Right on brother. I guess to you nothing changed when Adam and Eve fell. And nothing changed when Jesus died and rose from the dead. It's all just the same. Never mind the book will never make sense if you just lump everything, everybody, and every time into one big ball of s..t.
rrob
In the realm of critical thinking, this is what is known as a straw man.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition...SOURCE
No one said nothing has changed since Adam and Eve or that everything is just the same.
No one is attacking you. Disagree with some of your points? Sure. But, not attacking you. Do you not realize that what you assume to be "the word" is really just someone's private interpretation of it? Sometimes you can spend years, even decades, thinking you understand a verse or section of scripture, only to find you were mistaken about it's meaning. It's just simply not possible to "know that you know that you know". Learning is an adventure. You can never be quite sure where it will lead you.
I'll take your word for the no attacks. Thanks.
Just because you don't understand the Bible, doesn't mean I don't. Now I'm not saying I know it all, but I do know where it all leads.
Eph 1:10,
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
I'm not going to dare comment on that verse as you may call it private interpretation. You make out of it whatever you think it says. It's no more complicated than what we all are writing to each other. Somehow we manage to understand all that. Why is the Bible any different?
In the realm of critical thinking, this is what is known as a straw man.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition...SOURCE
No one said nothing has changed since Adam and Eve or that everything is just the same.
So you do believe in dispensations. Sorry, I misunderstood. I take it all back.
So you do believe in dispensations. Sorry, I misunderstood. I take it all back.
Maybe I've failed to convey the significance of adhering to dispensations/administrations. Dispensationalism is a concept that promotes the idea of different sections of the bible being walled off from other sections. That's the essence of saying "Such and such a directive doesn't apply to me because it was addressed to a different administration." It's quite handy in explaining why the Old Testament seems to contradict the New Testament. The problem, of course, is that it has no basis in scripture. If it does, could you be so kind as to show it to me?
Just because you don't understand the Bible, doesn't mean I don't. Now I'm not saying I know it all, but I do know where it all leads.
Eph 1:10,
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
I'm not going to dare comment on that verse as you may call it private interpretation. You make out of it whatever you think it says. It's no more complicated than what we all are writing to each other. Somehow we manage to understand all that. Why is the Bible any different?
There is nothing in that verse that even remotely suggests the bible is divided into separate compartments.
Without going into further detail, i might suggest some other discussions that have taken place of that very same word that has been translated as dispensation in that verse. I'm not very good at searches but there is a search window at the top.
Maybe I've failed to convey the significance of adhering to dispensations/administrations. Dispensationalism is a concept that promotes the idea of different sections of the bible being walled off from other sections. That's the essence of saying "Such and such a directive doesn't apply to me because it was addressed to a different administration." It's quite handy in explaining why the Old Testament seems to contradict the New Testament. The problem, of course, is that it has no basis in scripture. If it does, could you be so kind as to show it to me?
Well, you already know there is no basis in the scriptures for dispensations, so what the heck could I show you? The scriptures would be all I have.
There is nothing in that verse that even remotely suggests the bible is divided into separate compartments.
Without going into further detail, i might suggest some other discussions that have taken place of that very same word that has been translated as dispensation in that verse. I'm not very good at searches but there is a search window at the top.
What is the dispensation of the fullness of times? Why don't you tell me exactly what that verse says. If your answer makes sense, I may actually change my mind. Go for it...
Very little discussion on the doctrine I speak of. Just personal attacks. That's GSC culture I guess.
