this would be funny, if you weren't being serious. you talk about the class as though you still believed it was god-breathed. it wasn't, kids. it was mostly a cut-and-paste job. i know you know that by now. all this book vs. "film" stuff is just silly. he made MISTAKES in the film, left and right, and they tried to patch over those mistakes in the book. there was no great spiritual plan that the film was for this and the book was for that. they just did what they did. oh, they absolutely loved attaching spiritual significance afterwards--which is exactly what you seem to be doing with this stuff. to quote ol' vic, "Johnny, quit it!"
Well thank you for the honor of aiming your first post at me (I think?).
You wrote: “this would be funny, if you weren't being serious.”
I am serious, and you can start your ranting or laughing anytime. The line forms at the left.
***
You wrote: “you talk about the class as though you still believed it was god-breathed.”
Yup, and I’m at 4,675 posts worth of serious believing that!
***
You wrote: “it was mostly a cut-and-paste job. i know you know that by now.”
We’ve all known it all along, those who listened to Dr with comprehension. He said so many times.
So your god is unable to inspire cutting and pasting? The True God is able to do that.
***
You wrote: “all this book vs. "film" stuff is just silly. he made MISTAKES in the film, left and right...”
I would characterize it as a few mistakes, and thousands less than you would have made, had you been on camera for 32 some hours with nearly zero re-takes.
***
You wrote: “...and they tried to patch over those mistakes in the book.”
And with God’s help they totally succeeded, AND added in lots more material if you include all the books that came with the class.
***
You wrote: “there was no great spiritual plan that the film was for this and the book was for that.”
Please link us up with something you think IS a great spiritual plan, oh great one. I can’t wait to see your wisdom displayed, now that you’ve dispensed with what fails to gain your approval.
i must admit there's a part of me that would love to get into it with you, mikey. ("i could lick any man in town tonight!") but instead i'll display my wisdom: it would be both pointless and fruitless, so ain't playin'. ;p
You wrote: "WHO are the bruised egos to which you are refering Mike? __ Is this your ego speaking? Are you doing the bruising? I don`t get it. The rest of us appear to simply be discussing the topib at hand. __ Could you be mistaken?"
It is my contention that the posters who act like they are accusing me of some kind of crime or something by my posting with my intention of informing, teaching, and doing it in a comprehensive manner, may be doing it out of bruised egos.
I think they resort to this "charge" because their egos don't like having me tell them something and my assertion that it is the truth.
I can accept as noble the actions of posters to deal with the material I present, but those who can’t and resort to complaining with this “teacher accusation” about HOW I present it and THAT I present it are acting ignobly, in my opinion.
Yes, I could be mistaken on this.
But why do you ask? Was your ego bruised by my assertion that there are bruised egos here?
I have noticed NO bruised egos here Mike....thus my question, is my perception at fault?
I asked WHO felt bruised and nobody has been forth coming, I wondered if it was an exageration on your part to enforce your position, or a mistaken assumption.
I ask again...specifically....who do you believe has a bruised ego?
It would seem that you accuse/lable people of this so that you do not have to address their input.
there are straight questions without any other motive but wanting an answer to what you think or are saying and you turn it upon them as if they are guilty of some wrong doing
It is my contention that the posters who act like they are accusing me of some kind of crime or something by my posting with my intention of informing, teaching, and doing it in a comprehensive manner, may be doing it out of bruised egos.
I think they resort to this "charge" because their egos don't like having me tell them something and my assertion that it is the truth.
I can accept as noble the actions of posters to deal with the material I present, but those who can't and resort to complaining with this "teacher accusation" about HOW I present it and THAT I present it are acting ignobly, in my opinion.
Mike,
Please be careful here. You come across as a victim and that is not the case. You are a willing participant in these proceedings. "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it," as my hubby would say. Besides, as long as you play the victim, you will definitely not gain any respect.
I know that you have felt ignored in the past by Corps. ( I think that is what you posted a while back.) People here don't really know you other than through your posts and they are not ignoring you or looking down their noses at you. (Well, OK some have put you on ignore - but that's their right. Others just ignore a lot of stuff by not clicking on the forum.)
This really has nothing at all to do with WHO is doing the teaching as much as the message that is being presented.
For a true student -teacher relationship to exist, there must be two willing parties. Perhaps you feel comfortable in the role of teacher - but I don't really see any willing students. Now perhaps you have had some PM's by folks that have said, "Ureka! You've found it! I've been waiting for this all my life since twi!" If that is the case, then THEY are your students.
The rest of us here are engaging in debate. Some of it friendly, some not so much. I for one, still find too many holes in your logic. There is a LOT of assumption and "I see...here..." for my tastes. I really do feel like I am sometimes talking to a spin doctor. I remain polite, and cordial, and frustrated.
