You wrote: "The first century people had more than you know. More then vp knew. More then you can grasp being limited to pfal (you aren't doing pfal anyway but your own version of it) and trying to make it work and give life."
But without having mastered it, how can you claim to know this. You know TVT mostly.
what makes you think I haven't mastered it?
***
You wrote: "Maybe you should check out the schools of thought at the time of Jesus's life. What he learned as he was growing up. It was more then just learning the scriptures and the law."
God deemed Jesus' youth mostly inconsequential, and that's why He didn't have that recorded in the scriptures. What He does have recorded is that Jesus was subject to his parents. In oriental customs that means he took up and studied the family business, and he studied the scriptures.
No you deem it that way-noone else does, especially God. You forget what vp said about the culture of the times and how important it is to know. It was more then learning the family business and the scriptures. Check out Moses' up bringing before his showing in Egypt.
What _IS_ important is how just after his youth Jesus handled the counterfeit visions he had in the desert with his mastery of what was written in those scriptures.
They were not counterfeit visions. They were real.
***
The manifestations of holy spirit are to build up. When tongues with interpretation or prophesy are properly operated in the church is built up much like words spoken from the flesh mind, except there is a supernatural edge to them. They are especially appropriate, more appropriate than the flesh mind could conjure.
Speaking in tongues builds up the spirit in ways that fleshly mind exercises cannot. There's nothing wrong with the mind being built up by the proper exercises, but they don't built up the spirit.
This is not what you said about the manifestations earlier. Once again I must point out that you do not understand the manifestations. Or the word church.
You suck off of various truths that I and others have said in this forum. Like a leech. When are you going to grow up and think for yourself?
The only reason I talk to you is because others here are listening.
Tom Strange, I love your comments. It reminds me of that little paperclip in Microsoft Word. Tapping on the window to remind us of things.
You wrote: "His statement "sincerity is no guarantee for truth" is just plain false and anti scriptural."
Well, if you strip that statement of it's context like you did, then I'd agree it IS false and misleading.
But Dr didn't just say it that way. Your memory is incomplete, and the TVT was incomplete on that point. Let's just see what Dr said in the class:
"... This is why in any one person the possibility for truth and error
is always there. You see if I rightly divide the Word of Truth on
salvation we have the true Word. But if I wrongly divide it in the
Holy Spirit field we have error.
"Now naturally I'll be sincere in both fields this is why I said to you
that sincerity is no guarantee for truth, absolutely not. Because
_sincerity is wonderful_ but you know it is just no guarantee
for truth. _Sincerity is a tremendous thing _and _you like to
see people when they are sincere_. And of course every time
you look at a minister or someone like this you say we'll he's
certainly a wonderful sincere person isn't he? That really doesn't
cut any ice with me _it's wonderful to be sincere _but sincerity
is no guarantee for truth."
So, in the more complete picture, sincerity is good, but not good enough to rightly divide the Word all by itself. More than sincerity is needed. Remember, he says sincerity is good four times there, but you forgot and over-abbreviated what he said.
Does this make you wonder how many other things you forgot or distorted in your memory from so long ago? It should.
Come back to PFAL and get it right and get bless in the process.
Actually Mike this segment sounds to me like a warning not to trust the smiling preacher we held in such high esteem. You seem to trust him blindly, doing the exact opposite of what he warned us about.
You have rejected deliverance more than once. I wipe the dust of my feet off against you. Until you get the deliverance you need or ask for it.
John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. 10But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.
And here you are-
Jude 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. 11Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. 12These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; 13Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. 14And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. 16These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.
and to the rest of us...
17But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. 19These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. 20But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. 24Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
... so that we may have access to his advanced abilities and approval...
This part is pretty much the only conclusion that I could draw since, when it comes to the dreaded Table of Challenge Mike is the sole arbitor. And if Mike is the sole arbitor of anything placed upon the aforementioned Table of Challenge then one would have to assume that he is using his advanced abilities... and for the life of me I can't think of a reason why anyone would bring something to the celebrated Table of Challenge for the express purpose of dis-approval... the statement seems to stand up to logical scrutiny...
...therefore...