Most of your concepts seem to come from GSC speak. Maybe you should consider getting out of the GSC box.
please define GSC speak
54 minutes ago, rrobs said:
You didn't say you wanted me to teach you the answer to your questions. Didn't think you would though.
oh yes - my original questions a few posts ago are still open for discussion. I'm all ears....hopefully when you said "teach" you mean you'll share why you made those assertions - preferably you'll include scripture reference and simple logic...i'm old and don't process things as fast as i used to
I'll check back a little later...fixn' to get in the pool and enjoy some family time on July 4th...and to you and every Grease Spotter, have a happy and safe 4th of July celebration
oh yes - my original questions a few posts ago are still open for discussion. I'm all ears....hopefully when you said "teach" you mean you'll share why you made those assertions - preferably you'll include scripture reference and simple logic...i'm old and don't process things as fast as i used to
I'll check back a little later...fixn' to get in the pool and enjoy some family time on July 4th...and to you and every Grease Spotter, have a happy and safe 4th of July celebration
I don't think I want to teach you. Sorry, no offence. Just not into it.
You are a son of God. I call that your standing, the doctrine. Call it whatever you want. In any case, the new birth is spiritual. It's what God in Christ did for you. All you did was believe unto it. It did not affect your mind or how you behave. That is your standing or the doctrine.
Now God doesn't pour his word into your head at the new birth so you suddenly know all about him. But it does make it available for you to learn the things of God that you couldn't learn before your new birth. The natural man receives not the things of God, but he has revealed them to us, his spirit filled born again children, by his spirit. That's somewhere in Romans.
The churches and twi focus on your state. You have to do this, you have to do that, you can't do that. The Way says you have to go WOW (whatever it's called now), join the corps, or whatever. They all want you to do something to grow into Christ. That is the walk pushing the doctrine and it seldom works.
I am saying that if you want to walk better, study the doctrine. Learn who you are in Christ, what God has done for you. Learn how big his grace really is. The more you study the doctrine, the more your walk, how you witness Christ, will be in line with God's will. That is the doctrine pulling the walk.
How does that smack of jargon and divisiveness? If you honestly look at it, it could change your life with God. That's up to you, but I'd not blow it off so quickly.
Thanks, I'm doing fine as I am without pondering "standing" and "state." You don't know what I study. You don't know what I have studied in the past. I can tell you what I don't study (have a guess, the initials PFAL might give you a clue). And you really don't know how my life has changed, post-TWI. (Nor, for that matter, do you know how badly it changed as a result of being "in.")
Are you using the word "you" aimed at me specifically? Or would the word "one" express a more general point?
Your post is quite hard to read. You might not think of it as jargon, but you express things in such a TWI-type of style, phraseology, that it comes across as Waybrained. Probably three or four Wayish expressions in every line. It can be helpful both for the speaker (or writer) and for the hearers (or readers), to find a different turn of phrase to express the same thing. Go on, challenge yourself!
Bottom line: get the doctrine straight and the walk will naturally be lined up with the doctrine. Without a thorough knowledge of the doctrine, the walk will be nothing but vain attempts at self justification. Instead of trying to be a good Christian, look at what God has already made you. The only place to learn that is in the Bible.
So this refers back to your original post. Which I had the courtesy to attempt an answer before, which you didn't seem to respond kindly to.
Yes. Get the doctrine straight. That includes knowing all of the Bible, all the parts which for convenience only are referred to as OT, Gospels, and NT. Do not cherry pick verses. Do not twist them to make them read as you'd prefer them to. Do not ignore verses that you don't like. "Do" what you know to do: and understanding of the bigger picture will continue to grow.
Personally, I don't "look at what God has already made [me]" I look at Him, and who (I perceive) He is. I look at Jesus, and who (I perceive) he is. I accept that I am deeply loved, chosen, and cared for. Because I am loved and cared for, I cannot but respond by being loving and caring back towards He who cares for me. I see that I am to be loving and kind towards others: so I am, as best I can be. I look at fellow Christians, to see how they devote their lives to service of the Lord. I can learn from them, too.
If I spent my time looking at me, I'd be so aware of my flaws that I'd fail to do anything. Yet I know that others look at me, to see how I serve. So I try to present a good model for them, too. And acknowledge when I stuff up.
Push and pull seem so common and ordinary in our experience of life that we humans think little of these forces. Most of us assume they are simple opposites. In and out. Back and forth. Force directed in one direction or its opposite. However whether something pushes or pulls something else, there is a difference. A couple of examples will illustrate.