I point to the fact that I did master the class about 20 years ago and dropped it about 13 years ago. So I do not remember all the little things you say are evidence of mastery - but I know that I know that at one time I could have answered you and that is fine with me - because I see no need to prove myself to you or anyone else here. Not being rude - just honest.
You're referring to the film class. All that was cleaned up in the book.
The film was only supposed to be an introduction to the books. The books WERE edited and tweaked over the years.
One of the reasons Dr constantly urged that we master the WRITTEN materials from the class is because we had mastered the SPOKEN part TOO well and it was preventing us from graduating to the more accurate and more full written aspect of the class.
Dr taught us to do this collecting of ALL occurrences of a topic in our KJVs before we start jelling our thoughts, and the same key applies to rightly dividing PFAL.
I'm sticking to my methods, though: assume the text God-breathed at the start and proceed from there to search how it fits.
Conversely, the books were often treated as mere souvenirs of the class by older grads, while the film class was thought of as ultimate
I expect to see Christ glorified GREATLY for any posters or readers here who obey Dr’s final instructions and get those books open.
Mike
this is just from the first few pages of this thread
i have yet to see anything that backs up these claims
a lot of false assumptions about everyone who participated in pfal
they are based on faulty logic and not consistent with the scriptures
Ok Mike, Back to one of my problems with one of your recent posts:
I can't find the exact quote (because I'm tired of sifting through the drama to find it) but you said something to the effect that we do not have the Bible.
UMMMMMM... your incorrect.
I'm going completley from memory here so bear with me.
Dr said ( and wrote I beleive in the section regarding the God-breathed Word) that today the bibles we hold cannot really be called "THE WORD OF GOD." What we have at best are various versions that have been translated from various manuscripts. Sometimes we only have a small piece of a manuscript. Sometimes we have a newer manuscript that has been translated from an older text.
NOW HERE IS THE POINT: Dr wrote:
To the degree and to the extent that we rightly divide the scriptures we will have the WORD OF TRUTH. We must Rightly divide the Word if we want to have God's Word.
So - we do have Bibles. As a matter of fact, the word "bible" simply means "book." We have LOTS of those.
Now regarding my other matter - how subjects are subjected to spin. I'm going to qoute the class a gain to the best of my recollection.
Dr wrote that "85-90% of the Bible could be understood if we would just READ IT. Most of the Bible did not need a scholar telling everyone what he thought in a large commentary. ( yet it does seem that every time we turned around that statement was contradicted because there was some "special" knowledge we didn't have.)
AFTER reading the scriptures, apparent contradictions could be understood by looking at the context.
Then, all scripture interprets itself in the verse , in the context, or where a word or words were used before (first use/ word studies.)
The unclear verses were to be intrpreted in light of the many clear verses and not the other way around.
We were FIERCELY warned against private interpretation. We were NEVER to approach the scriptures by simply reading them and then casually citing what we thought. or what we saw.
All this I write because I wish you would treat the words that you quote by Dr with this same method. You say these are God breathed words - then just start with reading what is written - not reading INTO what is written. That my friend is sloppy research.
Take the unclear statements in light of the many, many, clear statements. I was taught to look at not only what was said but also what was NOT said. (Dr never said, " Kids, the class is the Word of God.) he did say "The Word the Word and nothing but The Word!." In the context of his life (For argument's sake, I'm not getting into all the scandalous stuff that some of you are seething about - so calm down, I need to make this point.) and what we understood him to be saying he
was talking about the Rightly Divided scriptures - NOT every workd that came out of his mouth - or pen.
I have never been allowed to graduate the Corps if I wrote my research paper ( Which was on "Apostles" btw) if I handled the scriptures the way you sometimes handle vpw's word's and in turn our words.
Ex10 and I have voiced frustration because you tend to "see" things in our words that we have never tried to communicate. please start with keeping it simple. Read what is written. You don't have to take unclear words in light of clear words because you can ASK us what we mean. We can't do that with Moses, or Paul - or vpw anymore for that matter.
I'm not trying to convince you to leave PFAL. It's obvious that I have retained some of it - but, ( and I'll correct myself here) I have rejected huge sections of the class because it was built on logic that didnt' even follow the very system that PFAL set forth. I am very clear on that point.
I do believe that if vpw was able to he'd be screaming from the grave, "NO!" when you propose some of the stuff you propose.
Well, there's a ton of stuff for me to respond to.
Who should I pick first?
I'm already pretty tired, having worked pretty hard today due to the expected rains tomorrow. When it rains I can post much, so most will have to wait until then.
But tonight there's only an hour or so I have to post before my fingers and brain go south.
So whom should I respond to tonight?
Have any of you folks had this problem of having ten people with pressing posts to respond to? It's not fun, when you're tired. Maybe I'll flip a coin, or just go for the easiest one.
