Do you actually use an UNALTERABLE Bible version as your standard?
Don't you reserve the right to alter your Bible version if you find an error by the translators, or if the translators used a section that is not in the earliest manuscripts?
I know of a sect that uses the KJV as an unaterable God-breathed text. They are pretty kooky, in my opinion.
You don't strike me as being that kooky. :)--> I'll bet you DO alter your Bible version, if not with white-out and ink or in the margins, at least in your mind.
Mike -- for what it is worth -- I am always open to comments, *interpretations*, and teachings on what the bible may have to say.
I have never claimed to know it all, and I am the first to admit that others more scholastically inclined than I, have a better handle (if you will) on the subject in question.
What I vehemently disagree to, is the lauding *to the heavans* of one man's "work", saying that his ideas are the *revelation* that all need to adhere to.
Number 1 -- Docvic stole all that he taught, and passed it off as his own work.
Number 2 -- He created a hierarchy that firmly believed in him as the MOG.
Number 3 -- He got a bunch of us to believe his line of B (as in) B, and S (as in) S
inmho -- docvic is no better than any other *modern day writer*, though I will admit to the fact, that he gives one something to think about, in some of what he presented.
This is hardly sufficient grounds to give him credence over other writers, who have differing opinions, and definately NOT sufficient grounds to say that Jesus Christ is reading from pfal. That (with no idea of proper documentation) has got to be the *unforgivable sin*.
Suppose I did blaspheme the Son. Are you aware that Jesus said that the unforgivable sin was NOT attached to blesphemy of the Son, only the Holy Spirit? Look it up.
I suppose lots of Christians once wondered about Paul, a determined deprogrammer/killer of Christians, when he said that he was getting instructions personally from the same Jesus he had previously persecuted.
***
This is rough stuff. I'd like to handle it as gently as I tried to do with def59 on the other proPFAL thread, but sometimes I don't quite know how to. Somehow over there it seemed to work. These matters are delicate because they strike right at the heart of life's most basic issues.
Can I just get to the point, and then later smooth over any bruised ego I may incur? Maybe I just feel you can handle it, so here goes.
***
Ok, you've just changed the subject. This happens a lot when I start making a point that hits home. I have before, and can handle your objections as stated, but let's recognize them as a change of the subject. And then let's wrap up the last subject before getting to your objections.
May I infer from the fact you changed the subject that you do NOT have an unalterable standard?
And may I infer from your choice to defer to scholars that that you therefore rely on others to do the work of lining things up to THEIR standard(s) for you?
As soon as I nailed the alterability of your submitted standard you dropped that issue and brought in the scholars you trust to handle things for you.
This immediately brings up the issue of how you chose your trusted scholars. Do you have an unalterable standard in this, or is it whoever impresses you at the moment. I would venture a guess that you wing it here too.
To understand what i mean by "winging it" please refer to my discussion with def59 at:
Might I at this point remind you that at one time you chose Dr as your trusted scholar? How do you know that the scholars you presently trust won't let you down too? I say this to hit home the extreme importance of these issue, and how easy it is to go wrong if we don't put all the resources of our intelligence into seeking God first.
Many people trusted in Dr as a man, and paid little attention to the exact things he taught. They received only part of his message, and mostly enjoyed the social setting of TWI at that time. Then all hell broke loose.
I avoided trusting him as a man, but I looked as close at his message as possible, always maintaining a "safe" distance. Maybe this is why I was less shocked by all the junk that came out, and was able to come back to the message.
In all my posting I have maintained that the message in the written PFAL is what I exalt, that it was NOT the work of a flawed man, but that it was the work of the Perfect God, IN SPITE of the man's flaws.
I do not trust in the man, but in the God Who gave him revelations. The written PFAl cannot be judged by looking at the man, only by reading the text.
All of this homage to PFAL comes long after the man's death. He gets no rewards from me, nor from any grad who comes back to the work he had a part, only a PART, in producing.
Your emotional turning away from the perfect message, only to turn to another set of personalities, will give you similar results in the long run: great disappointment. Scripture says cursed be the man who trusts in man. I know that you THINK I trust in a man, but I tell you it is you who are doing that. You trust in your ability to wing it, and you trust in the scholarly men your winging it has brought you to... lately. You forget that your winging it brought you to great disappointment in vpw.
