Leaderboard

Right. The goal of the law is to get to know Jesus, the Christ. Get to know the Man, the King, the Shepherd, the Redeemer. The goal of the law IS NOT to get to observe any specific day, or time, or season. We are to do as Jesus did, in heart, soul, mind, and strength. That means: loving and obeying God. And then, loving our neighbours (=those around us, those we come into contact with). It doesn't mean: following all the ritual that Jesus followed, and much of which he poo-poo'd.

When I was in grad school, a collaborator from England came to work in our lab for a few days. Wasn't it John Cleese who said that America and England were two countries separated by a common language? He'd ask me, "'Ave ya a gum bung?" After some thought, I realized he needed a rubber stopper. "'Ave ya a retort 'older?" Ah! A ring stand! And let's not forget the pronunciations: Instead of "I put some trimethylaluminum in a CAPillary tube," it was tri MEEthilealuMINium in a caPILLary. Of course, this worked the other way, as well. I made a business trip to England and decided to to use the hotel exercise room. I couldn't get the locker to open, when a local said that I needed to "give it a poundin'." Well, banging it didn't work, and I finally found out he told me to "Give it a pound (coin) in." (Put a pound coin in the slot.) George

Yep. Everything I, and others on this thread, goes right over your head. We don't live in OT times, Waxit. We have a little more freedom than that. I am not "finding legal loopholes" (which you seem to think is wrong) - I am explaining how law works. I am jolly sure that God intended man to take regular rest from his normal labours. Absolutely! And I have always made it clear to you (should you choose to look) that I do exactly that. I set out in detail how I enjoy my "sabbath rest" and use it to glorify God. I love doing that. Where I absolutely do not agree with you, Waxit, is that it is a special day (that you see as Saturday) and only that day, that must be utilised for the sabbath rest. I do not think it is possible to say that any "original" sabbath day was on any particular day of the week. In fact, I'd say the task is absolutely impossible. And furthermore, I don't believe that God would be one jot upset if anyone (at all) chose to enjoy their day of rest, their sabbath, on some other day of the week, because of whatever commitments that person might have. If you think that, you know a different God from the one I do. Mine is loving, caring, graceful, compassionate, peaceful, forgiving and a lot of other wonderful things besides. My God is not vindictive and will throw me away forever if I happen to celebrate a day of loving him - on the wrong day of the week. Think about that.

I'll admit my memory isn't as sharp as it once was, but I seem to recall a discussion addressing that very topic, some time ago. I have no idea how to find it again or where it all led. I seem to recall, though, when the dust all settled, we found ourselves down the block inside at 23 Skidoo.

Waxit, a "productive discussion" must be both "productive" and a "discussion." To "discuss", each of us has to listen to the POV of the others, and probably get something out of it, whether big or small. We have to acknowledge that we are ALL trying to communicate, and are entitled to courtesy, and, at least here, a chance to be heard. To know if it's possible to have a "productive conversation", we need to know if the participants are really willing to converse. If one or more are just interested in advertising, mudslinging, trolling, or insulting, then we can't really have any kind of "conversation." It really sounds like you're disinterested in anyone here- except as an AUDIENCE or as someone to AGREE WITH YOU automatically. We're often open to changing positions, but only if the other side makes more sense than our own, not just because someone insists they're right, or insists they know what God wants, or insists they're right because they have great conviction. If you really want to change minds here, you'd actually have to DISCUSS and CONVERSE. Stop and ask yourself if you're really ready to do that, please.

Here is one of DWBH's posts on John Summerville and TFI......

Hi all! Wow what a trip this is here. I was marked and avoided in 1995. How many people get to say they were shunned? I became involved in 84 Little Rock AFB Ar. Was a WOW Amb and advance class survivor. They started to get a bug up their butts when I decided all the dead end jobs were dead end and wanted to go to college. The twisted justification on the Ways part was how dare I rely on education and advancement to supply my needs. Also Martindale was becoming a person who seemed far from Christ like. There was already strike one from moving to go to school.My questioning the crap coming out of Loys mouth got me the mark and avoid. How dare I question.

Hi everyone, although I did not disclose his name in my memoir, Undertow, Dr. Joseph Bishop was my father-in-law. I was married to Tim Bishop from 1973 to 1991. In Undertow, Tim's name is changed to Ed.

That was Rev. Bishop. He was Tim Bishop’s father, and his church was in Rye, NY. Remember the “Groovy Christians of Rye”? (Life Magazine article, May 14, 1971) As I recall they held Sunday fellowships and larger meetings in a room in Rev, Bishop’s church at the time.