Mike has offered a 'Table of Challenge' (which he claims exposes things which some would prefer to keep hidden away) so that we may have access to his advanced abilities and approval.
...shall remain... unless maybe I want to italicize some of the words in it...
oh... and I'll be sure to use a capital "W" next time...
On the other thread you wrote: "Wierwille altered his books many times, so even your book fails your own challenge."
1. He can't alter them now. As my standard, I will not alter them.
2. We were taught that revelation can change after the circumstances change.
3. I wasn't joking about (1), but some alterations in the earlier editions and printings were to get rid of proofreaders' erors, and printers errors. We were taught about them too.
So, def59, what's your standard? I want to refrain a little from pasting it again, but according to how I asked Tom above, how would you answer my questions?
They are scary, I admit.
But there's value in facing that fear and being honest. I won't say you're possessed or anything. I promise.
Before you disappear on me... what do you use as your unalterable standard, with which you line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them?
You asked me: "what makes you think I haven't mastered it?"
Lots of things. Here's one for starters: If you had mastered it, and you wanted to help me get deliverance as you state, you'd approach me from where I'm at, and you'd speak my language. You'd call to my mind the things I relate to, in your attempts to help me. But you don't speak anything like the language of PFAL; you don't come even close to relating to me.
***
I had written: "God deemed Jesus' youth mostly inconsequential, and that's why He didn't have that recorded in the scriptures. What He does have recorded is that Jesus was subject to his parents. In oriental customs that means he took up and studied the family business, and he studied the scriptures."
To that you responded: "No you deem it that way-no one else does, especially God. You forget what vp said about the culture of the times and how important it is to know. It was more then learning the family business and the scriptures. Check out Moses' up bringing before his showing in Egypt."
This doesn't sound at a like someone who has mastered PFAL. I'll admit that in my brevity I might have said more to make it more clear what I meant. When I said God deemed Jesus' youth mostly inconsequential, it's in the context following that I qualify it.
For better writing style I could have placed the qualifier closer to God's deeming, like this: God deemed the details of Jesus' youth inconsequential to us readers of the scriptures, and that's why He didn't have them recorded there for us.
You say no one deems it that way but me, but what about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Those writers left the details of Jesus' youth out of their accounts. Why? Because God wanted them left out. Those details would have thrown us off the path God wanted us to follow. Why did Jesus ascend and become invisible to us? Because God wanted him that way. God wanted us to know what is recorded in those four Gospels.
***
I had written: "What _IS_ important is how just after his youth Jesus handled the counterfeit visions he had in the desert with his mastery of what was written in those scriptures."
To that you responded: "They were not counterfeit visions. They were real."
They were real in that they were spiritual, but they were from the counterfeit god, the devil. Jesus recognized them as counterfeit, because he had mastered what God had written for him. Thus he rejected them.
I know no one asked me specifically, but I don't have an unalterable standard, with which I line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them
I think we discussed that long ago. I noted that you were one of the few willing and unashamed to have an abstract standard, or willing to admit you were winging it.
We also discussed how someone else here like you, who was not into the Bible per se, also had no fear with such an admission. I think it was Abigail.
It's the Bible theologian types who seem shy to admit that they don't have a solid and unalterable standard. I think it's because they want to believe that they measure everything up to the Bible, but WHICH Bible version? All versions have errors, so versions won't work.
They want to be free to alter all the solid, visible, store-bought Bible versions with their own research, or come up with a better translation of a Greek text passage, or find a best fitting ancient manuscript.
A temporary solution might be for them to say their standard is the original manuscripts, but that's abstract and can't be seen or weighed on my Table of Challenge. It's kind of difficult to measure everything up against a standard that can't be seen by anyone. Exactly what the originals say depends on who you ask, and when you ask them. One may translate a manuscript one way, another translator comes up with something else. Then years later they may have new data and new renditions. There's hardly an unalterable standard for those who choose the original manuscripts.
They can't have both: an unalterable solid standard, and their ability to discover better renditions of passages.
***
Yes, I think it was Abigail who correctly noted that Dr's unalterable standard must be abstract.