You wrote: “you are not answering Mike __ not even the simplest of questions __ 34 pages of b**l**** from you __ ... answer the question or decline to”
What do you want from me? Every time I try to communicate with you all I get is insults. I can put you on “Ignore” anytime and feel very much like doing it. I’d like very much to have a civil conversation with you, so the ball is in your court. Put yourself in my shoes and then approach me the way you’d like to be approached. You decide.
Now, because of all the flurry of posting here I have lost track of what you wanted to talk about. Please give me a break and spare me the shore of searching for what your desired topic is and repeat it. I’m sorry I lost track.
If you could briefly state what it is that bothers you so much about me lately, I’ll try and respond.
You wrote: “Mike -- I never called you a teacher, you did. __ Nor did I ever say you were the only one. __ I have always tried to treat you with some semblence of respect, and I get --- "You're sloppy, if not downright wrong" kinda comments.”
You’re correct. You have been relatively civil to me compared to many others, and I’ve thanked you before for this, and I thank you again right now.
Please don’t treat that one comment, though, as an overall assessment of you. Twice now I’ve pointed out that my use of “sloppy” and “butchered” relating to you was aimed at ONLY ONE LINE you wrote regarding the mystery!
Do you now see that your characterization of the mystery was lacking? I mean it WAS! I hope you fixed that in your thinking, because to do so will benefit you greatly.
***
Now I hope that one sharp criticism of mine didn’t prevent you from seeing the large answer I went out of my way to supply you with regarding the seed of the serpent. You didn’t respond to anything I said in answer to your question, and I think I may have given you several new leads to think on.
I have tried my best to reward your politeness with an abundance of response, yet it seems you have little appreciation for my efforts. This seed of the serpent deal was not the first time that I went well out of my way, off my chosen topic, to respond in GREAT detail to you. Yet, when I do I hardly hear a peep of appreciation, you just seem to shrug off my answers and move on to something else to challenge me with.
When you see people like CM, rascal, Tom Strange (before his recent relative conversion) or a few others in my face demanding responses with great disrespect and insulting tones, and then becoming outraged that I don’t snap to and spend a lot of time with them, why don’t you speak up for me and tell them that I do respond in abundance when people are civil?
I’m asking you to AT LEAST be appreciative of my recognition of your civil manner with great efforts to respond to you. But to go the extra mile, I’d also like you to help teach (there’s that ego bruising word again) some of the other posters that they can get the same cooperation from me that I give to you if they’d just calm down a little.
***
You wrote: “While being willing to listen (up to a point), about the *greatness* of pfal, You manage to alienate even folks like myself, Who are willing to give you a chance to speak your piece, And answer the questions we have asked.”
Well, I hope you aren’t alienated over my comments on one line you wrote. If you stop and look at it again you’ll see that was the case.
Remember what lengths I went to answer your question about how I knew Dr knew that his Gartmore teaching was going to be his last? I spent about four hours on that response.
It looks here that instead of standing up for me, you’re standing up for the ones who attack me unmercifully and then expect me to do devote large amounts of time to their challenges when you write “...And answer the questions we have asked.” Tell them that courtesy works wonders, and remember that I have tried to respond to your civility.
You wrote: “Sadly -- you don't answer the questions asked. Your definitions of what we all know
are yours, and yours alone.”
I do answer many questions, even some that are asked with snotty attitudes. I have spent 8 years taking careful note of what grads know and don’t know. I’ve seen some very obvious patterns and I think everyone would benefit by holding their breath a little and paying better attention to the content, instead of regarding everything as an ego battle.
If I was into inflating my ego why would I subject it to so many attacks? I’m here to present some comprehensive ideas. They take time, and to alter the sequence and timing of what I present I must sometimes not answer things in the order others may demand. It is my GREAT desire to deal with all the matters I’ve brought in much greater detail and to help anyone who wants to know these things by a reasonable dealing with their questions.
There are many answers that will only make sense to those who are willing to open the books and get re-familiarized with the material. Should I waste the answer on people who are not yet ready to put the time in to be able to understand the answers, or worse yet, should I waste the answer on people who are ONLY aiming to thwart my message? Do you see that the latter exist here, and not merely a few?
You wrote: “I have noticed NO bruised egos here Mike....thus my question, is my perception at fault? __ I asked WHO felt bruised and nobody has been forth coming, I wondered if it was an exageration on your part to enforce your position, or a mistaken assumption. __ I ask again...specifically....who do you believe has a bruised ego? __ It would seem that you accuse/lable people of this so that you do not have to address their input. __ It does not seem very honest.”
