Unfortunately for Craig (and a few others) their conscience has been 'seared with a hot iron'. IF there was any genuine remorse they would have 'many levels' of sewerage in their minds to rise above.
And though I have the {gift} of prophecy and understand all knowledge and though I have all faith so that I could remove mountains and have not (charity) the love of god in the renewed mind I am nothing.
You can have all knowledge of the earth and you could tell the mountain to jump in the sea but without the love of god you will sound like a sounding brass or/and a tinkling cymbal. It would just be alot of noice. Even with all the knowledge and prophecies
The Aramaic Interlinear Version say "The love of god
The Greek Interlinear Verison says love
"For example the KJV would say "and have no charity I am nothing
The Greek version says "and have no "love" I am nothing"
ICOR 13:1B"
Websters Charity- Love for one's fellow men
I have used VPW work and research as a base but I used the
Geneva Bible, the Websters Dictionary, and the Greek and Aramaic Interlinear text to support his research.
CK
Okay, fair enough. "Love", or "love of God" is a common translation of άγάπή and άγάπάω, although there are places where they refer to loving darkness, so it's more contextual in I Corinthians 13 than an absolute.
But what about the "in the renewed mind" part. What makes you think that Mr. Wierwille was correct there?
Since this is the doctrinal forum, let's do a leetle research, shall we? I am by no means saying that Wierwille was always wrong, he wasn't, but let's not assume that he was always right.
I'm not going to bother with exact quotes, much less citations from interlinears, lexicons, etc. Just some straight talk from someone who (I think) understands the Bible, but doesn't think any more of it than any other influential literature. However, I'll assume for the sake of discussion that the Bible is revelation from God.
The two great commandments are to love God and to love one's neighbors. Jesus said that on those two (both of them) hang all the law and the prophets. From what I know of the Bible, they are so closely interlinked as to be inseparable, in the sense that neither can stand alone. One without the other is counterfeit.
Jesus said that others would know his disciples were his disciples by their love for one another. He didn't say by their love for or of God. That may not directly relate to 1Corinthians 13, but if Jesus really was the Son of God, the Word of God, God's expression of himself on a human plane, then it sure should set some remote context for the understanding of "love" in 1Corinthians. I don't think that Jesus was minimizing love for or of God, but rather, was emphasizing that such love is best demonstrated through love for fellow humans.
1John offers more remote context for understanding: One can't love God, whom he has not seen, if he doesn't love his brother, whom he has seen.
1Corinthians 13 doesn't specify whether the love is love for God or love for other people. Since they're pretty well inseparable, if genuine, I think that both are included. If so, then even "the love of God" is a poor translation. "In the renewed mind" is spurious. The whole "literal translation according to usage" (that terminology is a lie in itself) of "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation" is even worse.
It is, perhaps, useful to differentiate the love of 1Corinthians 13 from other sorts of love. If so, then "godly love" seems to me to be an appropriate translation, certainly much better and more literal than Wierwille's BS "literal translation according to usage."
And though I bestow all my good to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned and not have (charity) the love of god in the renewed mind it profiteth me nothing
Let's say you had $10 million and you gave it to salvation army on Christmas Day that is a example of "I bestow all my goods to feed the poor"
Let's say you gave your $1000 a week job to work for $350 a week and you help people this is a example of "Though I give my body to be burned
Then without the love of god in the renewed mind it profiteth me nothing
So you can do all these things to help people and then without the love then there is no profit
God is love. When we became His children by faith, we no longer have to reley on our own understanding in order to love. Doesn't it say to be renewed in the spirit of your mind? Since the flesh is dead, what profit would it be to continue in the flesh? God constrains us to walk by the spirit.
So, to live by Gods love would be to walk by the spirit and not the fleshly mind.
Okay, fair enough. "Love", or "love of God" is a common translation of άγάπή and άγάπάω, although there are places where they refer to loving darkness, so it's more contextual in I Corinthians 13 than an absolute.
