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

11And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

12And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

13Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

14And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

16For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

17And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Notice how Ananias conversed with the Lord and he conversed back in the vision given him. Note the very personal nature between Ananias and the Lord Jesus and also note that Ananias himself stated that the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me. In order to say Christ is absent you have to dang near disqualify Jesus from his Lordship in order to do so. 

Acts 9:27 once again confirms that Saul/Paul actually talked to Jesus.

Acts 9:27

But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

Something I want to point out here just to state the obvious. If wierwille was preaching the Word as it hadnt' been known since the first century then why didnt the disciples that Barnabas addressed correct him and tell him the Lord was absent? Because it was common place for them to interact with Christ - period.

Back to the bullshonta great principle for a moment. If the great principle is true then how in the heck was an Angel, a spirit being, able to communicate with Cornelieus the Roman Centurion who had not been born again at the time of the vision? 

Acts 10:1-7

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,

2A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

3He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.

4And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

5And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:

6He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

7And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually;

Now we will see Peter conversing with Jesus Christ in a vision as he was on the rooftop in prayer where Jesus appears and teaches him further so he will go minister to Cornelius and his household.

Acts 10:9-16

On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

If anyone would care to read Acts 11 you will notice that God and Jesus are working together as indicated by the language used in the conversations. Jesus Christs actions as head of the Body and as Lord of Lords and King of Kings glorify God and it's Christ in perfect unison with God carrying out God's will. So yes, God is very involved and is sovereign in his throne and authority, yet he has delegated active Lordship over all to Jesus Christ. 

I think it's intersting in Acts chapter 14, verse 3, that the wording indicates that it's Jesus Christ who granted signs and wonders to be done by the Banabus and Paul. So much for the manifestations of holy spirit operating solely as he the man wills.

Acts 14:3

Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.

Acts 16 has the vision of the Macedonian man appearing to Paul saying come help us. Paul stated it was the Lord calling them to preach the Word in Macedonia.

Acts 16:9,10

And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.

10And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.

Acts 18 shows once again Jesus appearing to Paul in a vision.

Acts 18:9-11

Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:

10For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.

11And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

Heres some phenomenon as wierwille liked to say...I dont put much faith in the concept as defined by wierwille but here we have God doing special miracles by the hands of Paul.

 

Acts 19:11-13

And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:

12So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

13Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

I am so grateful to you OldSkool for taking the time to put the above together.  It's clear and precise and absolutely proves from scripture how involved Christ is in our lives.  And it so negates the "absent Christ"  dogma of twi.

As you might remember, I only began posting on GSC recently (in late November of last year to be exact), and it was only after I began reading many of the posts on this thread at the time.  That was when I realized that buying into the "absent Christ" doctrine and practices of twi had resulted in me only having an intellectual knowledge of Christ as you wrote about above, "Now this is where wierwille's doctrine stops. Jesus Christ is ascended and is seated at the right hand of God and doesn’t do much except have his name attached to the end of a prayer and we benefit from his accomplished works."

Since then, you and many others helped me to understand that Christianity is all about having a personal relationship with Christ.  That's when everything changed between Christ and I.  It's like instead of watching the same player in the same old hockey game over and over again , you can now get on the ice and actually play the game with him (or her) .  

I have made a word document of what you wrote as it's a great reference of truth concerning this topic.

 

[Charity]

On 1/25/2023 at 12:59 PM, T-Bone said:

Hi Mike,

As far as you know = the extent that your knowledge reaches = 20 years on Grease Spot Café of you reaching no further than your confirmation bias.

You consistently exhibit a tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports the high regard you have for wierwille and PFAL…Confirmation bias cannot be eliminated, but it can be managed, for example, by education and training in critical thinking skills.

 

If you are not aware that your posts reflect someone who  has no capacity to distinguish truth from lies or differentiate fact from fiction – perhaps you should seek a communication consultant - - or help from professional mental health personnel.

If you are not conscious that you often turn a blind eye to the infamous moral depravity of wierwille – perhaps it means your conscience has been cauterized by the hypocritical and callous nature of wierwille / PFAL. Maybe be honest during self-examination – something we should all do periodically in the way of  Matthew 7

 

In the 17 years that I have been coming to Grease Spot Café and getting to know your ‘mystifying’ and shape-shifting viewpoint, I suspect there’s more issues than meets the eye – I’m just not sure what they are. The only reason I make the time and effort to respond to your nonsense is for the sake of those still in bondage to the pseudo-Christian harmful and controlling cult, The Way International. Any reasonable person comparing the thought content of your posts and most other Grease Spotters is more likely to come away with the thought that you are utterly confused – exemplifying how detrimental to one’s cognitive skills wierwille / PFAL can be if that is one’s only rule for faith and practice.  