I suggest you find a written standard that you and the Father can work on together and alone. I suggest you choose written PFAL as your unalterable standard. You don't need the help of any scholars to dive into those writings. All the things you detest in vpw are absent from PFAL. The Father worked with vpw in spite of himself, and he will work with you too.
"I do not trust in the man, but in the God Who gave him revelations. The written PFAl cannot be judged by looking at the man, only by reading the text.
All of this homage to PFAL comes long after the man's death. He gets no rewards from me, nor from any grad who comes back to the work he had a part, only a PART, in producing."
PFAL is VPW. they part and parcel one and the same. It is a book of his views, life experiences and opinions. It his understanding of the what the bible says. The same can and should be said about what Charles Stanley writes, Chuck Swindoll writes or Joseph Smith wrote. To say otherwise makes it an idol.
What many here have been saying is that PFAL is NOT what vpw had to say, but what others had to say!!!!!! It's splashed all over this website!
I'm telling you that Dr told us often that he gathered much of the PFAL material from others, who go it from God; God supervised the project.
***
You wrote: "PFAL is VPW. they part and parcel one and the same. It is a book of his views, life experiences and opinions. It his understanding of the what the bible says."
That's YOUR opinion. My opinion is, no, God guided him AND his editorial staff to strip out all of that. Who's opinion is right? If you want to ask others' opinions on this, you may get a majority vote, but that would STILL be just an opinion. We need to dig deeper to see the answer, to get God's overriding opinion which is the Truth. The only way to do that is to open the books and ask God as we study.
Or we could ask a trusted scholar, like I was discussing with dmiller, and have some more to post on following this post. But then we only have a scholarly opinion, which is still human, and still far from God's opinion.
***
You wrote: "The same can and should be said about what Charles Stanley writes, Chuck Swindoll writes or Joseph Smith wrote."
How about saying it about Paul? Could you say that Paul's epistles are just Paul ad his opinions about Jesus and the Old testament? Many do say just that, even in churches. What makes Paul's writings more than opinion? Here's what makes Paul's writings far above those of Stanley, Swindoll, and Smith: God gave Paul revelation. IT'S THE SAME WITH VICTOR PAUL.
I woke up this morning with an important addition to my post to you of last night.
One of the greatest benefits of God's 1942 intervention in matters theological, is our liberation from the need to lean on scholars for guidance in the very difficult areas of ancient manuscripts, languages, history, geography, etc. All of that is done for us in God's PFAL revelations in written form.
I have often posted on this liberation from academia in one way or another, but I wanted to specifically bring it to your attention.
We still must apply ourselves to rightly divide PFAL, but we no longer need to check out everything written there with scholars. If we can read English, we can gain as full an understanding of God's Word in PFAL as our intellect is capable of.
In the days when we relied on scholars, both inside the ministry and outside, to verify things, we still had to be able to read the English reports they would furnish us. And how many times do those scholars write in English somewhat above our heads? Too many times for me!
Taking our ability to read English and coming back to PFAL and focusing it now totally on that relatively simple reading material is all we need to do to see all the promises of God come to pass.
But what if we dig deeper and find PFAL lacking. Many have and you still reject them. In fact, you won't even face their challenges. You dodge, distract and attack, but you don't face up to the problems they have brought up.
The problems begin with vpw's biography and his extemporary statements made in times and places where you weren't.
The 1942 revelation is doubted because there is no record of any snowfall in that area on that date.
The Tulsa story is questioned, because again there's no evidence to support the blizzard story either.
Some of his "sources" doctrinal beliefs are questioned because of their gnostic or non-Christian bases.
Answer the questions Mike or be accused of worshipping a book.
Somehow I've spread myself a little thin these past few days by posting on too many threads.
I have copied your three posts above to a backlog file so that this weekend I can try and get to them.
Just about all of the points you brought up in these three posts have been handled over the past two years in my posting or a few others' posting, but I don't mind repeating them. It's good practice for me.
Of the 4 objections you listed above, 3 of them are stated in ways I would not agree with. They mis-represent me and my stand.