Ignore? Or accept the heart of it? The heart of it is: rest, on a regular basis. And I have told you, time and again, how it is that I personally honour God and God's rest. I did ask you why God would be so petty as to demand that rest be on one particular day only, and condemn all those who love him but honour him on a different day. You didn't answer that. It's good that you honour God on a regular basis each week; I'm glad that you so choose. I think you're going to be awfully upset if you find that the calendar isn't as you think and you find you are sabbathing on, say, Wednesday, or Tuesday. Oops! I do not accept your (church's) assertion that one can know what day the original "7th day" was. Nor do I think it necessary to know.

Do you see how judgmental this sounds? "I agree to differ" but you're sill wrong and you're gonna be shocked come judgment time, because you think you have special exemption and I, Waxit, say that you don't. Waxit, it may be the other way round! You think old laws apply to you and you are actually free from them. Maybe Jesus will say, "Waxit, why do you keep putting yourself into bondage? Do you like shackles, when I paid the price for you? Is what I did somehow not enough for you?"

Thanks for that TED talk, Rocky…while watching it I tried to imagine the doctrinal forum in a Zoom meeting format. On a side note I think you, WordWolf and Twinky tend to be arbitrators and facilitators in a discussion – often very needful “jobs” in doctrinal..

Calm down, Waxit. We've all had our journeys out of TWI. Some of us have been very badly abused. Some still have good memories. Your journey is your journey; do share the bits that you think will help people. You don't know where others have "been" - I do know my own experiences of life during TWI and particularly the enormous injury afterwards (that I have told you about) have enabled me to reach out to others with much greater compassion. If you permit it, God will enable you to bless and help others, when you share your journey (but only to help others and show that recovery is possible when they are "down the bottom of the well." - ie, not share because your story is better, worse, more/less lurid, etc - the story is how God rescued you, not about you, glorify Him not you). People here have tried to understand where you are coming from, and have asked you questions, both to understand you and perhaps to help you. Your responses are often repetitive, hectoring, lecturing, generally unresponsive and less than respectful. Would it be true to say that you think those who disagree with you do not love God? Despite what they do, believe, how they act - they will be banished for ever? Please, Waxit, have a bigger view of God. He sent Jesus to die horrifically so that all might live - not be banished. All have sinned, all have done wrong, and all will continue to do wrong, despite best efforts otherwise. God allows us to go wrong, time after time. He knows we (all) are imperfect, we are foolish, we don't understand enough. He's not looking to catch us out - he's looking to draw us (all) in. If people do their best but it's wrong, or at least, not perfect, does a loving God slam the door? If a child does wrong, does a parent banish the child from the house? Or look on, smile, and be glad that he has a child, even though the child does wrong? We bring JOY to God, Waxit. He smiles on us with pleasure. He doesn't slam the door on us.

The Apostle Paul had a story. By the way that story developed, he (and many others) came to realize there was a better way than persecuting Gentiles and Christians. What's YOUR story? What happened in your life that opened your eyes to the wonder of how important the sabbath was? It may have been associated chronologically with you reading certain scriptures, but what was the something that happened to give you the "AH HA" moment when you "got it?" What was it in your journey/experience that represented the realization, like when the scales fell off of Paul's eyes?

How is that at all about Gabe? I'm not nitpicking. Stories can communicate powerfully and effectively when/where just telling people that you know they're doing it wrong doesn't get the message across that you wanted to get across. At some point, perhaps when/if you get frustrated enough with lack of response to your preaching, you might explore the idea of trying to express what really motivated you to make the decision in your life. It's a ministry of reconciliation, isn't it? How can you reconcile people to God if you are so frustrated with them that you can't tolerate their feedback to you?

Waxit, this is why I asked you on the other thread to tell us your story, how and why you came to believe what you do about sabbath. Arguing the logic of this or that doesn't convince people. Of anything. Anytime. Stories CAN, however, accomplish your purpose powerfully. If you've already shared your story about this conversion, I obviously missed it. But YOU matter. I want to understand YOU. Please tell us your story about coming to believe in the importance of keeping the sabbath. Thanks

It's "No-one f---g knows" as they reach the finish line!! LOL!

Right. No need to apologize (to me anyway). No I don't presume to know what God thinks. That includes what he thinks about all the people who don't keep the Sabbath on Saturday but do instead on Sunday. I understand that there's a lot of paradox in Christian scriptures and that it is presumptuous of us to judge based on our limited understanding of the complexities of those paradoxes.

Why are you apparently so intent on judging them? Do you know what's in their hearts?

I apologise if i have offended you. I am apologising because the bible says that if your bro/sis has been offended- go and make peace first I didnt mean to offend you as I have explained- you have totally, totally misread and misunderstood me Dont know if you read my earlier reply Regards Waxit

It's not a scripture slug-fest, Waxit. That's a very TWI-thing ("I know better scriptures than you do"). And don't indulge in adding words in your own PI. I (and many others) have stated a different view, which you cannot accept. Fine. End of. It's not even what scriptures one knows - it's the ones one acts upon, puts into practice, that matter. And you cannot see the entire outworking of my faith - but the Lord does - and those who have eyes to see, do.