There is no denying you have some deeply entrenched attitudes that encourage others to accept wierwille and PFAL without serious questions. The purpose of this website demands a rational response to such nonsense.  

 

You can make all the claims you want about a surprisingly large number of grads thought VPW was claiming divine dictation….you have encountered several here over the years – but it means nothing from a person who has zero credibility!

How trustworthy is a person if they are incapable of recognizing the difference of truth from lies, fact from fiction?

What does it say about one’s moral compass if they make wierwille’s corruption and hypocrisy like it’s no big deal?

~ ~ ~ ~

The  honest counterpoint  to your  Another point:  MOST of VPW's research was 5-senses, is that wierwille searched…hunted…found what seemed to be attractive money-making ideas in the works of others – and pirated them! He made like he came up with all that stuff – with God’s guidance of course! That’s stealing and lying!

 You shall not steal. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. Exodus 20

 

 

Sorry to burst your bubble –  you so quickly come to the defense of all the lies, illogic, moral depravity, and hypocrisy of wierwille / PFAL... ...you reveal to others what you are unaware of – that you have indeed built your faith on wierwille / PFAL.

We defend to the hilt whatever is most precious to us.

Well said T-Bone.

[Mike]

27 minutes ago, Charity said:

Well said T-Bone.

You asked earlier in this thread who Raf is. 
Did you read his post?

[Bolshevik]

9 minutes ago, Mike said:

You asked earlier in this thread who Raf is. 
Did you read his post?

I'm stuck on the part with Jesus being omnipresent.  How do you wrap that?  It's a gift right?

[Charity]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

You asked earlier in this thread who Raf is. 
Did you read his post?

Yes Mike and I'll reply to it tomorrow. 

[T-Bone]

5 hours ago, Raf said:

I'd like to reboot the thread, maybe make it a little less Mikish and a little more what were we talking about again?

 

No longer having a stake in the "rightly-divided" answer opens up various avenues of exploration.

I've seen you guys discussing this "absent Christ" issue for years now, and I honestly don't even remember the various things I've said about it. Is it possible, in my desire to find fault with VPW, that I hopped on the "how dare he say Christ is absent" bandwagon? It would have been easy. CES (STFI, John Lynn, Schoenheit, et al) criticized the "absent Christ" doctrine without overly criticizing Wierwille. 

I know I've recently said some variation of the following, and I stand by it:

To some extent, Christ MUST be absent, or anticipating his return would be rather pointless. At the last supper, Jesus says do this "in remembrance" of me. You don't "remember" something that's present. You recognize it. You acknowledge it. You don't remember it. Christ must in some way be absent.

But let's go a little further (as I believe some of you have). The Bible does not speak of a "return" of Christ, or a "second coming." The word translated "coming" is better translated "presence," as in, it's his presence, not his return, that is the hope of the Christian. Now you may say, same thing. And I may agree, except God (or Paul, or whoever chose the word paraousia) has a purpose for everything he says... So if your hope is in his return (Biblically, his presence), then the current state of affairs must necessarily imply, in some manner, his absence.

So I don't think the "absent Christ" is unBiblical at all. It's the present Christ that needs defending, for if he is currently present, how can his presence be your hope? 

And yes, I understand there are ways in which he is present as well. They've been articulated effectively. The problem, as I see it, is this need to have one answer be correct and the other incorrect, when the Bible clearly teaches both.

He is present with us by way of (the H)holy (S)spirit [I am not taking sides on that one]. He is present with us in prayer. He is the Word, and as such is present where his word is taught. 

"The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is a problematic statement, but not because it posits an absent Christ. The Bible posits an absent Christ. "The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is problematic because it doesn't. At least not completely. No one thing takes the place of the absent Christ. But all these things together do. The Word. The spirit. Fellowship. Prayer. Love. Mercy. The manifestation of the spirit. The fruitage of the spirit. YOU. YOU take the place of the absent Christ.

Isn't God wonderful? 

 

1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:

I'm stuck on the part with Jesus being omnipresent.  How do you wrap that?  It's a gift right?

 

Exactly!

What is the gap between the physical and metaphysical?

Is there a bridge to span the gap?

Is the gap – the separation of matter, the physical realm from the spiritual realm, something that can be measured?