The third one is close, but highly abbreviated. However, for me to explain what I mean by that is more than lengthy. It involves explaining what it means for Christ to be seated at the right hand of the Father, and how our relationship with Jesus Christ is supposed to now be a spiritual one and not a natural 5-senses one. Explaining that is more than lengthy and time consuming.
The explanation is rooted in that "Ubiquitous" thread, which was pretty long.
Acts 1:11 and II Cor.5:16 (among others) indicate that our relationship with Jesus Christ is to be different than the one that was available in the 4 Gospels. Most people look for and yearn for a natural 5-senses type of relationship with him. If God wanted him to have that kind of physical visibility He wouldn't have willed that Jesus LEAVE the senses realm and ascend to His right hand, which is spiritual, not senses natural.
Jesus' first coming was natural, his second is spiritual. Until all these things are understood, explaining what it means for him to learn from or teach PFAL is pretty much impossible, impossible that is without great study of PFAL.
Maybe you can take my word for it that I call Jesus my Lord and that I believe in my heart that God raised him from the dead. THAT kind of statement is much more easy to understand than what I've seen and stated regarding him and PFAL.
I can see your point when I adopt your point of view that the author of PFAL was a man.
Can you see, though, that if the true Author was Jesus' Father, and then remember that with God (and the seat at His right hand) there is no time, then our ability to imagine should not be trusted?
God showed Jesus the future fruit of his suffering; He set before him the joy to endure the cross.
God showed the future paradise to Paul, so he too could endure his persecutions.
These showings were not mere snapshots, but intense learning situations transcending time as we know it. These things defy our concept of time.
It is to these learning scenes I refer, and I do that only for motivational purposes, not for linear 5-senses translation. We can't do that at all, but we CAN gird the loins of our minds and get busy learning of the same Author that Jesus and Paul learned from.
Suppose I did blaspheme the Son. Are you aware that Jesus said that the unforgivable sin was NOT attached to blesphemy of the Son, only the Holy Spirit? Look it up.
I used * -- * marks around my comment, making it a (not so facetious statement), yet more of a sarcastic one, for which I apologize.
I find it both ludicrious, and ridiculous that Jesus Christ (sitting at the right hand of the Father -- God) would be reading from the works of vpw, which were all plagiarized, instead of listening to the *author* instead -- right there at His left hand.
Certainly I know that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the *unforgivable sin*, and I'm mulling that one over in my mind, as to what it means, but what I did was put your statement into the heap of rhetorical junk that one normally finds from denominationally promoted blindness, and propagated as doctrine. :)-->
I can't explain it, but I know what I have seen and do see.
One CRUDE way of explaining it, and remember this is crude: Jesus finishes his job 2000 years ago, teaching as much as anyone could accept. God then says to him, "I got a job for you in the future" and he ascends. In the next instant for him and it's his second coming.
We should be asking ourselves WHY is Paul's time "travel" adventure to the future documented for us there in his writing.
We should be asking ourselves what Paul saw there... or here.
We should be asking ourselves what was that joy all about that God showed Jesus and for which he endured the cross.
We should be asking ourselves why God would have Paul ask US in the future, via his writings addressed to us, to pray retroactively for him in the past.
Time is a useful thing for us here in the earthly realm, but when we try to impose it on God, and what takes place at his right hand, we are intruding into an area where we cannot expect to guess it right.
These matters are best understood by meekly accepting what God makes available to us... like His PFAL revelations to Dr.
I do think we can communicate, as more common ground is discovered.
As we look at what is written in the printed pages of PFAL, and not in our fading memories, or the very common TVT doctrines, I think my last words will take on a more sane look to you.
You wrote: "So ethics has nothing to do with PFAL, or the 'godly' mastery thereof? A waste even?"
Garth, Garth, Garth,... ( :D--> I learned this technique from Linda Z today ) ...you said that I said that "ethics has nothing to do with PFAL," yet what I actually said was that it was "ETHICS DISCUSSIONS" that I didn't want to bog us down.
There's a big difference between "ethics" and "ethics discussions" isn't there?
***
Do you think you ALSO just maybe might possibly be taking my words a little teensy weensy measly bit out of context? ;)-->
No?