I disagree with you - it appears to me that Paul is using a rather broad general term in the context referring to days appointed to be observed by the Jewish law – Paul does NOT exclude the Sabbath. Rather in a brief but comprehensive manner Paul is talking about regarding a certain day above another – it could be a feast day – days of unleavened bread, the Passover, feast of tabernacles, etc., or even the Sabbath…You are contradicting yourself saying Paul was not talking about the sabbath when in fact you said he did - you said: “In those days they had religious activities on certain days of the week and that's what Paul is addressing” – yes, you’re absolutely right - they did have religious activities on certain days - such as the Sabbath set aside as a day of worship – a religious activity. In Romans 3 Paul is starting to develop the theme of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Does that mean everything Judaism stood for is wiped out? Not at all – Paul says in Rom. 3:31 that faith actually confirms the purpose of the law. As I stated in a previous post – the law was a means to provide payment for when people sinned, to show mankind’s inability to obey God’s righteous demands and to point to Christ as the Savior...Romans 4 talks about Abraham being justified by faith - not by works. I don’t see a contradiction with what Paul said in Romans 3 with what he said in Romans 14. Because in Rom.14 Paul addresses the latitude we have regarding the observance or non-observance of certain days. Perhaps if you ease up on the Sabbath bias (inserting Sabbath-keeping parenthetically in your mind - and in your post ) you might see that Romans 3 and Romans 14 do not oppose each other. Paul introduces saving faith in Romans 3. By the time he gets to Romans 14 Paul is detailing some practical aspects of faith. (Selections from Romans 3, 4 & 14 are given below). As to dogma-scare-tactics like “if there’s contradictions the Bible will fall apart” – that is really just a false dilemma - As Wikipedia says “The false dilemma fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception.” - ...Sometimes we may think we're stuck in an either/or situation when in fact there may be several more options available. When it comes right down to it – the Bible is what it is. Ever hear that expression before? What does it mean? It indicates the immutable nature of the Bible - meaning whatever was written down in those ancient texts is not going to change - what's done is done.... Yes, there are a lot of translations and versions out there which reflect various translation philosophies (form-driven, meaning-driven, etc.) – but if translators are worth their salt their rendering of the ancient texts usually convey the same basic ideas of God, Jesus Christ, sin, redemption, prayer, brotherly love and so forth. An interesting book about the trustworthiness of these ancient texts is The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable by FF Bruce ...I think a more apt phrase might be “if there’s contradictions in a theology – one's religion might fall apart.” For the aim of systematic theology is to arrange religious truths in a self-consistent whole. ( see systematic theology for more info) == == == 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those ]who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law…Rom. 3:21-31 NASB == == == == 4 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, And whose sins have been covered. 8 “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.” 9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.” 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not [m]through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15 for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. 16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,...Romans 4: 1-16 NASB == == == 14 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God....Romans 14: 1-6 NASB

It looks like I beat you by 2 minutes George. I was actually viewing some other Oscar trivia (Lawrence of Arabia) at the time I checked the post so it registered with me pretty quickly.

I haven't fallen out with you, Waxit. But I (and many others here) would prefer that you be brief and to the point, and address questions asked of you in simple manner. I'm still waiting... well, no, I don't expect you to answer now.

Thank you TBone for the information about the NASB biblical version. In writing my biblical articles I also quote from scriptures, while teaching or writing comments about the scriptures. I have not used the NASB version, however I will at least consider using this version now for scriptural quotes. From what you wrote and the following it looks like I should quote a few of the scriptures for at least a few of my articles. My goal is to write a complete biblical teaching book. Here is copy right information for the NASB that I looked up on the internet. Permission to Quote the NASB® The text of the New American Standard Bible® may be quoted and/or reprinted up to and inclusive of one thousand (1,000) verses without express written permission of The Lockman Foundation, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for more than 50% of the total work in which they are quoted. http://www.lockman.org/tlf/copyright.php Here is a link to the biblical study software that I use when writing articles, which does include NASB along with many other biblical versions. This software saves times and helps with research. http://www.biblesoft.com/

Hi Mark, for study purposes I often use the NASB…as A User’s Guide to Bible Translations by David Dewey states on page 156, “The NASB is a literal translation, far more than the AV/KJV to the point of being wooden. It is considerably more form-driven than even the RSV, and in the Old Testament far more firmly rejects any conjectural readings or deviations from the traditionally accepted Hebrew text.” …and on page 34 & 36, “A form-driven translation is molded by the structure and style of the original language. Its aim is to come as close to the original as can be achieved in an English rendering. Where possible (depending on just how rigidly this translation philosophy is applied) a form-driven version will keep to the simple dictionary definitions of the Hebrew and Greek words being translated as well as the word order and grammatical structures of the original…Often a form-driven rendering is all that is needed to produce a perfectly sensible and natural translation.” Dewey talks about the Bible coming from a distant past and remote culture – and unless you are prepared to learn these ancient languages and culture, you must use a translation to access the Word of God. I am a bit of a study-bug though not as much as I was a few years ago. I have something like 27 translations, a couple of interlinears and a Greek New Testament on my bookshelf. For just plain reading enjoyment I use the NIV (which strives for a balance between form-driven and meaning-driven). I do like some of the newer translations and I’m waiting for The Passion to come out with a complete Old and New Testament version. Whenever I get down to the nitty gritty in a doctrinal study – my go-to translation is often the NASB just because of the good cross-reference system featured in some editions - like the NASB reference edition .