I think your perception is hampered by your faulty focus. You’re paying WAY too much attention to this bruised ego thing. Just go back in the thread and look at those who bring up the “teacher objection” to me. It would seem that they are dishonestly sidestepping addressing MY input with their objections as to HOW I happen to present it. I think their egos are bruised to have someone like me tell them something different than what they want to believe and for me to put it strongly. That’s all I have to say on this subject, so please don’t bother me with it any more. If you want to start a thread on bruised egos have at it. I’m not interested in this subject. I think it’s a waste of time.
all through the old testament there is evidence that the spirit is still there”
Adam had to lose SOMETHING on “that very day” of his disobedience, and we know it wasn’t his body nor his soul. Something had to have died.
Now I wouldn’t say that ALL THROUGH the Old Testament spirit was around. It was only on very few and very special people. Sometimes centuries went by with no mention of anyone having spirit and no prophets. It was usually only one person at a time at the most.
Moses once complained to God about this and since other things were in place and the situation conducive, God assisted on this special occasion by putting His spirit on about 70 people. It’s in Numbers 11. This was a very, very unusual situation. It was so unusual that Joshua flipped out thought something was wrong. But Moses assured him that it was ok and that if God had his way ALL of Israel would get spirit.
So spirit was pretty darn rare in the OT. It was also not a permanent thing, people could loose it. It also came measured. Some had “more” spirit than others. It wasn’t a thing that was inherent in ones who had it. The reason it was rare is because Adam and Eve didn’t have it to pass on to their children. The tight, lose, full spirit Adam had was not there in the OT.
Just like Adam had to have lost something, and PFAL says it was spirit, SOMETHING had to have come on the day of Pentecost that wasn’t there before. It was a tight, permanent, and full, totally full spirit without measure like only Jesus previously had, AND it was easily available to everyone, not just a few.
The word “easily” is a key here, I think, to the next part of your question. (Tom Strange, notice I said “I think” here. This is the frontier of my knowledge, and I admit that when I hit it. The following will only be my flimsy opinion.)
***
You wrote: “pfal says spirit upon-what does that mean”?
I’m still working on the difference between “upon” and “in” in this context.
I do know that it was only very special or even odd individuals who got spirit (in the limited way outlined above). How they got it I don’t know. It seems that there may have been very special genetic and/or experiential differences in the makeup of the OT prophets that allowed them to have limited spirit. They certainly had to be odd in the sense that they were willing to face the wrath of the adversary being God’s spokesmen.
Oddly, my fellowship coordinator just recently brought up this word “upon” in a recent teaching of his. He too is looking into this word. I think he is looking into the use of this word “upon” as it relates to us. Can we have spirit IN us and also UPON us? I don’t know yet. It’s the frontier of our knowledge.
***
You wrote: “Peter says the spirit of Christ was in the prophets”
Yes, and Romans 8:9 says: “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
So, is there a difference between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ? It looks like there may be. How about pneuma hagion? Is that ALSO different from these two terms? I have reason to believe there is, but, like I said, this is where I am far less sure of things.
I do know that the word “Christ” was not Jesus’ last name. It’s Greek for Messiah and both literally mean “anointed with oil” figuratively meaning “specially chosen of God.”
So Peter may have said the spirit of the Messiah was in the prophets or maybe spirit of the anointing was in them.
I don’t want to speculate any further. Guesses like this are good to follow up on in further research, but they can get out of hand very quickly too and become doctrine.
***
You wrote:
“a vail was upon their eyes
what did Jesus do to that vail?”
We know that the temple veil was torn top to bottom. However, I think it’s Corinthians that talks about a veil on people’s eyes today.
***
You wrote: “what is in the holy of holies and where is it?”
Best I understand it, that was a place in the temple that aided and assisted the believing of the priests so that they could receive spirit (upon) and get revelation for Israel on rare occasions.
***
It sounds to me that you might already have some answers to these questions of your own. You know I only want to look at what is taught in PFAL. If you have some PFAL answers to these items I’m all ears.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
89
149
306
85
Popular Days
Feb 10
62
Feb 20
61
Feb 11
46
Mar 2
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 89 posts
CM 149 posts
Mike 306 posts
Tom Strange 85 posts
Popular Days
Feb 10 2006
62 posts
Feb 20 2006
61 posts
Feb 11 2006
46 posts
Mar 2 2006
45 posts
Posted Images
CM
Mike
you have made no points
taught nothing
and informed us of nothing
so what do you think a teacher is mike?
i'm gonna say whatever is on my mind
you are not a teacher but a subordinate of your own vice
which has been thrust upon you and you have tryed to push it further
if you can't learn from others where are you learning from?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
"you are all my teachers"
this would be a great step for you mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
this would be funny, if you weren't being serious. you talk about the class as though you still believed it was god-breathed. it wasn't, kids. it was mostly a cut-and-paste job. i know you know that by now. all this book vs. "film" stuff is just silly. he made MISTAKES in the film, left and right, and they tried to patch over those mistakes in the book. there was no great spiritual plan that the film was for this and the book was for that. they just did what they did. oh, they absolutely loved attaching spiritual significance afterwards--which is exactly what you seem to be doing with this stuff. to quote ol' vic, "Johnny, quit it!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
welcome to GSC sprawled out!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Welcome sprawled out, glad that you find greasespot so amusing :)
Mike, so far the only ego I have seen on this thread is yours.....I must be unusually dense, as I haven`t detected any bruising either.