Well let's look at the context, ok? ...and let the folks at home decide.
I wrote: "Have you ever wondered about Joshua and the other spies Moses sent behind enemy lines? I always wondered if they lied about their identities. How about our dads and grandfathers who fought in WWII? Do you suppose that in addition to their killing other Christian Germans, they might have lied to them too in undercover situations? Which would have been worse shooting a bullet at them or shooting a lie at them? __ I don't want to get bogged down in ethics discussions, so let's not go there, another waste of precious PFAL mastery time. OK? I just wanted to mention these things for pondering, or other thread ideas for other people."
So, Garth, Garth, Garth, (possibly some technique overkill here?:(--> ) maybe you should go ahead and have that ethics discussion somewhere, sometime, and see just how bogged down it gets, without a solid, tangible, readable-by-all, unalterable standard rule for all faith and practice with which to measure all ethical decisions by.
Meanwhile, as for me, I most certainly DO have such a standard on which to construct my ethics executions, without discussion, and I'll continue to encourage PFAL mastery so that others can have solid ethics, as well as power to bless well.
I'm all for ethics, but wandering standardless ethics discussions are not my cup of tea.
I can't explain it, but I know what I have seen and do see.
One CRUDE way of explaining it, and remember this is crude: Jesus finishes his job 2000 years ago, teaching as much as anyone could accept. God then says to him, "I got a job for you in the future" and he ascends. In the next instant for him and it's his second coming.
We should be asking ourselves WHY is Paul's time "travel" adventure to the future documented for us there in his writing.
We should be asking ourselves what Paul saw there... or here.
We should be asking ourselves what was that joy all about that God showed Jesus and for which he endured the cross.
We should be asking ourselves why God would have Paul ask US in the future, via his writings addressed to us, to pray retroactively for him in the past.
Time is a useful thing for us here in the earthly realm, but when we try to impose it on God, and what takes place at his right hand, we are intruding into an area where we cannot expect to guess it right.
These matters are best understood by meekly accepting what God makes available to us... like His PFAL revelations to Dr.
Ok, Mike invoked "Paul's time travel" again.
5 points to anyone who can guess the contents of my next post. :D-->
=====
Mike,
Sometimes, I think you can understand why we find the concept of Jesus Christ,
in the presence of his Father, learning anything from a book when his Father
is RIGHT THERE utterly ludicrous no matter what you or Johnny Cochran would say.
Sometimes, I think you can understand why we find the concept of Jesus Christ, in the presence of his Father, learning anything from a book when his Father is RIGHT THERE utterly ludicrous no matter what you or Johnny Cochren would say. Other times, I'm sure you'd never see it.
"Mike" will never see it, WordWolf. "Mike" can see only what his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit allows him to see. That's what happens when you surrender your ability to judge, by accepting an obvious lie as truth. That's what it means to have an "adokimos" mind.
"Sometimes, I think you can understand why we find the concept of Jesus Christ, in the presence of his Father, learning anything from a book when his Father is RIGHT THERE utterly ludicrous no matter what you or Johnny Cochren would say. Other times, I'm sure you'd never see it.
Your use of the word "when" is why you feeling of my statement being utterly ludicrous should be suspected.
Your use of that word injects time into an area where it does not belong.
In addition to that, you are assuming that this learning takes place NOT on earth, the natural/factual senses realm, but in heaven at God's right hand, the spiritual/divine realm.
What makes you think that Jesus Christ is not on earth now?
What makes your theology of the Second Coming so accurate that you can definitively say it's all future? Instead of trying to understand or ridicule my statements, why don't you examine your fundamental assumptions of how the Second Coming works? I suggest that if you want to do that with any certainty you will have to separate yourself from world theologians and accept the teaching that God gave us in PFAL.
When it is the case that YOU YOURSELF are learning from PFAL again, then, AND ONLY THEN, you will have an understanding of what I've said on this subject of Christ learning from it.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
23
55
Popular Days
Jan 22
41
Jan 24
17
Feb 1
16
Jan 31
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 22 posts
def59 22 posts
WordWolf 23 posts
Mike 55 posts
Popular Days
Jan 22 2005
41 posts
Jan 24 2005
17 posts
Feb 1 2005
16 posts
Jan 31 2005
14 posts
dmiller
Mike -- for what it is worth -- I am always open to comments, *interpretations*, and teachings on what the bible may have to say.