Imagine pushing a ping pong ball on a smooth table with the point of a sharp pencil. The ball would always roll away from the direction of the push, first rolling one way then the other. Now imagine the difference, if you attach a string to the ping pong ball with tape, and pull it toward you. The string would always bring it directly towards you.
Another example from common experience occurs when pulling a trailer with a car. When your car is pulling the trailer uphill, you are pulling against gravity. The trailer can not push the car while going uphill. The trailer falls in line nicely behind your car. Now if you are driving downhill too slow, the trailer may begin to push the car instead of the car pulling the trailer. This produces a strong, unpredictable side to side force. Your trailer will begin to sway from side to side. If not corrected a violent crash will almost certainly result.
Our standing and state are like the car pulling the trailer. The car is your standing, the trailer your state.
(snip)
[Sorry, but you've stepped outside the Bible in your usage.
The word "standing" appears in the KJV 52 times. 51 times it rather clearly refers to either a building/standing structure or a person, in either case the physical act of standing up (a building that stands, a person who stands on his feet.) The other instance is Micah 1:11. The same word rendered "standing" in Micah 1:11 in the KJV is generally rendered "support" in other versions, and is rendered "standing-place" in many of the others. So, this usage of the word "standing" as you have given it does NOT appear in the KJV. From where are you drawing this meaning, if not the Bible?]
Thanks, I'm doing fine as I am without pondering "standing" and "state." You don't know what I study. You don't know what I have studied in the past. I can tell you what I don't study (have a guess, the initials PFAL might give you a clue). And you really don't know how my life has changed, post-TWI. (Nor, for that matter, do you know how badly it changed as a result of being "in.")
Are you using the word "you" aimed at me specifically? Or would the word "one" express a more general point?
Your post is quite hard to read. You might not think of it as jargon, but you express things in such a TWI-type of style, phraseology, that it comes across as Waybrained. Probably three or four Wayish expressions in every line. It can be helpful both for the speaker (or writer) and for the hearers (or readers), to find a different turn of phrase to express the same thing. Go on, challenge yourself!
First, I'm glad you are doing well. I suppose there really is no need to ponder "standing" or "state." You are absolutely right about that. The new earth will be full of people who never thought about it. It's optional.
You seem to take my post personal. I don't even know who you are. Maybe you could rewrite it to be more palatable. Feel free to change all the "you"s into "ones" if it makes you feel better.
Is "waybrained" and "wafer" part of GSC speak? Any other phrases I should learn?
By the way, any comments on the actual content of my post? They sent me down here to the "basement" (I think that is the correct GSC speak for "doctrinal" section) to discuss doctrine, not to argue. I left another section because I guess I wasn't respecting the rules. You, and I mean "you," should do the same. If you have nothing to contribute but complaints you should stay out of it. This section is for doctrinal discussions only.
[Sorry, but you've stepped outside the Bible in your usage.
The word "standing" appears in the KJV 52 times. 51 times it rather clearly refers to either a building/standing structure or a person, in either case the physical act of standing up (a building that stands, a person who stands on his feet.) The other instance is Micah 1:11. The same word rendered "standing" in Micah 1:11 in the KJV is generally rendered "support" in other versions, and is rendered "standing-place" in many of the others. So, this usage of the word "standing" as you have given it does NOT appear in the KJV. From where are you drawing this meaning, if not the Bible?]
Apart from the terms used, is the principle correct or not? If it is correct, what term would be better than "standing?" Or is the entire post BS?
So this refers back to your original post. Which I had the courtesy to attempt an answer before, which you didn't seem to respond kindly to.
Yes. Get the doctrine straight. That includes knowing all of the Bible, all the parts which for convenience only are referred to as OT, Gospels, and NT. Do not cherry pick verses. Do not twist them to make them read as you'd prefer them to. Do not ignore verses that you don't like. "Do" what you know to do: and understanding of the bigger picture will continue to grow.