Please, who is bruised? .....Tom? Clay? Please speak up now so that we can apologise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
sprawled out,
Well thank you for the honor of aiming your first post at me (I think?).
You wrote: “this would be funny, if you weren't being serious.”
I am serious, and you can start your ranting or laughing anytime. The line forms at the left.
***
You wrote: “you talk about the class as though you still believed it was god-breathed.”
Yup, and I’m at 4,675 posts worth of serious believing that!
***
You wrote: “it was mostly a cut-and-paste job. i know you know that by now.”
We’ve all known it all along, those who listened to Dr with comprehension. He said so many times.
So your god is unable to inspire cutting and pasting? The True God is able to do that.
***
You wrote: “all this book vs. "film" stuff is just silly. he made MISTAKES in the film, left and right...”
I would characterize it as a few mistakes, and thousands less than you would have made, had you been on camera for 32 some hours with nearly zero re-takes.
***
You wrote: “...and they tried to patch over those mistakes in the book.”
And with God’s help they totally succeeded, AND added in lots more material if you include all the books that came with the class.
***
You wrote: “there was no great spiritual plan that the film was for this and the book was for that.”
Please link us up with something you think IS a great spiritual plan, oh great one. I can’t wait to see your wisdom displayed, now that you’ve dispensed with what fails to gain your approval.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
i must admit there's a part of me that would love to get into it with you, mikey. ("i could lick any man in town tonight!") but instead i'll display my wisdom: it would be both pointless and fruitless, so ain't playin'. ;p
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Wise choice. You'd be in for more than you expect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
WHO are the bruised egos to which you are refering Mike?
Is this your ego speaking? Are you doing the bruising? I don`t get it. The rest of us appear to simply be discussing the topib at hand.
Could you be mistaken?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
rascal,
You wrote: "WHO are the bruised egos to which you are refering Mike? __ Is this your ego speaking? Are you doing the bruising? I don`t get it. The rest of us appear to simply be discussing the topib at hand. __ Could you be mistaken?"
It is my contention that the posters who act like they are accusing me of some kind of crime or something by my posting with my intention of informing, teaching, and doing it in a comprehensive manner, may be doing it out of bruised egos.
I think they resort to this "charge" because their egos don't like having me tell them something and my assertion that it is the truth.
I can accept as noble the actions of posters to deal with the material I present, but those who can’t and resort to complaining with this “teacher accusation” about HOW I present it and THAT I present it are acting ignobly, in my opinion.
Yes, I could be mistaken on this.
But why do you ask? Was your ego bruised by my assertion that there are bruised egos here?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I have noticed NO bruised egos here Mike....thus my question, is my perception at fault?
I asked WHO felt bruised and nobody has been forth coming, I wondered if it was an exageration on your part to enforce your position, or a mistaken assumption.
I ask again...specifically....who do you believe has a bruised ego?
It would seem that you accuse/lable people of this so that you do not have to address their input.
It does not seem very honest.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
this is EXACTLY what is happening here
YOU have presented this material
YOU claim many things
and you don't think WE have the right to question your MOTIVES
and WHY you are handling questions and answers in the WAY YOU are handling them
damn straight we have the RIGHT to question anyone's motives
QUESTION MINE IF YOU DARE
think you can just puke this junk and not be questioned
it's a NEW DAY buddy!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
question anything you are anyone wants to
you are not answering Mike
not even the simplest of questions
34 pages of b**l**** from you
there are straight questions without any other motive but wanting an answer to what you think or are saying and you turn it upon them as if they are guilty of some wrong doing
NOT GUILTY
answer the question or decline to
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mike,
Please be careful here. You come across as a victim and that is not the case. You are a willing participant in these proceedings. "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it," as my hubby would say. Besides, as long as you play the victim, you will definitely not gain any respect.
I know that you have felt ignored in the past by Corps. ( I think that is what you posted a while back.) People here don't really know you other than through your posts and they are not ignoring you or looking down their noses at you. (Well, OK some have put you on ignore - but that's their right. Others just ignore a lot of stuff by not clicking on the forum.)
This really has nothing at all to do with WHO is doing the teaching as much as the message that is being presented.
For a true student -teacher relationship to exist, there must be two willing parties. Perhaps you feel comfortable in the role of teacher - but I don't really see any willing students. Now perhaps you have had some PM's by folks that have said, "Ureka! You've found it! I've been waiting for this all my life since twi!" If that is the case, then THEY are your students.