But what about the "in the renewed mind" part. What makes you think that Mr. Wierwille was correct there?
Since this is the doctrinal forum, let's do a leetle research, shall we? I am by no means saying that Wierwille was always wrong, he wasn't, but let's not assume that he was always right.
Let's say you gave your $1000 a week job to work for $350 a week and you help people this is a example of "Though I give my body to be burned
" Giving one's body to be burned" more than just working and being underpaid - for a good cause. I'll have to look at my corps notes to see what walter said - but i'm nearly positive it had to do with extreme self-sacrifice (think Mother Theresa)
Okay, fair enough. "Love", or "love of God" is a common translation of άγάπή and άγάπάω, although there are places where they refer to loving darkness, so it's more contextual in I Corinthians 13 than an absolute.
But what about the "in the renewed mind" part. What makes you think that Mr. Wierwille was correct there?
Since this is the doctrinal forum, let's do a leetle research, shall we? I am by no means saying that Wierwille was always wrong, he wasn't, but let's not assume that he was always right.
(Charity) The love of God in the renewed mind suffereth long, and it is kind; (charity) The love of God in the renewed mind envieth not. (Charity) The love of God in the renewed mind vaunteth not itself, it is not puffed up.
To suffer long is to edure whatever it takes
Kind is to be nice
Envy in to want something that is yours.
Vaunteth To brag about what you have done
Puffed Up The person should not be puffed up when talking to people
Besides, it simply says nothing about "the renewed mind"...so renewed mind quotes are not applicable here. It is simply agape..."1) brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence" (per Strong's).
Wierwille taught, in my opinion rightly, that you read what is written to understand what the bible says. Right in the verse, in the context, previous usage, all that stuff is pretty good advice on how to read and understand the bible.
The word agapē undoubtedly means "love" in some fashion, but does it mean "the love of God"?
I John 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
The phrase "the love of God" is (loosely) agapē theos; so if agapē is translated "the love of God", then this verse (redundantly) says "the love of God of God" or "God's love of God"; so why would the "of God" be added if "of God" is understood to be part of the definition?There's a few other places where it is phrased thus.
I John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
If agapē means "the love of God", then how can men love darkness with the love of God?
That's one reason why I think that he may be wrong.
The second is the whole "in the renewed mind" thing (doesn't he add "in manifestation"?) - there is no scriptural, textual, contextual or grammatical reason to add "in the renewed mind" that I can see.
So, since Wierwille taught biblical keys, let's use some of them in this thread. I'm willing (as are others here in doctrinal) to concede that Wierwille is correct when the evidense supports him, not just because he says so.
This is one of the times when its "just because he says so".
Wierwille taught, in my opinion rightly, that you read what is written to understand what the bible says. Right in the verse, in the context, previous usage, all that stuff is pretty good advice on how to read and understand the bible.
The word agapē undoubtedly means "love" in some fashion, but does it mean "the love of God"?
I John 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
The phrase "the love of God" is (loosely) agapē theos; so if agapē is translated "the love of God", then this verse (redundantly) says "the love of God of God" or "God's love of God"; so why would the "of God" be added if "of God" is understood to be part of the definition?There's a few other places where it is phrased thus.
I John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
If agapē means "the love of God", then how can men love darkness with the love of God?
That's one reason why I think that he may be wrong.
The second is the whole "in the renewed mind" thing (doesn't he add "in manifestation"?) - there is no scriptural, textual, contextual or grammatical reason to add "in the renewed mind" that I can see.
So, since Wierwille taught biblical keys, let's use some of them in this thread. I'm willing (as are others here in doctrinal) to concede that Wierwille is correct when the evidense supports him, not just because he says so.
This is one of the times when its "just because he says so".