His standard was the spiritual, unalterable Word of God, the revelations the Father promised Him in 1942, and not the solid, existent natural/factual manuscripts.
It used to bother me to no end when Dr would say things like: "We haven't found a manuscript yet, but my spiritual perception tells me that it should read..." or another one was: "We FINALLY found a manuscript that proves what I knew all along..."
Those kinds of statements he made not too often, but I did hear them at least four times. All four times absolutely galled me, because I didn't understand it when he said that he decided on the one center of reference outside himself to be the Word of God, that he was selecting an abstract standard. I was thinking his standard was the originals.
In my Table of Challenge I changed the wording to hide what I was referring to. Dr never talked about a Table of Challenge at all. I chose that wording to build the concepts on, and then later on re-introduce Dr's terminology.
Dr's "center of reference outside himself" corresponds to my "unalterable standard that is bigger than oneself."
Dr could select an abstract, spiritual Word of God as his standard, because he had the 1942 promise to steer him right. He eventually produced for us a solid standard, the written PFAL. Before 1942 there WAS no solid standard that was the written Word of God.
If there was such a solid written Word before (and hence after) 1942, then all the theologians here would have proudly plunk it down on my Table of Challenge and say "There is my solid, unalterable standard that is bigger than me."
A few tried to plunk some things down, but then took off when I asked them about it conforming to the definitions of what I was asking for, like it being unalterable, or how it could serve as a standard for accepting or rejecting, or was it solid enough for others to see it.
All that is recorded in the "Masters..." thread for those who care to search it out.
I'm tired, and it's one in the morning here. I proofread all of the above, but tomorrow will tell how well I did it. It seems to fit, but we'll see.
Before you disappear on me... what do you use as your unalterable standard, with which you line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them?
My personal unalterable standard or "rule" - when weighing and pondering the NT writings, as to what I think is ultimately genuine and what is not: the character of Krestus, as exemplified through His goodness.
You wroteL: "unalterable standard __ mike has one? That's a good one! lol...lol...lol... __ I needed a good laugh this morning..."
What's so funny? -->
I put my PFAL books on my Table of Challege, and I don't try to alter them at all, like I many times have altered my KJV.
If I see something in PFAL, I now see it as bigger than me, so if I disagree with some passage, I change my thinking to line up with IT, and not the other way around.
***
Earlier you wrote: "I'm probably one of the few speaking mike's language"
So I don't get it.
Do you understand my use of the idea of "unalterable standard" but disagree with my choice of such a standard?
I'm guessing here.
Another guess is that you have some science backgrond, so my language and use of the idea of a standard is familiar to you?
Help me out here when you're done laughing. I can't tell if yer fer me of agin me.
I think you might not understand my questions exactly. Let me re-explain them.
We all hear many things in the course of a day.
After hearing something, in your decision whether to accept and believe it, versus deny and reject it, what standard do you use THERE?
It sounds like maybe you use the winging method, or maybe the winging it by revelation?
-------Do you look in the storehouse of your mind to something that was written for such decisions,
-------OR do you look to your spontaneous feelings at each moment such a decision is called for,
-------OR do you ask for revelation each time?
I'm not trying to beat you up or anything here. I'm just trying to draw out of you what your exact decision proceedures are.
Hardly ANYONE ever does this, examine their decision making proceedures, so don't feel bad if it's new to you.
It can be scary to do this because it can get us wondering about ourselves. That can be good, though, because we can then set out to consciously decide what proceedures we use, rather than just running along and making many accept/reject unconscious judgments on the fly.
I thought of some more details to help explain my questioning here.
It's not the general stand that you take in life that i'm looking for, it's the everyday nuts and bolts of how that stand is implemented that I am trying to direct attention to.
Usually, in everyday life, when I make decisions as to whether I accept or reject something I hear, the process is so fast I wouldn't be able to answer for myself the kinds of questions I'm asking you here.
It's when I face a more difficult such decision, where it's not so fast, that I can actually see by introspection what procedures I use. If I am searching the storehouse of my mind for how to decide, that's when I see MY recently chosen standard for deciding: the written PFAL I've stored there.