Personally, I don't "look at what God has already made [me]" I look at Him, and who (I perceive) He is. I look at Jesus, and who (I perceive) he is. I accept that I am deeply loved, chosen, and cared for. Because I am loved and cared for, I cannot but respond by being loving and caring back towards He who cares for me. I see that I am to be loving and kind towards others: so I am, as best I can be. I look at fellow Christians, to see how they devote their lives to service of the Lord. I can learn from them, too.
If I spent my time looking at me, I'd be so aware of my flaws that I'd fail to do anything. Yet I know that others look at me, to see how I serve. So I try to present a good model for them, too. And acknowledge when I stuff up.
Well, I didn't exactly say look at yourself. I said look at what God made you. You'd never see that if you looked at yourself. Only the Bible tells you about that.
Anyway, I think we are splitting hairs here just a bit. From your post here, it looks like we are much more alike, if not totally alike, than different. I'm sure you are a blessing to many people around you. But with God in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) in you (Col 1:2), how could you do otherwise? It's all win-win for us. God bless...
Apart from the terms used, is the principle correct or not? If it is correct, what term would be better than "standing?" Or is the entire post BS?
[You really don't get it. Despite your own assertions you checked it all out, and aren't just regurgitating what you learned in pfal, your first time at bat was entirely based on something made up-as in "not based on the Bible"- that vpw taught and you swallowed without actually checking. The whole concept was based on a term that never carried the meaning ASCRIBED to it. So, contrasting "standing" vs "state" is incorrect because even if "state" meant EXACTLY what you were tauight, the Bible does not contrast that with the act of standing up (what "standing" means in the Bible.)
So, the limits of what you know are the limits of what was taught in twi. And much of that was error-filled. You have not put it to the test on your own. You know LESS than you think you do, and have failed to test all those things for accuracy (old news around here.) You're convinced you can teach us, when we've done this and you haven't. It's like me doing a seminar for PhDs having never studied for a Masters in their field. Mind you, even IN twi, I was trying to do better, to improve on what was taught, and to learn from sources outside twi. ( I was an eclecticist from the beginning, so that just goes with the territory.)
This would concern me if I were you.]
[P.S. - Just for fun.....According to the Bible, what is the difference between "the kingdom of heaven" and "the kingdom of God"?]
rrobs: Of course I take your post personally: you kept addressing me as "you". That's personal.
I probably know more about what goes on in this forum than you do (as I've been around just a little longer).
Just because I don't go around quoting chapter and verse doesn't mean that what I say doesn't fit here. Heck, I might even have internalized some verses, "made them my own" (Wayferism) and come out with my own words (not parroting).
But welcome. All are welcome here. Sometimes we talk about things in a roundabout way. Have a coffee and unwind a little.
Kingdom of heaven is predominately spoken of in the gospel of Mathew, and quite specifically refers to the reign of Christ (here on earth.)
Kingdom of God kicks it up a notch and should be considered or viewed from a broader perspective.
(not that TWI's research dept. ever came up with a simple way to differentiate between the two...)
WordWolf: [You really don't get it. Despite your own assertions you checked it all out, and aren't just regurgitating what you learned in pfal, your first time at bat was entirely based on something made up-as in "not based on the Bible"- that vpw taught and you swallowed without actually checking. The whole concept was based on a term that never carried the meaning ASCRIBED to it. So, contrasting "standing" vs "state" is incorrect because even if "state" meant EXACTLY what you were tauight, the Bible does not contrast that with the act of standing up (what "standing" means in the Bible.)
So, the limits of what you know are the limits of what was taught in twi. And much of that was error-filled. You have not put it to the test on your own. You know LESS than you think you do, and have failed to test all those things for accuracy (old news around here.) You're convinced you can teach us, when we've done this and you haven't. It's like me doing a seminar for PhDs having never studied for a Masters in their field. Mind you, even IN twi, I was trying to do better, to improve on what was taught, and to learn from sources outside twi. ( I was an eclecticist from the beginning, so that just goes with the territory.)