I John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
What a wonderful explanation of the Roman Catholic Church
n.1. Christianity Love as revealed in Jesus, seen as spiritual and selfless and a model for humanity.2. Love that is spiritual, not sexual, in its nature.3. Christianity In the early Christian Church, the love feast accompanied by Eucharistic celebrationhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/agape
Agapē (written αγάπη in the Greek alphabet, and pronounced /aga̍pe/ or /a̍gape/), is one of several Greek words meaning love The word has been used in different ways by a variety of contemporary and ancient sources, including Biblical authors. Many have thought that this word represents divine, unconditional, self-sacrificing, active, volitional, thoughtful love Greek philosophers at the time of Plato used it in a way that suggested love of that which is below you, rather than philia, love between friends or equals, and Eros love of that which is above you. Eros was see as the highest, and agape as the lowest. The term was used by the early Christians to refer to the special love for God and God's love for humanity, as well as the self-sacrificing love they believed all should have for each other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape
"the renewed mind in manifestation"
Whats in Manifestation??
Clothing the poor, housing the homeless, feeding the hungry, succoring those in prison ????
No indeedy, It's "the renewed mind" that's in manifestation, by SITing, by "working the word", by studying----
I still remember being told by my TC "we don't have to help those outside TWI, they aren't part of the family, God could care less what happens to them"
Of course we didn't help those less fortunate than us in TWI either because the fact they were less fortunate meant they weren't ---drum roll please!---"renewing their minds"
I by no means do all I could to care for those less fortunate in the world around me--but at least I am free of being told I can't
But what about the "in the renewed mind" part. What makes you think that Mr. Wierwille was correct there?
Since this is the doctrinal forum, let's do a leetle research, shall we? I am by no means saying that Wierwille was always wrong, he wasn't, but let's not assume that he was always right.
What makes you think he was wrong??
CK
Well,
Oakspear AND Templelady gave 2 different answers, either of which should be
sufficient.
Second of all, your answer to date was as follows:
First,
you ignored the question for several days, even when it was posed several times.
Second,
you answered a question by saying
"How you you know it's not right?"
Which is not an ANSWER, it's an EVASION.
Third,
as soon as they answered your evasion,
you CHANGED THE SUBJECT and insulted another group.
Is this going to be the sum total of your answer?
Espouse an unproven theology,
pretend it holds up to scrutiny,
when challenged, pretend the challenger has to answer rather than you,
then change the subject when proven wrong?
I mean, you could always post now and TRY to defend your theology,
or actually think it over and-gasp!-conclude it was WRONG and CHANGE
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
11
18
30
Popular Days
Apr 8
17
Apr 9
10
Mar 24
8
Apr 14
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Goey 16 posts
Oakspear 11 posts
doojable 18 posts
ckmkeon 30 posts
Popular Days
Apr 8 2006
17 posts
Apr 9 2006
10 posts
Mar 24 2006
8 posts
Apr 14 2006
7 posts
dmiller
Ck -- you can also find some good stuff to teach at TRUTH OR TRADITION and CFFM.
Good luck in your fellowships.
(check out the horizon -- :) :) :) --- it's boundless.)
Local churches in your area can probably add just as much, it not more.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Unfortunately for Craig (and a few others) their conscience has been 'seared with a hot iron'. IF there was any genuine remorse they would have 'many levels' of sewerage in their minds to rise above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckmkeon
I COR 13:2
And though I have the {gift} of prophecy and understand all knowledge and though I have all faith so that I could remove mountains and have not (charity) the love of god in the renewed mind I am nothing.
You can have all knowledge of the earth and you could tell the mountain to jump in the sea but without the love of god you will sound like a sounding brass or/and a tinkling cymbal. It would just be alot of noice. Even with all the knowledge and prophecies
CK
Edited by ckmkeonLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
CK:
Why do you think that άγάπή or άγάπάω should be translated "the love of God in the renewed mind"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I was wondering the same thing myself ck. Have you heard this "translation" from anywhere else besides veepee/TWI?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckmkeon
The Aramaic Interlinear Version say "The love of god
The Greek Interlinear Verison says love
"For example the KJV would say "and have no charity I am nothing
The Greek version says "and have no "love" I am nothing"
ICOR 13:1B"
Websters Charity- Love for one's fellow men
I have used VPW work and research as a base but I used the
Geneva Bible, the Websters Dictionary, and the Greek and Aramaic Interlinear text to support his research.