Is there another way or ways to quantify the two realms to explain the disparity between the two?

Could absence also mean being undetectable in the physical realm?

Can a divine being be both   transcendent    and  immanent  at the same time?

 

And now for the self-referential portion of my post - mwah ha ha ha ha ha ha

1. T-Boneto

2 T-Boneto

3 T-Boneto

4 T-Boneto

5 T-Boneto

6 T-Boneto

 

 

[OldSkool]

11 hours ago, Raf said:

I'd like to reboot the thread, maybe make it a little less Mikish and a little more what were we talking about again?

 

No longer having a stake in the "rightly-divided" answer opens up various avenues of exploration.

I've seen you guys discussing this "absent Christ" issue for years now, and I honestly don't even remember the various things I've said about it. Is it possible, in my desire to find fault with VPW, that I hopped on the "how dare he say Christ is absent" bandwagon? It would have been easy. CES (STFI, John Lynn, Schoenheit, et al) criticized the "absent Christ" doctrine without overly criticizing Wierwille. 

I know I've recently said some variation of the following, and I stand by it:

To some extent, Christ MUST be absent, or anticipating his return would be rather pointless. At the last supper, Jesus says do this "in remembrance" of me. You don't "remember" something that's present. You recognize it. You acknowledge it. You don't remember it. Christ must in some way be absent.

But let's go a little further (as I believe some of you have). The Bible does not speak of a "return" of Christ, or a "second coming." The word translated "coming" is better translated "presence," as in, it's his presence, not his return, that is the hope of the Christian. Now you may say, same thing. And I may agree, except God (or Paul, or whoever chose the word paraousia) has a purpose for everything he says... So if your hope is in his return (Biblically, his presence), then the current state of affairs must necessarily imply, in some manner, his absence.

So I don't think the "absent Christ" is unBiblical at all. It's the present Christ that needs defending, for if he is currently present, how can his presence be your hope? 

And yes, I understand there are ways in which he is present as well. They've been articulated effectively. The problem, as I see it, is this need to have one answer be correct and the other incorrect, when the Bible clearly teaches both.

He is present with us by way of (the H)holy (S)spirit [I am not taking sides on that one]. He is present with us in prayer. He is the Word, and as such is present where his word is taught. 

"The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is a problematic statement, but not because it posits an absent Christ. The Bible posits an absent Christ. "The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is problematic because it doesn't. At least not completely. No one thing takes the place of the absent Christ. But all these things together do. The Word. The spirit. Fellowship. Prayer. Love. Mercy. The manifestation of the spirit. The fruitage of the spirit. YOU. YOU take the place of the absent Christ.

Isn't God wonderful? 

Really good points.  I wanna mull this and will post up a few thoughts shortly. Thanks Raf, the fresh perspective is appreciated.

[chockfull]

13 hours ago, Mike said:

He asked me ONE question, and TWO essay questions.

I briefly answered the first one, and assigned him an essay question in return.

Did you miss those items?

*/*/*/*/*

But while we are here, off the rails again, talking about me pointlessly again, this is my chance to bring up something totally off the topic.

Does anyone here know much about ChatGPT?  How about Eliza circa 1964?

I was thinking of feeding ChatGPT my minFW chapter 1 on free will, and ask for a review.  Or maybe my NT Canon paper.

Is this doable stuff?  I went to the free trial website, but there was a Star Wars like line out and around the building.

*/*/*/*/*

Ok, let's hoist this trippy train back on the tracks.

 

ChatGPT is the latest craze in AI.  It is complex enough to assemble info from the internet and has possibilities of supplanting Google search as its a higher level AI implementation.

It can perform first order tier tasks pretty well, even programming tasks.  It does fall down on second tier tasks like modifying the programming task in a specific way.

Using it to double check logic would be a very good use of the tool.  It can help authors  write.  The output text is very accurate, yet pretty vanilla with respect to expression.

One CEO used it to write a letter laying off employees while incorporating a motivational quote.  She is getting filleted on media now as someone duplicated the letter with a couple simple commands.

[OldSkool]

14 hours ago, Raf said:

To some extent, Christ MUST be absent, or anticipating his return would be rather pointless. At the last supper, Jesus says do this "in remembrance" of me. You don't "remember" something that's present. You recognize it. You acknowledge it. You don't remember it. Christ must in some way be absent.