This would concern me if I were you.]
[P.S. - Just for fun.....According to the Bible, what is the difference between "the kingdom of heaven" and "the kingdom of God"?]
======================================
Twinky:
"Don't go there, WW..."
==========================================
TLC:
" why not?
Kingdom of heaven is predominately spoken of in the gospel of Mathew, and quite specifically refers to the reign of Christ (here on earth.)
Kingdom of God kicks it up a notch and should be considered or viewed from a broader perspective.
(not that TWI's research dept. ever came up with a simple way to differentiate between the two...) "
===========================================
[INCORRECT.
You also hit one of my points quite nicely without meaning to. Seriously. There aren't many cccurrences of both phrases in the Bible {"kingdom of heaven" "kingdom of God.") Abandon all preconceived notions. Then read each occurrence in its contents, one right after the other. The answer to my question will then become PAINFULLY easy to state. Please pm me privately with your answer, since I want to see if rrobb can manage it without someone giving away the answer.]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
18
11
40
Popular Days
Jul 4
38
Jul 8
18
Jul 5
10
Jul 9
10
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 9 posts
waysider 18 posts
Bolshevik 11 posts
rrobs 40 posts
Popular Days
Jul 4 2017
38 posts
Jul 8 2017
18 posts
Jul 5 2017
10 posts
Jul 9 2017
10 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
What are the five things you must know to receive anything from a troll ? 1. Know what’s available: bull$hit, lies, and deception 2. Know how to receive it: engage a troll in a discussion ab
chockfull
Dumb and Dumber was a quaint movie that most humans chose to ignore, but it seems to offer an appropriate analogy on this thread. Here in this clip, Jeff Daniels is fooled by Jim Carey, who to pu
Twinky
Y'know, I have NEVER heard any other organization talk about "standing" and "state". Haven't thought of it for years. Rarely have I heard talk of one's "walk." I attend two very good churches re
Posted Images
waysider
rrob
In the realm of critical thinking, this is what is known as a straw man.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition...SOURCE
No one said nothing has changed since Adam and Eve or that everything is just the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
I'll take your word for the no attacks. Thanks.
Just because you don't understand the Bible, doesn't mean I don't. Now I'm not saying I know it all, but I do know where it all leads.
Eph 1:10,
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
I'm not going to dare comment on that verse as you may call it private interpretation. You make out of it whatever you think it says. It's no more complicated than what we all are writing to each other. Somehow we manage to understand all that. Why is the Bible any different?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
So you do believe in dispensations. Sorry, I misunderstood. I take it all back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe I've failed to convey the significance of adhering to dispensations/administrations. Dispensationalism is a concept that promotes the idea of different sections of the bible being walled off from other sections. That's the essence of saying "Such and such a directive doesn't apply to me because it was addressed to a different administration." It's quite handy in explaining why the Old Testament seems to contradict the New Testament. The problem, of course, is that it has no basis in scripture. If it does, could you be so kind as to show it to me?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
There is nothing in that verse that even remotely suggests the bible is divided into separate compartments.
Without going into further detail, i might suggest some other discussions that have taken place of that very same word that has been translated as dispensation in that verse. I'm not very good at searches but there is a search window at the top.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
Well, you already know there is no basis in the scriptures for dispensations, so what the heck could I show you? The scriptures would be all I have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
What is the dispensation of the fullness of times? Why don't you tell me exactly what that verse says. If your answer makes sense, I may actually change my mind. Go for it...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Sometimes the journey is more important than the destination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
please define GSC speak
oh yes - my original questions a few posts ago are still open for discussion. I'm all ears....hopefully when you said "teach" you mean you'll share why you made those assertions - preferably you'll include scripture reference and simple logic...i'm old and don't process things as fast as i used to
I'll check back a little later...fixn' to get in the pool and enjoy some family time on July 4th...and to you and every Grease Spotter, have a happy and safe 4th of July celebration
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
I don't think I want to teach you. Sorry, no offence. Just not into it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
for some reason I thought of that session in PFAL that covers willingness and ability...there's a line in there
"I have a jack but I'm not going to help you..."