CK
Edited by ckmkeonLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
But what about the "in the renewed mind" part. What makes you think that Mr. Wierwille was correct there?
Since this is the doctrinal forum, let's do a leetle research, shall we? I am by no means saying that Wierwille was always wrong, he wasn't, but let's not assume that he was always right.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I'm not going to bother with exact quotes, much less citations from interlinears, lexicons, etc. Just some straight talk from someone who (I think) understands the Bible, but doesn't think any more of it than any other influential literature. However, I'll assume for the sake of discussion that the Bible is revelation from God.
The two great commandments are to love God and to love one's neighbors. Jesus said that on those two (both of them) hang all the law and the prophets. From what I know of the Bible, they are so closely interlinked as to be inseparable, in the sense that neither can stand alone. One without the other is counterfeit.
Jesus said that others would know his disciples were his disciples by their love for one another. He didn't say by their love for or of God. That may not directly relate to 1Corinthians 13, but if Jesus really was the Son of God, the Word of God, God's expression of himself on a human plane, then it sure should set some remote context for the understanding of "love" in 1Corinthians. I don't think that Jesus was minimizing love for or of God, but rather, was emphasizing that such love is best demonstrated through love for fellow humans.
1John offers more remote context for understanding: One can't love God, whom he has not seen, if he doesn't love his brother, whom he has seen.
1Corinthians 13 doesn't specify whether the love is love for God or love for other people. Since they're pretty well inseparable, if genuine, I think that both are included. If so, then even "the love of God" is a poor translation. "In the renewed mind" is spurious. The whole "literal translation according to usage" (that terminology is a lie in itself) of "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation" is even worse.
It is, perhaps, useful to differentiate the love of 1Corinthians 13 from other sorts of love. If so, then "godly love" seems to me to be an appropriate translation, certainly much better and more literal than Wierwille's BS "literal translation according to usage."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckmkeon
I COR 13:3
And though I bestow all my good to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned and not have (charity) the love of god in the renewed mind it profiteth me nothing
Let's say you had $10 million and you gave it to salvation army on Christmas Day that is a example of "I bestow all my goods to feed the poor"
Let's say you gave your $1000 a week job to work for $350 a week and you help people this is a example of "Though I give my body to be burned
Then without the love of god in the renewed mind it profiteth me nothing
So you can do all these things to help people and then without the love then there is no profit
CK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWF
God is love. When we became His children by faith, we no longer have to reley on our own understanding in order to love. Doesn't it say to be renewed in the spirit of your mind? Since the flesh is dead, what profit would it be to continue in the flesh? God constrains us to walk by the spirit.
So, to live by Gods love would be to walk by the spirit and not the fleshly mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
" Giving one's body to be burned" more than just working and being underpaid - for a good cause. I'll have to look at my corps notes to see what walter said - but i'm nearly positive it had to do with extreme self-sacrifice (think Mother Theresa)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Okay, fair enough. "Love", or "love of God" is a common translation of άγάπή and άγάπάω, although there are places where they refer to loving darkness, so it's more contextual in I Corinthians 13 than an absolute.
But what about the "in the renewed mind" part. What makes you think that Mr. Wierwille was correct there?
Since this is the doctrinal forum, let's do a leetle research, shall we? I am by no means saying that Wierwille was always wrong, he wasn't, but let's not assume that he was always right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckmkeon
ICOR 13:4
(Charity) The love of God in the renewed mind suffereth long, and it is kind; (charity) The love of God in the renewed mind envieth not. (Charity) The love of God in the renewed mind vaunteth not itself, it is not puffed up.
To suffer long is to edure whatever it takes
Kind is to be nice
Envy in to want something that is yours.