The rest of us here are engaging in debate. Some of it friendly, some not so much. I for one, still find too many holes in your logic. There is a LOT of assumption and "I see...here..." for my tastes. I really do feel like I am sometimes talking to a spin doctor. I remain polite, and cordial, and frustrated.
I point to the fact that I did master the class about 20 years ago and dropped it about 13 years ago. So I do not remember all the little things you say are evidence of mastery - but I know that I know that at one time I could have answered you and that is fine with me - because I see no need to prove myself to you or anyone else here. Not being rude - just honest.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Mike
this is just from the first few pages of this thread
i have yet to see anything that backs up these claims
a lot of false assumptions about everyone who participated in pfal
they are based on faulty logic and not consistent with the scriptures
pfal was based on faulty assumptions
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mike -- I never called you a teacher, you did.
Nor did I ever say you were the only one.
I have always tried to treat you with some semblence of respect, and I get ---
"You're sloppy, if not downright wrong" kinda comments.
While being willing to listen (up to a point), about the *greatness* of pfal,
You manage to alienate even folks like myself,
Who are willing to give you a chance to speak your piece,
And answer the questions we have asked.
Sadly -- you don't answer the questions asked.
Your definitions of what we all know
are yours, and yours alone.
No one else entertains those thoughts.
You wrote:
I'll see those 4,675 posts,
and raise you another 4 thousand posts (on the other side of the story). ;)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Ok Mike, Back to one of my problems with one of your recent posts:
I can't find the exact quote (because I'm tired of sifting through the drama to find it) but you said something to the effect that we do not have the Bible.
UMMMMMM... your incorrect.
I'm going completley from memory here so bear with me.
Dr said ( and wrote I beleive in the section regarding the God-breathed Word) that today the bibles we hold cannot really be called "THE WORD OF GOD." What we have at best are various versions that have been translated from various manuscripts. Sometimes we only have a small piece of a manuscript. Sometimes we have a newer manuscript that has been translated from an older text.
NOW HERE IS THE POINT: Dr wrote:
To the degree and to the extent that we rightly divide the scriptures we will have the WORD OF TRUTH. We must Rightly divide the Word if we want to have God's Word.
So - we do have Bibles. As a matter of fact, the word "bible" simply means "book." We have LOTS of those.
Now regarding my other matter - how subjects are subjected to spin. I'm going to qoute the class a gain to the best of my recollection.
Dr wrote that "85-90% of the Bible could be understood if we would just READ IT. Most of the Bible did not need a scholar telling everyone what he thought in a large commentary. ( yet it does seem that every time we turned around that statement was contradicted because there was some "special" knowledge we didn't have.)
AFTER reading the scriptures, apparent contradictions could be understood by looking at the context.
Then, all scripture interprets itself in the verse , in the context, or where a word or words were used before (first use/ word studies.)
The unclear verses were to be intrpreted in light of the many clear verses and not the other way around.
We were FIERCELY warned against private interpretation. We were NEVER to approach the scriptures by simply reading them and then casually citing what we thought. or what we saw.
All this I write because I wish you would treat the words that you quote by Dr with this same method. You say these are God breathed words - then just start with reading what is written - not reading INTO what is written. That my friend is sloppy research.
Take the unclear statements in light of the many, many, clear statements. I was taught to look at not only what was said but also what was NOT said. (Dr never said, " Kids, the class is the Word of God.) he did say "The Word the Word and nothing but The Word!." In the context of his life (For argument's sake, I'm not getting into all the scandalous stuff that some of you are seething about - so calm down, I need to make this point.) and what we understood him to be saying he
was talking about the Rightly Divided scriptures - NOT every workd that came out of his mouth - or pen.
I have never been allowed to graduate the Corps if I wrote my research paper ( Which was on "Apostles" btw) if I handled the scriptures the way you sometimes handle vpw's word's and in turn our words.
Ex10 and I have voiced frustration because you tend to "see" things in our words that we have never tried to communicate. please start with keeping it simple. Read what is written. You don't have to take unclear words in light of clear words because you can ASK us what we mean. We can't do that with Moses, or Paul - or vpw anymore for that matter.
I'm not trying to convince you to leave PFAL. It's obvious that I have retained some of it - but, ( and I'll correct myself here) I have rejected huge sections of the class because it was built on logic that didnt' even follow the very system that PFAL set forth. I am very clear on that point.
I do believe that if vpw was able to he'd be screaming from the grave, "NO!" when you propose some of the stuff you propose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, there's a ton of stuff for me to respond to.
Who should I pick first?
I'm already pretty tired, having worked pretty hard today due to the expected rains tomorrow. When it rains I can post much, so most will have to wait until then.