i dunno...i tend to think maybe there's a lack of both
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Thanks, I'm doing fine as I am without pondering "standing" and "state." You don't know what I study. You don't know what I have studied in the past. I can tell you what I don't study (have a guess, the initials PFAL might give you a clue). And you really don't know how my life has changed, post-TWI. (Nor, for that matter, do you know how badly it changed as a result of being "in.")
Are you using the word "you" aimed at me specifically? Or would the word "one" express a more general point?
Your post is quite hard to read. You might not think of it as jargon, but you express things in such a TWI-type of style, phraseology, that it comes across as Waybrained. Probably three or four Wayish expressions in every line. It can be helpful both for the speaker (or writer) and for the hearers (or readers), to find a different turn of phrase to express the same thing. Go on, challenge yourself!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
So this refers back to your original post. Which I had the courtesy to attempt an answer before, which you didn't seem to respond kindly to.
Yes. Get the doctrine straight. That includes knowing all of the Bible, all the parts which for convenience only are referred to as OT, Gospels, and NT. Do not cherry pick verses. Do not twist them to make them read as you'd prefer them to. Do not ignore verses that you don't like. "Do" what you know to do: and understanding of the bigger picture will continue to grow.
Personally, I don't "look at what God has already made [me]" I look at Him, and who (I perceive) He is. I look at Jesus, and who (I perceive) he is. I accept that I am deeply loved, chosen, and cared for. Because I am loved and cared for, I cannot but respond by being loving and caring back towards He who cares for me. I see that I am to be loving and kind towards others: so I am, as best I can be. I look at fellow Christians, to see how they devote their lives to service of the Lord. I can learn from them, too.
If I spent my time looking at me, I'd be so aware of my flaws that I'd fail to do anything. Yet I know that others look at me, to see how I serve. So I try to present a good model for them, too. And acknowledge when I stuff up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Wow. All that great long post. And no Wayisms, either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[Sorry, but you've stepped outside the Bible in your usage.
The word "standing" appears in the KJV 52 times. 51 times it rather clearly refers to either a building/standing structure or a person, in either case the physical act of standing up (a building that stands, a person who stands on his feet.) The other instance is Micah 1:11. The same word rendered "standing" in Micah 1:11 in the KJV is generally rendered "support" in other versions, and is rendered "standing-place" in many of the others. So, this usage of the word "standing" as you have given it does NOT appear in the KJV. From where are you drawing this meaning, if not the Bible?]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
First, I'm glad you are doing well. I suppose there really is no need to ponder "standing" or "state." You are absolutely right about that. The new earth will be full of people who never thought about it. It's optional.
You seem to take my post personal. I don't even know who you are. Maybe you could rewrite it to be more palatable. Feel free to change all the "you"s into "ones" if it makes you feel better.
Is "waybrained" and "wafer" part of GSC speak? Any other phrases I should learn?
By the way, any comments on the actual content of my post? They sent me down here to the "basement" (I think that is the correct GSC speak for "doctrinal" section) to discuss doctrine, not to argue. I left another section because I guess I wasn't respecting the rules. You, and I mean "you," should do the same. If you have nothing to contribute but complaints you should stay out of it. This section is for doctrinal discussions only.
Edited by rrobstypo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
Apart from the terms used, is the principle correct or not? If it is correct, what term would be better than "standing?" Or is the entire post BS?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
Well, I didn't exactly say look at yourself. I said look at what God made you. You'd never see that if you looked at yourself. Only the Bible tells you about that.