Vaunteth To brag about what you have done
Puffed Up The person should not be puffed up when talking to people
CK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
GOD does the renewing CK,
NOT US........................imo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunnyfla
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Besides, it simply says nothing about "the renewed mind"...so renewed mind quotes are not applicable here. It is simply agape..."1) brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence" (per Strong's).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckmkeon
What makes you think he was wrong??
CK
Edited by ckmkeonLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The word agapē undoubtedly means "love" in some fashion, but does it mean "the love of God"?
I John 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
The phrase "the love of God" is (loosely) agapē theos; so if agapē is translated "the love of God", then this verse (redundantly) says "the love of God of God" or "God's love of God"; so why would the "of God" be added if "of God" is understood to be part of the definition?There's a few other places where it is phrased thus.
I John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
If agapē means "the love of God", then how can men love darkness with the love of God?
That's one reason why I think that he may be wrong.
The second is the whole "in the renewed mind" thing (doesn't he add "in manifestation"?) - there is no scriptural, textual, contextual or grammatical reason to add "in the renewed mind" that I can see.
So, since Wierwille taught biblical keys, let's use some of them in this thread. I'm willing (as are others here in doctrinal) to concede that Wierwille is correct when the evidense supports him, not just because he says so.
This is one of the times when its "just because he says so".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckmkeon
What a wonderful explanation of the Roman Catholic Church
CK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
agape
(Greek) love (especially love that is spiritual and selfless in nature) http://www.wordreference.com/definition/agape
a·ga·pe java script:play( (ä-gä
p
, ä
g
-p
)
n. 1. Christianity Love as revealed in Jesus, seen as spiritual and selfless and a model for humanity.2. Love that is spiritual, not sexual, in its nature.3. Christianity In the early Christian Church, the love feast accompanied by Eucharistic celebrationhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/agape
Agapē (written αγάπη in the Greek alphabet, and pronounced /aga̍pe/ or /a̍gape/), is one of several Greek words meaning love The word has been used in different ways by a variety of contemporary and ancient sources, including Biblical authors. Many have thought that this word represents divine, unconditional, self-sacrificing, active, volitional, thoughtful love Greek philosophers at the time of Plato used it in a way that suggested love of that which is below you, rather than philia, love between friends or equals, and Eros love of that which is above you. Eros was see as the highest, and agape as the lowest. The term was used by the early Christians to refer to the special love for God and God's love for humanity, as well as the self-sacrificing love they believed all should have for each other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape
"the renewed mind in manifestation"
Whats in Manifestation??
Clothing the poor, housing the homeless, feeding the hungry, succoring those in prison ????
No indeedy, It's "the renewed mind" that's in manifestation, by SITing, by "working the word", by studying----
I still remember being told by my TC "we don't have to help those outside TWI, they aren't part of the family, God could care less what happens to them"
Of course we didn't help those less fortunate than us in TWI either because the fact they were less fortunate meant they weren't ---drum roll please!---"renewing their minds"
I by no means do all I could to care for those less fortunate in the world around me--but at least I am free of being told I can't
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Well,
Oakspear AND Templelady gave 2 different answers, either of which should be
sufficient.
Second of all, your answer to date was as follows:
First,
you ignored the question for several days, even when it was posed several times.
Second,
you answered a question by saying
"How you you know it's not right?"
Which is not an ANSWER, it's an EVASION.
Third,
as soon as they answered your evasion,
you CHANGED THE SUBJECT and insulted another group.
Is this going to be the sum total of your answer?
Espouse an unproven theology,
pretend it holds up to scrutiny,
when challenged, pretend the challenger has to answer rather than you,
then change the subject when proven wrong?
I mean, you could always post now and TRY to defend your theology,
or actually think it over and-gasp!-conclude it was WRONG and CHANGE
your theology when proven wrong! Imagine that!
You can IMPROVE and CHANGE YOUR MIND!
Edited by WordWolfLink 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.