Once in a while I can't decide, and I actually open up the books to look for the answer, increasing my storehouse for quicker future decisions. Sometimes this slower process can take weeks, months and even years for an issue.
So my questions might be more answerable in this just described context.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
29
23
17
106
Popular Days
Jan 20
29
Feb 23
26
Jan 21
25
Jan 22
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 29 posts
def59 23 posts
Oakspear 17 posts
Mike 106 posts
Popular Days
Jan 20 2005
29 posts
Feb 23 2005
26 posts
Jan 21 2005
25 posts
Jan 22 2005
23 posts
WordWolf
The part about your approval is based on how you've behaved about people not accepting
your "Table of Challenge". I honestly don't remember you offering access to
"advanced abilities", but that's no guarantee you did not. Your approval was
predicated upon accepting your challenge. So, the second part, at least, is most
definitely the TRUTH.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
You suck off of various truths that I and others have said in this forum. Like a leech. When are you going to grow up and think for yourself?
The only reason I talk to you is because others here are listening.
Tom Strange, I love your comments. It reminds me of that little paperclip in Microsoft Word. Tapping on the window to remind us of things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Actually Mike this segment sounds to me like a warning not to trust the smiling preacher we held in such high esteem. You seem to trust him blindly, doing the exact opposite of what he warned us about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
This is my last answer to you Mike.
You have rejected deliverance more than once. I wipe the dust of my feet off against you. Until you get the deliverance you need or ask for it.
John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. 10But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.
And here you are-
Jude 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. 11Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. 12These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; 13Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. 14And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. 16These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.
and to the rest of us...
17But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. 19These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. 20But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. 24Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
Love to all, even Mike,
Vert
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
... so that we may have access to his advanced abilities and approval...
This part is pretty much the only conclusion that I could draw since, when it comes to the dreaded Table of Challenge Mike is the sole arbitor. And if Mike is the sole arbitor of anything placed upon the aforementioned Table of Challenge then one would have to assume that he is using his advanced abilities... and for the life of me I can't think of a reason why anyone would bring something to the celebrated Table of Challenge for the express purpose of dis-approval... the statement seems to stand up to logical scrutiny...
...therefore...
Mike has offered a 'Table of Challenge' (which he claims exposes things which some would prefer to keep hidden away) so that we may have access to his advanced abilities and approval.
...shall remain... unless maybe I want to italicize some of the words in it...
oh... and I'll be sure to use a capital "W" next time...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
What do you use as your unalterable standard, with which you line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them?
Do you HAVE an unalterable standard like that, or do you wing it?
If you have one, is it something tangible or abstract, as in having weight if I put a bathroom scale on the table under it?
Is it a book that can be seen, or a set of books? Or is it a set of books that disappeared from sight many centuries ago?
Remember the rule here is unalterable.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
def59
All books are altered over time as language changes. Even your precious (See Smeegal from LOTR) So what are you so uncoyly hinting at?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
What books do you mean here?
On the other thread you wrote: "Wierwille altered his books many times, so even your book fails your own challenge."
1. He can't alter them now. As my standard, I will not alter them.
2. We were taught that revelation can change after the circumstances change.
3. I wasn't joking about (1), but some alterations in the earlier editions and printings were to get rid of proofreaders' erors, and printers errors. We were taught about them too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So, def59, what's your standard? I want to refrain a little from pasting it again, but according to how I asked Tom above, how would you answer my questions?
They are scary, I admit.
But there's value in facing that fear and being honest. I won't say you're possessed or anything. I promise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
From the lost epistle of II Wayshua:
Praised be the God Pia-Fay-EL,
to the Fateful and Beat Livers
of Old Knocks, O Hide all.
In the name of our Victor
Paul Wherewithal.
To the Glowry of Way-shoo-ah
Lo-Shon-ta!
So soon are ye transferred
from here -
to over there.
Not are ye here
-but where? - over there:
to a different Pia-Fay-EL
which is not another!
But even if a mother or a brother
should proclaim a different Pia-Fay-EL
from what I have taught you so well:
[let them] be accursed!
I say again
[let them] be accursed!
(what'chu say?)
[let them] be accursed!