I have never claimed to know it all, and I am the first to admit that others more scholastically inclined than I, have a better handle (if you will) on the subject in question.
What I vehemently disagree to, is the lauding *to the heavans* of one man's "work", saying that his ideas are the *revelation* that all need to adhere to.
Number 1 -- Docvic stole all that he taught, and passed it off as his own work.
Number 2 -- He created a hierarchy that firmly believed in him as the MOG.
Number 3 -- He got a bunch of us to believe his line of B (as in) B, and S (as in) S
inmho -- docvic is no better than any other *modern day writer*, though I will admit to the fact, that he gives one something to think about, in some of what he presented.
This is hardly sufficient grounds to give him credence over other writers, who have differing opinions, and definately NOT sufficient grounds to say that Jesus Christ is reading from pfal. That (with no idea of proper documentation) has got to be the *unforgivable sin*.
You exceed yourself.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
Suppose I did blaspheme the Son. Are you aware that Jesus said that the unforgivable sin was NOT attached to blesphemy of the Son, only the Holy Spirit? Look it up.
I suppose lots of Christians once wondered about Paul, a determined deprogrammer/killer of Christians, when he said that he was getting instructions personally from the same Jesus he had previously persecuted.
***
This is rough stuff. I'd like to handle it as gently as I tried to do with def59 on the other proPFAL thread, but sometimes I don't quite know how to. Somehow over there it seemed to work. These matters are delicate because they strike right at the heart of life's most basic issues.
Can I just get to the point, and then later smooth over any bruised ego I may incur? Maybe I just feel you can handle it, so here goes.
***
Ok, you've just changed the subject. This happens a lot when I start making a point that hits home. I have before, and can handle your objections as stated, but let's recognize them as a change of the subject. And then let's wrap up the last subject before getting to your objections.
May I infer from the fact you changed the subject that you do NOT have an unalterable standard?
And may I infer from your choice to defer to scholars that that you therefore rely on others to do the work of lining things up to THEIR standard(s) for you?
As soon as I nailed the alterability of your submitted standard you dropped that issue and brought in the scholars you trust to handle things for you.
This immediately brings up the issue of how you chose your trusted scholars. Do you have an unalterable standard in this, or is it whoever impresses you at the moment. I would venture a guess that you wing it here too.
To understand what i mean by "winging it" please refer to my discussion with def59 at:
http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=9...07248#595107248
Might I at this point remind you that at one time you chose Dr as your trusted scholar? How do you know that the scholars you presently trust won't let you down too? I say this to hit home the extreme importance of these issue, and how easy it is to go wrong if we don't put all the resources of our intelligence into seeking God first.
Many people trusted in Dr as a man, and paid little attention to the exact things he taught. They received only part of his message, and mostly enjoyed the social setting of TWI at that time. Then all hell broke loose.
I avoided trusting him as a man, but I looked as close at his message as possible, always maintaining a "safe" distance. Maybe this is why I was less shocked by all the junk that came out, and was able to come back to the message.
In all my posting I have maintained that the message in the written PFAL is what I exalt, that it was NOT the work of a flawed man, but that it was the work of the Perfect God, IN SPITE of the man's flaws.
I do not trust in the man, but in the God Who gave him revelations. The written PFAl cannot be judged by looking at the man, only by reading the text.
All of this homage to PFAL comes long after the man's death. He gets no rewards from me, nor from any grad who comes back to the work he had a part, only a PART, in producing.
Your emotional turning away from the perfect message, only to turn to another set of personalities, will give you similar results in the long run: great disappointment. Scripture says cursed be the man who trusts in man. I know that you THINK I trust in a man, but I tell you it is you who are doing that. You trust in your ability to wing it, and you trust in the scholarly men your winging it has brought you to... lately. You forget that your winging it brought you to great disappointment in vpw.