Taking another look at the verses that Waxit mentioned – I have a different take – our faith in Christ enables us to go far and above what any feeble attempts at just abiding by the law will hope to accomplish. 10 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. 5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”…Romans 10: 1-13 NASB It seems rather obvious to me that Paul is saying the aim of what Christ did was to put an end to a person’s futile attempts at righteousness by vain efforts to obey the law – instead a much easier solution is presented – simply a belief in Christ as Lord and Savior (verses 8-13). == == == == 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law……Romans 3: 21-31 NASB Paul is not disparaging or belittling the law here – but rather underscores the purpose of the law and how faith fulfills that purpose. Paul develops this further in chapters 6 & 7. If one thinks about the impetus of the law – to provide a means to pay for the penalty of infractions and to show our inability to obey God’s righteous demands - and ultimately to drive us to Christ - ( see But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. Gal. 3: 23-25 NASB). By our faith in Christ (accepting him who paid the price for our sins and consequently we've been given the capacity to obey God from the heart – see Romans 8:3, 4) we “establish” - histémi in the Greek – establish, uphold, set in balance, initiate, institute – the law. When I think of “set in balance” I picture the different elements of the law are in correct proportions – think of Jesus' words in Matthew 23: 23, 24 NASB: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. ..And if you remember back in Matthew 22: 34-40 Jesus revealed the fulcrum – the pivot point – that upon which the whole law rests – it’s love for God and neighbor. Our faith in Christ enables us to act with genuine love – which I think is the guiding principle in Romans 14, showing Christ’s power to bring together dissimilar people ( some with concern for certain details of the law and others who have no such concern for the details or the ceremony of the law, or may not even have any knowledge of the law) into genuine unity. == == == == 8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment…James 2:8- 13 NASB It doesn’t seem to me James is saying if you violate one commandment, you violate them all. James refers to the “royal law” in v.8. Perhaps a better translation might be the supreme law – i.e. the law above all other laws – which James clarifies in the same verse – when he is says “the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,”. That command along with the first command to love God summarizes all the law and the prophets (Matt. 22:36-40; Rom. 13:8-10). It seems to me what James means by saying you violate one command then you violate them all – is that you are in effect actually breaking the linchpin that holds the whole law together – love for God and neighbor. Or perhaps James is suggesting a domino effect - a cumulative effect produced when one event initiates a succession of similar events. Imagine if the law was a beautiful stained glass window, breaking even one piece of the window compromises the structure and can cause additional issues. Or if the lead that holds the pieces together begins to fatigue more pressure is placed on the glass and could cause breaks in the glass. I don’t think the law of God is a bunch of disjointed directives but a unified code of conduct that requires love for God and neighbor in order to be in full compliance . James is saying you fulfill the supreme law by loving your neighbor as yourself - as he says in verse 8 "you are doing well". Note verse 12 "the law of liberty"... James 1:25 also mentions the law of liberty and equates it with the perfect law. Maybe I’m a little off base here – but I tend to look at the entire Bible as God’s law – rules for living – - and for convenience sake they've been condensed it's just two big ones now, love God and neighbor - and with faith in Christ, abiding by those rules is liberating – as in freedom from the bondage of sin (see Rom. 7 & 8). == == = == To round off my post – I'm switching gears from what Paul said about fulfilling the law of love by faith and now taking a look at I Timothy where Paul gets into dealing with those who want to be teachers of the law and eclipse the Christian life based on faith in what Christ has accomplished for us. 1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope, 2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. 3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. 5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions…I Timothy 1: 3- 7 NASB Verse 5 says “the goal of our instruction” – the word “our” is absent from the interlinear text – but I believe it is well supplied – for it seems tied to verse 3 where Paul said to Timothy to remain at Ephesus and instruct certain men. “Instruct” and “instruction” in both verses is from a form of the same Greek word – paraggello – and basically means to give an authorized command. Paul says that the goal of his instruction (his directives as authorized by God warning of erroneous doctrines, myths, speculation, fruitless discussions and to keep preaching of Christ the Savior, holding onto faith and a good conscience - see verses 8 - 20) is to engender love, help one keep a clear conscience, and develop genuine faith.