Beware of Kosmic Kraiggers
wearing bedsheets for clothing,
who would sear your minds
with nought errands
worthy of loathing.
Victory and Abundance
to good sports everywhere
in the name of our extremely tiny
lord.
Amen.
and goodnite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Dan,
Before you disappear on me... what do you use as your unalterable standard, with which you line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Vertical Limit,
You asked me: "what makes you think I haven't mastered it?"
Lots of things. Here's one for starters: If you had mastered it, and you wanted to help me get deliverance as you state, you'd approach me from where I'm at, and you'd speak my language. You'd call to my mind the things I relate to, in your attempts to help me. But you don't speak anything like the language of PFAL; you don't come even close to relating to me.
***
I had written: "God deemed Jesus' youth mostly inconsequential, and that's why He didn't have that recorded in the scriptures. What He does have recorded is that Jesus was subject to his parents. In oriental customs that means he took up and studied the family business, and he studied the scriptures."
To that you responded: "No you deem it that way-no one else does, especially God. You forget what vp said about the culture of the times and how important it is to know. It was more then learning the family business and the scriptures. Check out Moses' up bringing before his showing in Egypt."
This doesn't sound at a like someone who has mastered PFAL. I'll admit that in my brevity I might have said more to make it more clear what I meant. When I said God deemed Jesus' youth mostly inconsequential, it's in the context following that I qualify it.
For better writing style I could have placed the qualifier closer to God's deeming, like this: God deemed the details of Jesus' youth inconsequential to us readers of the scriptures, and that's why He didn't have them recorded there for us.
You say no one deems it that way but me, but what about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Those writers left the details of Jesus' youth out of their accounts. Why? Because God wanted them left out. Those details would have thrown us off the path God wanted us to follow. Why did Jesus ascend and become invisible to us? Because God wanted him that way. God wanted us to know what is recorded in those four Gospels.
***
I had written: "What _IS_ important is how just after his youth Jesus handled the counterfeit visions he had in the desert with his mastery of what was written in those scriptures."
To that you responded: "They were not counterfeit visions. They were real."
They were real in that they were spiritual, but they were from the counterfeit god, the devil. Jesus recognized them as counterfeit, because he had mastered what God had written for him. Thus he rejected them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Vert,
I almost forgot: Do you use an unalterable standard, with which you line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I know no one asked me specifically, but I don't have an unalterable standard, with which I line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
I think we discussed that long ago. I noted that you were one of the few willing and unashamed to have an abstract standard, or willing to admit you were winging it.
We also discussed how someone else here like you, who was not into the Bible per se, also had no fear with such an admission. I think it was Abigail.
It's the Bible theologian types who seem shy to admit that they don't have a solid and unalterable standard. I think it's because they want to believe that they measure everything up to the Bible, but WHICH Bible version? All versions have errors, so versions won't work.
They want to be free to alter all the solid, visible, store-bought Bible versions with their own research, or come up with a better translation of a Greek text passage, or find a best fitting ancient manuscript.
A temporary solution might be for them to say their standard is the original manuscripts, but that's abstract and can't be seen or weighed on my Table of Challenge. It's kind of difficult to measure everything up against a standard that can't be seen by anyone. Exactly what the originals say depends on who you ask, and when you ask them. One may translate a manuscript one way, another translator comes up with something else. Then years later they may have new data and new renditions. There's hardly an unalterable standard for those who choose the original manuscripts.
They can't have both: an unalterable solid standard, and their ability to discover better renditions of passages.
***
Yes, I think it was Abigail who correctly noted that Dr's unalterable standard must be abstract.
His standard was the spiritual, unalterable Word of God, the revelations the Father promised Him in 1942, and not the solid, existent natural/factual manuscripts.
It used to bother me to no end when Dr would say things like: "We haven't found a manuscript yet, but my spiritual perception tells me that it should read..." or another one was: "We FINALLY found a manuscript that proves what I knew all along..."
Those kinds of statements he made not too often, but I did hear them at least four times. All four times absolutely galled me, because I didn't understand it when he said that he decided on the one center of reference outside himself to be the Word of God, that he was selecting an abstract standard. I was thinking his standard was the originals.