I suggest you find a written standard that you and the Father can work on together and alone. I suggest you choose written PFAL as your unalterable standard. You don't need the help of any scholars to dive into those writings. All the things you detest in vpw are absent from PFAL. The Father worked with vpw in spite of himself, and he will work with you too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Mike you said on January 27, 2005 04:31
"I do not trust in the man, but in the God Who gave him revelations. The written PFAl cannot be judged by looking at the man, only by reading the text.
All of this homage to PFAL comes long after the man's death. He gets no rewards from me, nor from any grad who comes back to the work he had a part, only a PART, in producing."
PFAL is VPW. they part and parcel one and the same. It is a book of his views, life experiences and opinions. It his understanding of the what the bible says. The same can and should be said about what Charles Stanley writes, Chuck Swindoll writes or Joseph Smith wrote. To say otherwise makes it an idol.
Which is what many have been saying here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
No, NO! NOOOOO!
What many here have been saying is that PFAL is NOT what vpw had to say, but what others had to say!!!!!! It's splashed all over this website!
I'm telling you that Dr told us often that he gathered much of the PFAL material from others, who go it from God; God supervised the project.
***
You wrote: "PFAL is VPW. they part and parcel one and the same. It is a book of his views, life experiences and opinions. It his understanding of the what the bible says."
That's YOUR opinion. My opinion is, no, God guided him AND his editorial staff to strip out all of that. Who's opinion is right? If you want to ask others' opinions on this, you may get a majority vote, but that would STILL be just an opinion. We need to dig deeper to see the answer, to get God's overriding opinion which is the Truth. The only way to do that is to open the books and ask God as we study.
Or we could ask a trusted scholar, like I was discussing with dmiller, and have some more to post on following this post. But then we only have a scholarly opinion, which is still human, and still far from God's opinion.
***
You wrote: "The same can and should be said about what Charles Stanley writes, Chuck Swindoll writes or Joseph Smith wrote."
How about saying it about Paul? Could you say that Paul's epistles are just Paul ad his opinions about Jesus and the Old testament? Many do say just that, even in churches. What makes Paul's writings more than opinion? Here's what makes Paul's writings far above those of Stanley, Swindoll, and Smith: God gave Paul revelation. IT'S THE SAME WITH VICTOR PAUL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
I woke up this morning with an important addition to my post to you of last night.
One of the greatest benefits of God's 1942 intervention in matters theological, is our liberation from the need to lean on scholars for guidance in the very difficult areas of ancient manuscripts, languages, history, geography, etc. All of that is done for us in God's PFAL revelations in written form.
I have often posted on this liberation from academia in one way or another, but I wanted to specifically bring it to your attention.
We still must apply ourselves to rightly divide PFAL, but we no longer need to check out everything written there with scholars. If we can read English, we can gain as full an understanding of God's Word in PFAL as our intellect is capable of.
In the days when we relied on scholars, both inside the ministry and outside, to verify things, we still had to be able to read the English reports they would furnish us. And how many times do those scholars write in English somewhat above our heads? Too many times for me!
Taking our ability to read English and coming back to PFAL and focusing it now totally on that relatively simple reading material is all we need to do to see all the promises of God come to pass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
So God's revelation is only in English? That's sounds racist to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Mike
Some of Paul's letters are his opinions. His comments about marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 are his opinion.
If PFAL is God's revelation as you say, why did vpw need editors to "clean" it up. Could it be the master teacher was a lousy speller?
You want to put to PFAL on a level above the Bible, go right ahead, God gave you a will.
But do not expect the rest of us to go along with your charade and not see the naked emeperor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
But what if we dig deeper and find PFAL lacking. Many have and you still reject them. In fact, you won't even face their challenges. You dodge, distract and attack, but you don't face up to the problems they have brought up.
The problems begin with vpw's biography and his extemporary statements made in times and places where you weren't.
The 1942 revelation is doubted because there is no record of any snowfall in that area on that date.
The Tulsa story is questioned, because again there's no evidence to support the blizzard story either.
Some of his "sources" doctrinal beliefs are questioned because of their gnostic or non-Christian bases.
Answer the questions Mike or be accused of worshipping a book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
Somehow I've spread myself a little thin these past few days by posting on too many threads.
I have copied your three posts above to a backlog file so that this weekend I can try and get to them.