Anyway, I think we are splitting hairs here just a bit. From your post here, it looks like we are much more alike, if not totally alike, than different. I'm sure you are a blessing to many people around you. But with God in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) in you (Col 1:2), how could you do otherwise? It's all win-win for us. God bless...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[You really don't get it. Despite your own assertions you checked it all out, and aren't just regurgitating what you learned in pfal, your first time at bat was entirely based on something made up-as in "not based on the Bible"- that vpw taught and you swallowed without actually checking. The whole concept was based on a term that never carried the meaning ASCRIBED to it. So, contrasting "standing" vs "state" is incorrect because even if "state" meant EXACTLY what you were tauight, the Bible does not contrast that with the act of standing up (what "standing" means in the Bible.)
So, the limits of what you know are the limits of what was taught in twi. And much of that was error-filled. You have not put it to the test on your own. You know LESS than you think you do, and have failed to test all those things for accuracy (old news around here.) You're convinced you can teach us, when we've done this and you haven't. It's like me doing a seminar for PhDs having never studied for a Masters in their field. Mind you, even IN twi, I was trying to do better, to improve on what was taught, and to learn from sources outside twi. ( I was an eclecticist from the beginning, so that just goes with the territory.)
This would concern me if I were you.]
[P.S. - Just for fun.....According to the Bible, what is the difference between "the kingdom of heaven" and "the kingdom of God"?]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Don't go there, WW...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
rrobs: Of course I take your post personally: you kept addressing me as "you". That's personal.
I probably know more about what goes on in this forum than you do (as I've been around just a little longer).
Just because I don't go around quoting chapter and verse doesn't mean that what I say doesn't fit here. Heck, I might even have internalized some verses, "made them my own" (Wayferism) and come out with my own words (not parroting).
But welcome. All are welcome here. Sometimes we talk about things in a roundabout way. Have a coffee and unwind a little.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
why not?
Kingdom of heaven is predominately spoken of in the gospel of Mathew, and quite specifically refers to the reign of Christ (here on earth.)
Kingdom of God kicks it up a notch and should be considered or viewed from a broader perspective.
(not that TWI's research dept. ever came up with a simple way to differentiate between the two...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
WordWolf:
[You really don't get it. Despite your own assertions you checked it all out, and aren't just regurgitating what you learned in pfal, your first time at bat was entirely based on something made up-as in "not based on the Bible"- that vpw taught and you swallowed without actually checking. The whole concept was based on a term that never carried the meaning ASCRIBED to it. So, contrasting "standing" vs "state" is incorrect because even if "state" meant EXACTLY what you were tauight, the Bible does not contrast that with the act of standing up (what "standing" means in the Bible.)
So, the limits of what you know are the limits of what was taught in twi. And much of that was error-filled. You have not put it to the test on your own. You know LESS than you think you do, and have failed to test all those things for accuracy (old news around here.) You're convinced you can teach us, when we've done this and you haven't. It's like me doing a seminar for PhDs having never studied for a Masters in their field. Mind you, even IN twi, I was trying to do better, to improve on what was taught, and to learn from sources outside twi. ( I was an eclecticist from the beginning, so that just goes with the territory.)
This would concern me if I were you.]
[P.S. - Just for fun.....According to the Bible, what is the difference between "the kingdom of heaven" and "the kingdom of God"?]
======================================
Twinky:
"Don't go there, WW..."
==========================================
TLC:
" why not?
Kingdom of heaven is predominately spoken of in the gospel of Mathew, and quite specifically refers to the reign of Christ (here on earth.)
Kingdom of God kicks it up a notch and should be considered or viewed from a broader perspective.
(not that TWI's research dept. ever came up with a simple way to differentiate between the two...) "
===========================================
[INCORRECT.
You also hit one of my points quite nicely without meaning to. Seriously. There aren't many cccurrences of both phrases in the Bible {"kingdom of heaven" "kingdom of God.") Abandon all preconceived notions. Then read each occurrence in its contents, one right after the other. The answer to my question will then become PAINFULLY easy to state. Please pm me privately with your answer, since I want to see if rrobb can manage it without someone giving away the answer.]
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.