Ive said this before, and Im sure it's been lost in the fray, Christ is not absent in the sense that the way international teaches that he is absent. That in itself has always been my issue with the concept. We do agree that Christ isnt physically present as we would juxtapose absent/present. Present meaning in class for attendance (remedial example) vs. not physically present and therefore absent. Christ has not set up his kingdom on earth at this time and I cant make an appointment and see him at his office, so to speak. In this we agree. However, that has never been the postulate of my argument. We got here from a certain individual insisting that Christ's current state and function can only be the way wierwille described and all scripture and the rules of multiple languages be bent in order to accomodate wierwille's lies. There is also the fact that ascended != to absent.

I feel given the nature of the last supper, that it was instituted not so much to remember Christ physically present with his followers but more so as a means to remember two extremely important elements of his sacrifice as the passover, and at the risk of quoting wierwille, Christ's broken body and shed blood. I also feel that we do look forward to his kingdom on earth where he will be plain as day to all where we will live in a society of peace, love, and godliness. But in the meantime, as born again sons of God, are to interact with Christ in a relational manner something that is impossible to do when someone is truly absent. 

I think the various records of Jesus resurrection appearances offer some insight. At times Christ appeared out of thin air in a group of people who thought they were seeing a ghost. On the road to Emmaus he talked with two of his disciples for several hours as they journeyed and yet they didnt recognize him until:

Luke 24:30-32

And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

So basically, they didnt even recognize Christ until he did what he did the last time they ate together at the last supper:

Mark 14:22

And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

And yet Jesus was able to vanish out of their sight. By vanishing out of their sight does that make him absent? 

Jesus also vanished out of their sight on the day the ascension happened. So of course I would post the same question, does that make him absent? Or has he transcended our understanding in a new function with enablements that allows him to interact with his Church?

Or is he absent to those who dont know him or think its improper to praise and fellowship with him as scripture commands us to do?

We simply flat out disagree that me or anyone else takes Christ's place. We are ambassadors, representatives, witnesses, fellow-laborers, but the best I can do is point the way to Jesus Christ because it is Christ who adds to the body, it is Christ who is in charge of the new birth, it is Christ who has inherited all things and is in charge of the show until the kingdom is subdued and all things are under his feet.

The book of Acts clearly shows the activities of the body of Christ, especially God working with Christ in relation to the soul saving mission given to the Church with Jesus Christ directing the steps of the believers and the affairs of his Church according to the will of God. God transcended Christ to a position that we don't fully understand. Wierwille's theology does not line with scripture but seeks to pull Christ down from his Lordship and from a life giving spirit to what we can comprehend in a flesh and blood individual, which he no longer is.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by OldSkool

[OldSkool]

14 hours ago, Raf said:

So if your hope is in his return (Biblically, his presence), then the current state of affairs must necessarily imply, in some manner, his absence.

My hope is not so much on his physical prescence as all that his coming Kingdom represents: Eternal life, full redemption from corrupted bodies, God's Kingdom and ways being prevelant on earth with Christ ruling as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. In that sense then it truly is Christ's appearing to the rest of the world in a very different manner than he presently interacts.

[OldSkool]

14 hours ago, Mike said:

I'm willing to bow out of the thread, and let the chips settle where they may.

Of course you are! You will do anything to get out of actually discussing the verses I posted.

[Mike]

18 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

Of course you are! You will do anything to get out of actually discussing the verses I posted.

Not true!   I told you I liked your verses.  We can discuss them over in the Jumping thread.

I think what Raf mean is the thread should be about the absent Christ and not about attacking Mike.  That is what it degenerated to. 

Actually yesterday was the THIRD intervention by Raf.  Two pages before that he asked when the last on-topic posts went up.  I was the only one who answered in the affirmative.  So, that is why I wanted to cooperate with Raf.

OkdSkool, if you folks come up with anything new here in this thread, please let me me know and I'll participate.

[OldSkool]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

Not true!   I told you I liked your verses.  We can discuss them over in the Jumping thread.

I think what Raf mean is the thread should be about the absent Christ and not about attacking Mike.  That is what it degenerated to. 

Actually yesterday was the THIRD intervention by Raf.  Two pages before that he asked when the last on-topic posts went up.  I was the only one who answered in the affirmative.  So, that is why I wanted to cooperate with Raf.

OkdSkool, if you folks come up with anything new here in this thread, please let me me know and I'll participate.

Mike, you are using classic trollng methods to suck up to a moderator and try and convert them to your way of thinking and position. You showed that by going to another thread to assume some type of victory because Raf is involved? My Lord, Raf has done some of the best work expsosing the error in wierwille's doctrines. Im glad he decided to participate.