1) That sounds like "beating around the bush." and 2) The best way for you to ensure it will be a productive discussion is for you to contribute productively -- cogently explain YOUR position. 3) We can't control what other people do (i.e. you either controlling me or deciding that you time isn't worth engaging with me because of _______ (you name it) 4) Now that would equate to you dismissing me, wouldn't it? Actually, if you want to help people clarify their understanding, the only thing YOU can do is make your argument as clear and simple as possible and then ask questions to figure out if what you tried to explain is clear to your readers.

A bit maybe, but this chapter of James was discussed in my church's talk (sermon) on Sunday last. Simon, who gives the talk, definitely puts his actions into what his mouth says. The reading (by one of the children in the congregation) starts at about 39:15, and the talk is about 10 mins, less than 15, and full of challenges to line up our lives better.

Waxit, I believe we all can have a productive conversation if we all really listen, ask questions, be respectful and find common ground. And generally speaking, folks like to have their ideas validated – nothing wrong with wanting that. I've found that really productive discussions involving theology, doctrine, theory and practice tend to go through a refining process – where everyone tries to get down to the nitty gritty of the issues – by focusing on the most important or fundamental aspects of the issues. There is often a give and take that goes on – concessions and compromises – and sometimes something significant is achieved. From my own experience on Grease Spot there’s been times: I’ve abandoned, modified, expanded, changed or simply validated my position on something; broadened my horizon; gained a deeper understanding of something by listening to someone else’s perspective on it. Per your request and as a gesture of good faith, I will briefly state where I’m coming from – although I think one’s belief system is very complex and usually doesn’t lend itself to being conveniently pigeonholed – as you’ll see in the qualifiers I tack on to my position on stuff – and maybe you’ll find some common ground in all this. I am somewhat of a Christian agnostic - I do follow the basic tenets of the Christian faith – but when it comes to God - I do believe in God but feel that there is so much more about the Creator that goes way beyond my understanding or any theology. I do regard the Bible as the Word of God. Even though it has obvious errors and contradictions, especially in some historical or scientific matters – However, I believe any problems are few and far between in matters of faith – the basic tenets of Christianity – such as the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ and all that accomplished…loving God…loving my neighbor as myself…sin, repentance, forgiveness, etc...and anyway "technically" speaking my faith is placed in a person (Jesus Christ ) rather than in a book. But if anything the Bible is certainly one of the means of developing my relationship with Jesus Christ. Also I wanted to be honest and upfront with you about your statement “an agnostic that doesnt regard the bible as the word of God when rightly divided with no contradictions in other parts of the bible”…”Rightly divided” is an interesting and unusual KJV phrase. I think it has been co-opted by various groups – becoming something of a catchphrase that goes well beyond the original idea that it was intended to convey. For some folks “rightly divided” seems to function as loaded language to persuade folks that their interpretation of the Bible or a particular passage is the correct and only valid explanation…Just wanted to let everyone know when I read “rightly divided” in a post, I automatically translate it to “in my opinion the correct interpretation of the passage is as follows…” . Hopefully some sound principles of interpretation were involved in the process…for more on principles of interpretation see Wikipedia Hermeneutics and Stanford Ency. of Philosophy: Hermeneutics and regarding KJV phrase "rightly dividing" see What did Paul mean by rightly dividing for an interesting read. Waxit, hopefully we all can look past what folks say regarding their own beliefs – not dismissing or pre-judging them. That will encourage folks to think outside their own theological box – and that will truly be a productive discussion. == == == Having said all that – I want to address your other post. Waxit, I agree that the basis, foundation…the reason behind obeying the law and the prophets should always be doing it out of love for God and neighbor. But I don’t see why you assume that means the command to keep the Sabbath is still in effect. You may be technically correct in claiming Jesus ".. never said, you can ignore His laws & commandments (Including the 7th day sabbath)"...But I don't think he needed to say that, because he is obviously explaining a "law" that supersedes all that...the law of love...The way Jesus explained the law in Matthew 22 makes me think of an attorney in the courtroom interpreting what is the intent of the law...This "law" of love is obviously a ruling factor in Romans 14 regarding how one should behave around others who may have different convictions than we do...the intent of the law has always been to engender love. Matter of fact there are several passages in the epistles that echo that simple summation in Matthew 22 of “love thy neighbor” and actually do not mention any specific laws that we are obliged to keep – see Rom. 13: 8, 9; Gal. 5:14; James 2:8…it seems to me "the law" has always been about love. Love is the common denominator of anything God has asked of believers. so if a verse like Galatians 5:14 says “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” and “fulfilled” means satisfied, brought to completion or accomplished – so I was wondering why do you think Christians are duty-bound - morally or legally obliged to keep the Sabbath?