But tonight there's only an hour or so I have to post before my fingers and brain go south.
So whom should I respond to tonight?
Have any of you folks had this problem of having ten people with pressing posts to respond to? It's not fun, when you're tired. Maybe I'll flip a coin, or just go for the easiest one.
Any ideas?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
believe it or not there is some truth in pfal
a sliver of it, barely touched on....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CM,
You wrote: “you are not answering Mike __ not even the simplest of questions __ 34 pages of b**l**** from you __ ... answer the question or decline to”
What do you want from me? Every time I try to communicate with you all I get is insults. I can put you on “Ignore” anytime and feel very much like doing it. I’d like very much to have a civil conversation with you, so the ball is in your court. Put yourself in my shoes and then approach me the way you’d like to be approached. You decide.
Now, because of all the flurry of posting here I have lost track of what you wanted to talk about. Please give me a break and spare me the shore of searching for what your desired topic is and repeat it. I’m sorry I lost track.
If you could briefly state what it is that bothers you so much about me lately, I’ll try and respond.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
You wrote: “Mike -- I never called you a teacher, you did. __ Nor did I ever say you were the only one. __ I have always tried to treat you with some semblence of respect, and I get --- "You're sloppy, if not downright wrong" kinda comments.”
You’re correct. You have been relatively civil to me compared to many others, and I’ve thanked you before for this, and I thank you again right now.
Please don’t treat that one comment, though, as an overall assessment of you. Twice now I’ve pointed out that my use of “sloppy” and “butchered” relating to you was aimed at ONLY ONE LINE you wrote regarding the mystery!
Do you now see that your characterization of the mystery was lacking? I mean it WAS! I hope you fixed that in your thinking, because to do so will benefit you greatly.
***
Now I hope that one sharp criticism of mine didn’t prevent you from seeing the large answer I went out of my way to supply you with regarding the seed of the serpent. You didn’t respond to anything I said in answer to your question, and I think I may have given you several new leads to think on.
I have tried my best to reward your politeness with an abundance of response, yet it seems you have little appreciation for my efforts. This seed of the serpent deal was not the first time that I went well out of my way, off my chosen topic, to respond in GREAT detail to you. Yet, when I do I hardly hear a peep of appreciation, you just seem to shrug off my answers and move on to something else to challenge me with.
When you see people like CM, rascal, Tom Strange (before his recent relative conversion) or a few others in my face demanding responses with great disrespect and insulting tones, and then becoming outraged that I don’t snap to and spend a lot of time with them, why don’t you speak up for me and tell them that I do respond in abundance when people are civil?
I’m asking you to AT LEAST be appreciative of my recognition of your civil manner with great efforts to respond to you. But to go the extra mile, I’d also like you to help teach (there’s that ego bruising word again) some of the other posters that they can get the same cooperation from me that I give to you if they’d just calm down a little.
***
You wrote: “While being willing to listen (up to a point), about the *greatness* of pfal, You manage to alienate even folks like myself, Who are willing to give you a chance to speak your piece, And answer the questions we have asked.”
Well, I hope you aren’t alienated over my comments on one line you wrote. If you stop and look at it again you’ll see that was the case.
Remember what lengths I went to answer your question about how I knew Dr knew that his Gartmore teaching was going to be his last? I spent about four hours on that response.
It looks here that instead of standing up for me, you’re standing up for the ones who attack me unmercifully and then expect me to do devote large amounts of time to their challenges when you write “...And answer the questions we have asked.” Tell them that courtesy works wonders, and remember that I have tried to respond to your civility.
You wrote: “Sadly -- you don't answer the questions asked. Your definitions of what we all know
are yours, and yours alone.”
I do answer many questions, even some that are asked with snotty attitudes. I have spent 8 years taking careful note of what grads know and don’t know. I’ve seen some very obvious patterns and I think everyone would benefit by holding their breath a little and paying better attention to the content, instead of regarding everything as an ego battle.
If I was into inflating my ego why would I subject it to so many attacks? I’m here to present some comprehensive ideas. They take time, and to alter the sequence and timing of what I present I must sometimes not answer things in the order others may demand. It is my GREAT desire to deal with all the matters I’ve brought in much greater detail and to help anyone who wants to know these things by a reasonable dealing with their questions.