In my Table of Challenge I changed the wording to hide what I was referring to. Dr never talked about a Table of Challenge at all. I chose that wording to build the concepts on, and then later on re-introduce Dr's terminology.
Dr's "center of reference outside himself" corresponds to my "unalterable standard that is bigger than oneself."
Dr could select an abstract, spiritual Word of God as his standard, because he had the 1942 promise to steer him right. He eventually produced for us a solid standard, the written PFAL. Before 1942 there WAS no solid standard that was the written Word of God.
If there was such a solid written Word before (and hence after) 1942, then all the theologians here would have proudly plunk it down on my Table of Challenge and say "There is my solid, unalterable standard that is bigger than me."
A few tried to plunk some things down, but then took off when I asked them about it conforming to the definitions of what I was asking for, like it being unalterable, or how it could serve as a standard for accepting or rejecting, or was it solid enough for others to see it.
All that is recorded in the "Masters..." thread for those who care to search it out.
I'm tired, and it's one in the morning here. I proofread all of the above, but tomorrow will tell how well I did it. It seems to fit, but we'll see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
My personal unalterable standard or "rule" - when weighing and pondering the NT writings, as to what I think is ultimately genuine and what is not: the character of Krestus, as exemplified through His goodness.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
lol...I'm probably one of the few speaking mike's language....
can't help but chuckle a bit at his responses..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
lol...you tell me what you think of vp's writings and I'll tell you how far you will go spiritually....lol
lol...lol....lol......lol.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
"unalterable standard"
mike has one? That's a good one! lol...lol...lol...
I needed a good laugh this morning...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CM,
You wroteL: "unalterable standard __ mike has one? That's a good one! lol...lol...lol... __ I needed a good laugh this morning..."
What's so funny?
-->
I put my PFAL books on my Table of Challege, and I don't try to alter them at all, like I many times have altered my KJV.
If I see something in PFAL, I now see it as bigger than me, so if I disagree with some passage, I change my thinking to line up with IT, and not the other way around.
***
Earlier you wrote: "I'm probably one of the few speaking mike's language"
So I don't get it.
Do you understand my use of the idea of "unalterable standard" but disagree with my choice of such a standard?
I'm guessing here.
Another guess is that you have some science backgrond, so my language and use of the idea of a standard is familiar to you?
Help me out here when you're done laughing. I can't tell if yer fer me of agin me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
"So I don't get it."
I think he got it!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I guess my standard is the faith and trust I put in Christ and that he will make good on his promises.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
I think you might not understand my questions exactly. Let me re-explain them.
We all hear many things in the course of a day.
After hearing something, in your decision whether to accept and believe it, versus deny and reject it, what standard do you use THERE?
It sounds like maybe you use the winging method, or maybe the winging it by revelation?
-------Do you look in the storehouse of your mind to something that was written for such decisions,
-------OR do you look to your spontaneous feelings at each moment such a decision is called for,
-------OR do you ask for revelation each time?
I'm not trying to beat you up or anything here. I'm just trying to draw out of you what your exact decision proceedures are.
Hardly ANYONE ever does this, examine their decision making proceedures, so don't feel bad if it's new to you.
It can be scary to do this because it can get us wondering about ourselves. That can be good, though, because we can then set out to consciously decide what proceedures we use, rather than just running along and making many accept/reject unconscious judgments on the fly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
I thought of some more details to help explain my questioning here.
It's not the general stand that you take in life that i'm looking for, it's the everyday nuts and bolts of how that stand is implemented that I am trying to direct attention to.
Usually, in everyday life, when I make decisions as to whether I accept or reject something I hear, the process is so fast I wouldn't be able to answer for myself the kinds of questions I'm asking you here.
It's when I face a more difficult such decision, where it's not so fast, that I can actually see by introspection what procedures I use. If I am searching the storehouse of my mind for how to decide, that's when I see MY recently chosen standard for deciding: the written PFAL I've stored there.
Once in a while I can't decide, and I actually open up the books to look for the answer, increasing my storehouse for quicker future decisions. Sometimes this slower process can take weeks, months and even years for an issue.
So my questions might be more answerable in this just described context.
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.