Reading back thru that thread "Face Meltings" where DWBH posted........adds a whole 'nother dimension to subjugating. Whether it was the corps program or fellow laborers......ISOLATED from public view brought out their "training methods." Face Meltings Threats to kick everyone out Prisoner of War (pow) tactics Verbal Onslaughts and Scream Sessions Sleep Deprivation Taunting, Mocking, Public Humiliation Break You Down.....Eliminate Individual Identity Group Commitment Twi is the True Household If You Ever Leave......Greasespot by Midnight It just seems to me.....1) The strong, independent ones left early and/or were gone by 1978, 2) The average, committed ones dissented on occasions and tried to right the ship, and 3) The deeply, loyal corps and staff zealots stayed into the 2000's even after martindale was ousted. Splinter leaders who still suck off the teat of wierwille's teachings to this very day are weasels extraordinaire. Yeah, I wanted to love and help serve God's people.......but did I have to go thru "prisoner of war training camp" to do it? Wierwille ORDERED this??? Break us down......and then, "put us back to together" to run missions? Subservient to their orders? Sounds like the Identity of a Jason Bourne.

Glenn O was, IIRC, 9th corps. I remember him. Hope he's still alive and doing well.

that stuff is funny, Inkernet ! sometimes when people would ask me what's something heavy that I learned from the Advanced Class, I would say "found out that Mickey Mouse is wrong seed."

Their bodies and minds.......let's not forget their wallets and their stuff while he was at it. vpw wanted retention because he taught a 10% tithe- and pushed it with a mandatory book with pfal ("Christians Should Be Prosperous.") He wanted that 10%. Then he wanted more- and invented the term "abundant sharing" for giving OVER the 10%. Then he wanted even MORE. He taught that people should figure out what they needed to live on, and the rest they should.....invest? Plan for the future? NO- they should give that to twi! He invented the term "plurality giving". Ever heard of a group other than twi/ex-twi who ever taught that, by any name? I haven't. Oh, and twi was supposed to skimp on buying anything for the group and make due with used furniture and stuff. This policy stopped suddenly when it came to things vpw wanted. Those things were supposed to be top-notch. AND vpw considered them HIS property and not, as they legally were- MINISTRY property. So, some of the ministry stuff was earmarked for his personal use, and he considered it HIS although it was all paid for and maintained on the twi dime. Oh, and if he visited your area, someone was supposed to go buy him bottleS (plural) of booze. And before he left, they passed the hat around and handed him a bag of nice, untraceable money- any guesses where they got the idea to do that? As for their bodies, yes, join twi programs, do manual labor and PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE. He didn't get FREE labor- he got labor that paid to be there! I have to admire the chutzpah that took. And look forward to him getting his due for every last bit of exploitation (the worst of which I didn't mention.)

…Skyrider, your comments about subjugation and corps grads needing to have a splinter group leader over their decisions got me thinking about the attachment theory… Subjugate is the old divide-and-conquer strategy…The interview article below describes the “trifecta of terror, love, and brainwashing as key to cult behavior”: “People come into cults through a variety of pathways and bring with them a variety of personality types. In addition, many are born into cults. But the one thing that seems to be supported by research is that new followers are more easily recruited when they are at a normal life “blip,” as Margaret Singer put it—if one is between affiliations, such as moving house, going to university, getting married or divorced or breaking up a relationship, experiencing bereavement. A person embarking on such changes may be looking for a new relationship, hobby, religious affiliation, or even a new gym (yes, there are many fitness-based cults). And all such changes can expose a person to a recruitment attempt. But in my view, the main vulnerability factor is ignorance. A person lacking knowledge of how cults target and recruit people and the mechanisms they use to entrap people may not be able to identify a coercion attempt when targeted." You identify a trifecta of terror, love, and brainwashing as key to cult behavior. Can you explain the intersection of the three? “The same dynamic that occurs in domestic violence also applies to cults. First a person is lured to group or person who seemingly shares their interests and concerns. They may then be subject to a kind of love-bombing, given extreme amounts of attention, which can feel flattering and seem the sign of having found a safe place. Then begins an attempt to isolate the person from friends and family. The potential recruit becomes engulfed in a new system and out of touch with their old, known network. That paves the way for the group to engage in “terror” tactics, arousing a sense of threat, whether it’s fear of the apocalypse, fear of being criticized, fear of the outside world, or some other group-specific fear. I believe attachment theory provides a good theoretical approach for understanding brainwashing, and it holds that people run to a safe haven when they are afraid. If the group has been successful, the recruit, now having had fear instilled by the group, runs to the only safe haven available—the group itself." What are the consequences? "There are two effects of running to the group. First, it creates a disorganized attachment bond, what Judith Herman described as a trauma bond in her book, Trauma and Recovery. It is strong bond that is difficult to break so long as the person remains isolated from alternate safe havens. Emotional and cognitive isolation are key, not necessarily physical isolation. Cults isolate followers by controlling their personal relationships and by restricting information sources to the cult. Second, the disorganized attachment, characterized by running to the source of fear, causes dissociation. Running to the source of fear obviously doesn’t provide escape from the threat. Because it is a maladaptive way of coping with threat, the person goes into a “freeze” mode and is unable to think clearly about what is happening. This explains why perfectly intelligent people can find themselves unable to rationally view a cult they are involved with. It is literally too frightening and disorganizing to do so. The lack of alternate information and true havens undermine a follower’s cognitive processes on matters regarding the group. The cult can now do the thinking for them—the essence of brainwashing.” from Psychology Today