There are many answers that will only make sense to those who are willing to open the books and get re-familiarized with the material. Should I waste the answer on people who are not yet ready to put the time in to be able to understand the answers, or worse yet, should I waste the answer on people who are ONLY aiming to thwart my message? Do you see that the latter exist here, and not merely a few?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
ok
Christ in you
when did it happen?
pfal says Adam lost the spirit
all through the old testament there is evidence that the spirit is still there
pfal says spirit upon-what does that mean
Peter says the spirit of Christ was in the prophets
Jesus Paul and many others testify of that spirit alive and well in the old testament
a vail was upon their eyes
what did Jesus do to that vail?
what is in the holy of holies
and where is it?
btw-nothing bothers me about you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
rascal,
You wrote: “I have noticed NO bruised egos here Mike....thus my question, is my perception at fault? __ I asked WHO felt bruised and nobody has been forth coming, I wondered if it was an exageration on your part to enforce your position, or a mistaken assumption. __ I ask again...specifically....who do you believe has a bruised ego? __ It would seem that you accuse/lable people of this so that you do not have to address their input. __ It does not seem very honest.”
I think your perception is hampered by your faulty focus. You’re paying WAY too much attention to this bruised ego thing. Just go back in the thread and look at those who bring up the “teacher objection” to me. It would seem that they are dishonestly sidestepping addressing MY input with their objections as to HOW I happen to present it. I think their egos are bruised to have someone like me tell them something different than what they want to believe and for me to put it strongly. That’s all I have to say on this subject, so please don’t bother me with it any more. If you want to start a thread on bruised egos have at it. I’m not interested in this subject. I think it’s a waste of time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CM,
You wrote: “btw-nothing bothers me about you”
That’s comforting, thank you.
***
You wrote:
“Christ in you
when did it happen?
pfal says Adam lost the spirit
all through the old testament there is evidence that the spirit is still there”
Adam had to lose SOMETHING on “that very day” of his disobedience, and we know it wasn’t his body nor his soul. Something had to have died.
Now I wouldn’t say that ALL THROUGH the Old Testament spirit was around. It was only on very few and very special people. Sometimes centuries went by with no mention of anyone having spirit and no prophets. It was usually only one person at a time at the most.
Moses once complained to God about this and since other things were in place and the situation conducive, God assisted on this special occasion by putting His spirit on about 70 people. It’s in Numbers 11. This was a very, very unusual situation. It was so unusual that Joshua flipped out thought something was wrong. But Moses assured him that it was ok and that if God had his way ALL of Israel would get spirit.
So spirit was pretty darn rare in the OT. It was also not a permanent thing, people could loose it. It also came measured. Some had “more” spirit than others. It wasn’t a thing that was inherent in ones who had it. The reason it was rare is because Adam and Eve didn’t have it to pass on to their children. The tight, lose, full spirit Adam had was not there in the OT.
Just like Adam had to have lost something, and PFAL says it was spirit, SOMETHING had to have come on the day of Pentecost that wasn’t there before. It was a tight, permanent, and full, totally full spirit without measure like only Jesus previously had, AND it was easily available to everyone, not just a few.
The word “easily” is a key here, I think, to the next part of your question. (Tom Strange, notice I said “I think” here. This is the frontier of my knowledge, and I admit that when I hit it. The following will only be my flimsy opinion.)
***
You wrote: “pfal says spirit upon-what does that mean”?
I’m still working on the difference between “upon” and “in” in this context.
I do know that it was only very special or even odd individuals who got spirit (in the limited way outlined above). How they got it I don’t know. It seems that there may have been very special genetic and/or experiential differences in the makeup of the OT prophets that allowed them to have limited spirit. They certainly had to be odd in the sense that they were willing to face the wrath of the adversary being God’s spokesmen.
Oddly, my fellowship coordinator just recently brought up this word “upon” in a recent teaching of his. He too is looking into this word. I think he is looking into the use of this word “upon” as it relates to us. Can we have spirit IN us and also UPON us? I don’t know yet. It’s the frontier of our knowledge.
***
You wrote: “Peter says the spirit of Christ was in the prophets”
Yes, and Romans 8:9 says: “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
So, is there a difference between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ? It looks like there may be. How about pneuma hagion? Is that ALSO different from these two terms? I have reason to believe there is, but, like I said, this is where I am far less sure of things.
I do know that the word “Christ” was not Jesus’ last name. It’s Greek for Messiah and both literally mean “anointed with oil” figuratively meaning “specially chosen of God.”
So Peter may have said the spirit of the Messiah was in the prophets or maybe spirit of the anointing was in them.
I don’t want to speculate any further. Guesses like this are good to follow up on in further research, but they can get out of hand very quickly too and become doctrine.
***
You wrote:
“a vail was upon their eyes
what did Jesus do to that vail?”
We know that the temple veil was torn top to bottom. However, I think it’s Corinthians that talks about a veil on people’s eyes today.
***
You wrote: “what is in the holy of holies and where is it?”
Best I understand it, that was a place in the temple that aided and assisted the believing of the priests so that they could receive spirit (upon) and get revelation for Israel on rare occasions.
***
It sounds to me that you might already have some answers to these questions of your own. You know I only want to look at what is taught in PFAL. If you have some PFAL answers to these items I’m all ears.
Link to comment
Share on other sites