Just about all of the points you brought up in these three posts have been handled over the past two years in my posting or a few others' posting, but I don't mind repeating them. It's good practice for me.
Please be patient with my delays.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Mike
You can believe what you want, it's a free country, but when you ask that:
- I accept PFAL as "god-breathed" and replace my bible with it
- I accept VPW and the teacher for our time and reject all others
- I accept the idea that Jesus will teach from said PFAL and is learning it right now
— that vpw's words are more important to my life than the Lord Jesus Christ's
then I cannot accept anything you say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
One post ago you challenged me to answer you, then you state here that you won't listen to the answers.
:(-->
Could it be that maybe you don't understand my actual position regarding some of the objections you just listed? ...like ESPECIALLY the last two?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
No I said if you want me to accept those points, then I cannot listen to you. If you mean something else, then we can continue.
Which is it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
Ok, I see better what you mean.
Of the 4 objections you listed above, 3 of them are stated in ways I would not agree with. They mis-represent me and my stand.
The third one is close, but highly abbreviated. However, for me to explain what I mean by that is more than lengthy. It involves explaining what it means for Christ to be seated at the right hand of the Father, and how our relationship with Jesus Christ is supposed to now be a spiritual one and not a natural 5-senses one. Explaining that is more than lengthy and time consuming.
The explanation is rooted in that "Ubiquitous" thread, which was pretty long.
Acts 1:11 and II Cor.5:16 (among others) indicate that our relationship with Jesus Christ is to be different than the one that was available in the 4 Gospels. Most people look for and yearn for a natural 5-senses type of relationship with him. If God wanted him to have that kind of physical visibility He wouldn't have willed that Jesus LEAVE the senses realm and ascend to His right hand, which is spiritual, not senses natural.
Jesus' first coming was natural, his second is spiritual. Until all these things are understood, explaining what it means for him to learn from or teach PFAL is pretty much impossible, impossible that is without great study of PFAL.
Maybe you can take my word for it that I call Jesus my Lord and that I believe in my heart that God raised him from the dead. THAT kind of statement is much more easy to understand than what I've seen and stated regarding him and PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I just find it strange that the author and finisher of our faith would have to read from any book written by one of us.
He is so much more than we are and we are nothing without him. And you don't have to believe in the trinity to agree with that statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I can see your point when I adopt your point of view that the author of PFAL was a man.
Can you see, though, that if the true Author was Jesus' Father, and then remember that with God (and the seat at His right hand) there is no time, then our ability to imagine should not be trusted?
God showed Jesus the future fruit of his suffering; He set before him the joy to endure the cross.
God showed the future paradise to Paul, so he too could endure his persecutions.
These showings were not mere snapshots, but intense learning situations transcending time as we know it. These things defy our concept of time.
It is to these learning scenes I refer, and I do that only for motivational purposes, not for linear 5-senses translation. We can't do that at all, but we CAN gird the loins of our minds and get busy learning of the same Author that Jesus and Paul learned from.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I used * -- * marks around my comment, making it a (not so facetious statement), yet more of a sarcastic one, for which I apologize.
I find it both ludicrious, and ridiculous that Jesus Christ (sitting at the right hand of the Father -- God) would be reading from the works of vpw, which were all plagiarized, instead of listening to the *author* instead -- right there at His left hand.
Certainly I know that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the *unforgivable sin*, and I'm mulling that one over in my mind, as to what it means, but what I did was put your statement into the heap of rhetorical junk that one normally finds from denominationally promoted blindness, and propagated as doctrine.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I can't explain it, but I know what I have seen and do see.
One CRUDE way of explaining it, and remember this is crude: Jesus finishes his job 2000 years ago, teaching as much as anyone could accept. God then says to him, "I got a job for you in the future" and he ascends. In the next instant for him and it's his second coming.
We should be asking ourselves WHY is Paul's time "travel" adventure to the future documented for us there in his writing.
We should be asking ourselves what Paul saw there... or here.
We should be asking ourselves what was that joy all about that God showed Jesus and for which he endured the cross.
We should be asking ourselves why God would have Paul ask US in the future, via his writings addressed to us, to pray retroactively for him in the past.