Hello, Scott, and welcome to the Café. Have a cake from the great selection here, to accompany that coffee from T-Bone. I was in rez early 90s and boy! did I learn some interesting language from Loy-boy. As you say - very far from Christ-like. Good on you for taking a stand and getting out to get some education. It's doubtless done you more good than endless sessions cleaning things that don't need it, for the umpteenth time, and all the incessant meetings to be told the same things over and over again. Marked and avoided = badge of honor. Here's your cake choices:

Brilliant post, Rocky...in my humble opinion your last sentence goes along the same lines as what Paul intended to express in Romans 14

Hi Twinky, Your comment posted while I was writing mine. IMO, paradox is one of those things that many people could describe as difficult. In the context of this Sabbath discussion, it appears that both the concept of keeping the sabbath AND NT grace may be true. Embracing paradox might be an intellectual skill that could reduce the associated cognitive dissonance. Rather than denying the need for the underlying concept of a day of rest and honoring God, a person might be able to recognize and accept it, but realize it's not necessarily a dogma that necessitates a troubling bondage for the person who is unable to practice the "letter of the law."

The article in Life Magazine The Groovy Christians of Rye, NY

Solzhenitsyn was a pretty awesome writer. We do well to carry out our own "daily acts of integrity" - and in this, I'm thinking (perhaps because I just finished reading Schindler's Ark (aka Schindler's List)) about the brave men and women who helped rescue many people condemned by Nazis as unworthy of life; also of the doctor in Wuhan who tried to alert the world to coronavirus and who was squashed by the state there; not to mention the KSU students' protest. There are events, trends, in all societies - yours, mine - that demand that we don't blindly follow the crowd. That's no small ask.

Well, I've been thinking about that... and how easily people get conned (in general) these days. So I found an intriguing essay about classic literature that contrasts with VP quite well. https://medium.com/@spencerbaum/3-reasons-why-you-should-read-more-classic-literature-in-2019-e762cb5c910c Call me Ishmael. The famous opening sentence of Moby Dick, so short and provocative, is welcoming and familiar to the 21st century reader, who is accustomed to snappy prose with short sentences and lots of white space. A few sentences later in Melville’s masterpiece we get a sentence that’s more representative of the novel to come. In just a bit I’m going to quote that sentence, and insist that you read it. And I mean really read it. Don’t skim it. This essay is about to make the argument that there is value to the way the classics force us to slow down and concentrate, and it will be easier for you to understand that point if you experience it first. Here’s the quote from Moby Dick. Please read it slowly and carefully: "Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people’s hats off — then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can." This brings us to the first and, to my mind, most important reason to read the classics in 2019 2020. 1. You should read classic literature because it forces you to think deeply and concentrate. 21st century media is hell on the attention span. But you already know this. You know that our digital devices are shortening our attention spans, teaching us to only skim the surface of ideas, and making us addicts to tiny dopamine bursts that come from (among other things) the Like and Share buttons. As we near the end of the second decade of the 21st century we’ve developed widespread awareness that our devices have made us shallow thinkers. We’re less cognizant, however, of the effect of the content itself. Or the style in which the content is written. Have you ever wondered why so many of the articles you read, like this one, are organized in numbered lists? Or why the writing in these articles is so often organized into ultra-short paragraphs, many of them only one sentence long? We, the content creators of the 21st century, have learned to write in snappy lists with short sentences and one-sentence paragraphs. We write this way because this is what you, the content consumers of the 21st century, choose to read. You like content that is clear, concise, simple, and to the point. You’re in a hurry (always), and we writers know, God do we know, that we are competing not just against other essays or other books, but against the endless siren songs of Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, and Twitter. We know that if we ask too much of you, say, if we give you a long sentence or, God forbid, a long paragraph, we might be taxing your mind more than you’re interested in having it taxed. We know that a complicated, multi-layered thought, one that might require you to slow down or reread a sentence or look up from your screen and think for a minute is too much to ask when your phone is bursting with notifications and there’s a new video on your favorite Youtube channel and everyone’s talking about that new show on Netflix but you haven’t even seen the last new show everyone was talking about yet and you’ve got ten tabs open on your browser and 3,000 unread books on your Kindle and holy hell who has time to consume it all just open my vein and fill it with listicles please! There’s a cost to all this. In the book The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (a 2011 Pulitzer Prize finalist for general nonfiction), Nicolas Carr looks at all the research in neuroscience and psychology about what the Internet is doing to our brains and determines that, yes, our ceaseless attempts to skim this glut of information is making us shallow thinkers who are far less capable of deep, focused, intense thought than our parents and grandparents were. You should read the classics in 2019 to unlearn the shallowness and impatience you are learning in your hyper-accelerated 21st century life. When you read Melville (or Hugo or Austen or Tolstoy or Plato or Shakespeare) you are sharing headspace with someone who is much better at slow, deep, meaningful thinking than you are because they’ve never lived in the shallows like you do. ***** The essay continues, but I hope you get the point. Wierwille obviously didn't want you to THINK.

Dispensationalism is a rationalization. It's a way of explaining away the very real contradictions that exist in the scriptures. It's a way of deluding yourself into believing the scriptures are inerrant.

I personally believe that God as my Father is just enough to cover scenarios like unbelievers living a better life morally than professing Christians along with the ability to sort things out. This section of Corinthians is a major part of that. For better or for worse, what actually is supposed to occur in the end times is not something that is clearly revealed in scripture. It is something where like so many other "word studies" we did, you find a verse in jeremiah, piece it together with Ephesians, lace in a concept in Revelation, and presto you have a faith that explains the future. Thus we come up with certain verses in Revelation that are supposed to be an Abrams tank, a helicopter, and several other known things in our day and age according to some. I think mostly in the Way we have a "Strong's concordance faith" or a "Bible software faith" - one that is built upon stringing endless series of unrelated verses together to come up with a Sunday teaching, philosophy, or moral outlook in life.

This thread was spawned from another based on a discussion of Dan's paper, which brings up his point that salvation isn't an absolute guarantee. So, that's really what this topic is about. No one has called Dan's paper a standard of anything. Actually, I find this "exegetical commentary" very interesting, and obviously you have high regard for it. But for me it didn't clarify anything. And I'm guessing by the highlighted words from you that you have not actually read Dan's paper. You don't have to yell. To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible. It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure. And I have no idea why God would choose that analogy. Do you? And I don't appreciate your sarcasm.

Sorry, that's NOT an underlying issue, it's a potential ramification. But can't anything be twisted to ultimately and exclusively result in oppressive cults? I don't think there's a way to prevent that from happening.

Actually, it did, by way if implication. VPW led the students into drawing an unspoken conclusion and then said, "I didn't say it, you did.". It's a backhanded way of making a statement... the "nudge, nudge- wink, wink" approach. This tied in nicely with the appeal of speaking in tongues. "It's proof in the senses realm, etc."

I didn't, and that's why I am still looking at this topic, why it is still a question in my mind. It may have been settled for you, but it isn't settled for me.

Hard fought series down to the last pitch. Great series. I'm happy for the Giants. Bumgarner 3-0 in the world series. Out of sight. When's the last time that a team has gone on to win 3 of the last 5 world series? Who has done that? Well Philadelphia did it in 1909-1913. Red Sox too in 1912-1916. Yankees won 4 straight and 4 out of 5 in 1936-1941. In the modern era only the Yankees have had more success in winning 4 out of 5 titles from 1996-2000. Could be a New Dog in Town now. Way to go San Francisco. Pablo please stay in SF.

That's good to hear. The problem is, a lot of Christians project: Because they believe we are serving the devil by not worshiping God, they presume (unreasonably) that we ARE in fact worshiping the devil, which is ludicrous. There is no devil. On what basis do you conclude that atheists (please check your spelling) are less moral than God fearing folk? I'm sure you have stats to back this up. As stated already, there ARE atheists in foxholes. But the fact that someone in a perceivably helpless situation looks to God, Allah, The Universe or whatever to intervene in defiance of that such a person actually believes to be true reveals nothing substantive except that they're going through something pretty heavy. On a plane ride recently we experienced turbulence, and I got nervous. I shut my eyes. But I fought off decades of conditioned behavior that would normally have had me praying in such a situation. I told myself to relax, that the pilots had been through this before, dozens of times, and that they knew what they were doing. The plane landed safely. Not because I prayed. Not because someone else did. But because every single day, most planes, the overwhelming majority, land safely. Sometimes they don't, despite prayers. Yes, there are atheists in foxholes. You know where there are no atheists? The Klan. ISIS. No atheists there. Can't speak for him, but I am. Thanks for asking. What would I say to Jesus at the bema? Probably the same thing you would say to Thor at Valhalla, I suppose. I work in court daily. I've never seen anyone swear on a Bible, and only about 5% of the time do I hear "so help me God" as part of the oath taken before testimony.

FreeAtLast--------Yes, I have heard some pretty wild first-hand accounts of Burning Man. I think SXSW(South By Southwest) in Austin might be more to your liking. Hundreds of bands come together to show off their "wares" for music industry reps. The reps, of course, are there looking for fresh "product". There is also a very large film component to the event. I think it lasts about a week. OK-------back to ROA now.