Time is a useful thing for us here in the earthly realm, but when we try to impose it on God, and what takes place at his right hand, we are intruding into an area where we cannot expect to guess it right.
These matters are best understood by meekly accepting what God makes available to us... like His PFAL revelations to Dr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
that was a pretty good post Mike... you had some sane thoughts there... until the last 6 words... knock out those and you'll be there!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thank you, Tom.
:)-->
I do think we can communicate, as more common ground is discovered.
As we look at what is written in the printed pages of PFAL, and not in our fading memories, or the very common TVT doctrines, I think my last words will take on a more sane look to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
In all this banter back and forth in the past few pages, was I the only one who caught this little number?
So ethics has nothing to do with PFAL, or the 'godly' mastery thereof? A waste even?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Garth,
You wrote: "So ethics has nothing to do with PFAL, or the 'godly' mastery thereof? A waste even?"
Garth, Garth, Garth,... (
:D--> I learned this technique from Linda Z today ) ...you said that I said that "ethics has nothing to do with PFAL," yet what I actually said was that it was "ETHICS DISCUSSIONS" that I didn't want to bog us down.
There's a big difference between "ethics" and "ethics discussions" isn't there?
***
Do you think you ALSO just maybe might possibly be taking my words a little teensy weensy measly bit out of context?
;)-->
No?
Well let's look at the context, ok? ...and let the folks at home decide.
I wrote: "Have you ever wondered about Joshua and the other spies Moses sent behind enemy lines? I always wondered if they lied about their identities. How about our dads and grandfathers who fought in WWII? Do you suppose that in addition to their killing other Christian Germans, they might have lied to them too in undercover situations? Which would have been worse shooting a bullet at them or shooting a lie at them? __ I don't want to get bogged down in ethics discussions, so let's not go there, another waste of precious PFAL mastery time. OK? I just wanted to mention these things for pondering, or other thread ideas for other people."
So, Garth, Garth, Garth, (possibly some technique overkill here?
:(--> ) maybe you should go ahead and have that ethics discussion somewhere, sometime, and see just how bogged down it gets, without a solid, tangible, readable-by-all, unalterable standard rule for all faith and practice with which to measure all ethical decisions by.
Meanwhile, as for me, I most certainly DO have such a standard on which to construct my ethics executions, without discussion, and I'll continue to encourage PFAL mastery so that others can have solid ethics, as well as power to bless well.
I'm all for ethics, but wandering standardless ethics discussions are not my cup of tea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, Mike invoked "Paul's time travel" again.
5 points to anyone who can guess the contents of my next post.
:D-->
=====
Mike,
Sometimes, I think you can understand why we find the concept of Jesus Christ,
in the presence of his Father, learning anything from a book when his Father
is RIGHT THERE utterly ludicrous no matter what you or Johnny Cochran would say.
Other times, I'm sure you'd never see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
WordWolf - You posted,
"Mike" will never see it, WordWolf. "Mike" can see only what his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit allows him to see. That's what happens when you surrender your ability to judge, by accepting an obvious lie as truth. That's what it means to have an "adokimos" mind.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WW,
You wrote (with my bold fonts):
"Sometimes, I think you can understand why we find the concept of Jesus Christ, in the presence of his Father, learning anything from a book when his Father is RIGHT THERE utterly ludicrous no matter what you or Johnny Cochren would say. Other times, I'm sure you'd never see it.
Your use of the word "when" is why you feeling of my statement being utterly ludicrous should be suspected.
Your use of that word injects time into an area where it does not belong.
In addition to that, you are assuming that this learning takes place NOT on earth, the natural/factual senses realm, but in heaven at God's right hand, the spiritual/divine realm.
What makes you think that Jesus Christ is not on earth now?
What makes your theology of the Second Coming so accurate that you can definitively say it's all future? Instead of trying to understand or ridicule my statements, why don't you examine your fundamental assumptions of how the Second Coming works? I suggest that if you want to do that with any certainty you will have to separate yourself from world theologians and accept the teaching that God gave us in PFAL.
When it is the case that YOU YOURSELF are learning from PFAL again, then, AND ONLY THEN, you will have an understanding of what I've said on this subject of Christ learning from it.
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.