sky4it

You may have found the long lost book of the bible that has everyone of us in it. Whew! Its all written down about all of us in the book of the Prophet Iddo. 2 Chronicles 13:22 It's the things yah did and the things you didnt do in the book of the prophet Iddo. I did I did I did or I really didnt do in the book of the prophet Iddo. What did I actually do? I did and didnt do do, in the book of the prophet Iddo. Kinda makes that babes and suckling thing word eh?

def: Your comment: By making Jesus into just a man, it brings in doctrines that we can be as good or greater than He. The Way did this. And probably its off shoots. So it may have been by design all along? I agree with your comment. I always questioned what the motive of it was, because truthfully the doctrine of the trinity is just a paradiam or slogan giving honor. I never really understood there reasonings for ripping it apart.

Raf: With respect to your condesending point, I think the people here have been so bushwacked in prior experience they think that you must be up to something to. Hence, it feels like your doing something wrong to them. Your comment: What am I really thinking? I don't know: it varies somewhat between "What would Christ have me to do?" and "Christ! Where did I put that woman's phone number?" Thats a healthy prospective, except if I werent married myself I personally think it might be the first time ever I enjoyed the term "Eunuch" :)-->

What the Hay: Your comment: The word the King James Version (KJV) uses is "know", when refering to having sex in the sense of producing children. In the literal sense then, maybe i am still a virgin, the reason bieng I am sure I really don't know my wife.

Raf: I look forward to the time, when the Bible can be aside and talk about how it applies to particular situational things that would be of interest. Doctrine on Doctrine on Doctrine to me after a while it loses the point of edification. Dont get me wrong im not saying your doing that. I read some of the CES stuff on there web site. For me its just to many things that have no applicational purpose. Anyways, if Lynn wants to engage me in a dispute on doctrine error, I would be glad to do so. After which , if i am going to stick around, it would be fun to discuss some biblical topics, that have application going forward. that is what i look forward to doing with yah because thats what i most enjoy.

RAF: Your a very affable person. It wouldnt surprise me if you were mayor of some city. You seem to find the logic and ground of common reasoning to find the good in others and are not condescending about it. My travel habits are a little different. I like the in your face approach which seems to let me find more directly what people are really thinking. This has one side consequence, if in fact you are talking to someone who is inexperienced you do not want to harm the good that's growing inside. Personally I think this whole program is way beyond that crossbar of bieng concerned, yet I really think you are concerned. The thing is I am really wondering why? I guess what I'm trying to ask you RAF is what your really thinking? Perhaps I dont want to probe to far, maybe i dont wanna find out. Somehow I never could see David trasnsversing the hills of Judea with an ox cart of Mosaic scrolls and lexicons and concordances, singing, I got the originals, I got the originals.

What were you hoping to get from twi that you still haven't gotten yet I never met my wife in TWI. Still, if i had one thing i would have wanted it would have been for her not to talk so much. :(--> That really isnt to much to ask is it? Women say men never hear them. Ok ladies, maybe its just this, maybe its just your talking all the time and we cant listen to it all. Ever consider that?

rascal: but,,,, oh rascal,, God is bigger than TWI and your losses, so put a smile on that face ok?

John iam: Your comment: Sure, God is perfect, but we're not. So if God authored the bible to us, He did so knowing we'd only be able to take it so far. Far enough to have a relationship with Him, but not far enough to know everything. I agree with your comment. I also like the fact that you added "not far enough to know everything" It keeps God in our vision and alive in our lives. Your question: My view is: what good is it to even have a bible if it has no godly authority? I agree that the Bible must be used to make us godly , and keep us in the face of Christ. With respect to analysis of the Bible: You and I and everyone else were at one time confronted with many doctrinal issues. It is true that the bible helps us have a better map so were not listening to so much stuff all the time. With respect to analysis of the bible, I agree that it can be beneficial in that area, just not only in that area. I think you can overanalyze and if thats all you do you wind up with problems to. You get more hung up on "right doctrine" than just simply doing what it says. Interestinly Johniam, the Apostle Paul talked about the simplicity of the gospel. The concept of the cross is supposed to be easy. You make some very good points. Thank you.

Could somebody please define Biblically what sex is? I mean its not mentioned in the Bible no not once does that mean I can go anywhere i want with anyone (females only) and do the "wild monkey thing". Topical events over the last many years have now concurred that Adultery is a sin and wrong from the Bible, but since I dont find the word "sex" in the bible could I go and digress? Yes I was trying to humor you, that is suppose to be funny.

george ar: your comment: Oh, and BTW, I guess the CORRECT answer from the CES crowd is "NO, it makes him bigger!" (see 1st post). He's not God, he's BIGGER than God? I give up. I just don't get religious thought. geo. your comment is funny, very very funny, me enjoy

Invisivble dan: And I dont know what some of these people would do if there were not people like you to help them. Are you a history buff Dan? You sure know your stuff.

excath: and I do apologize for being long winded. My problem is the scriptures and the Lord Jesus is something I have always been passionate about. :)--> Also getting scientific with "proof" isnt the way that i have talked about the bible in a long long while. .... and I like you too .

Johniam: I put those last 2 posts together in haste. There is a better way to say it. The words I posted are from you are of I presume the direct quote of VP. They are not therefore Gods words. Your Comment: VP said: 1) either there's no interpretation or 2) the Bible interprets itself. You say this sounds logical. I say its not. This quote is an either or situation. You get to pick one and only one. Everyone agreed that number one is not possible, therefore you must pick number 2. I say that's not true. I do not disagree that #2 isn't helpful. (#2 is simply the obvious) All I say is that #2 isn't the only situation for interpretation, that there is more much more. It interprets in other ways as well such as: 1) The Holy Ghost and God and Jesus I Cor 2:13, II Corinth 3:6 2) ongoing application (inconsistencies sorted through application) Gal 6:2 ,6:5 example 3) itself as above (the obvious but not only itself) ie( Adultry is sin) 4) some is unrevealed or hidden Rev 2:17 5) historical stuff (as invisible Dan mentioned above which I am horrible at.) 6) Typology of Old Test stuff - (the tabernacle are figures of the true) Heb 9:9,24 7) Seeking (The Kingdom of God Matt 6:33, His Face (The Lord God)Psalm 27:8 , II Cor 3:18) etc. My view is that interpretation is larger than the comments you quoted. Neither did I one thing that VP did not do himself. His view was that it is only #2. I say that it is not. The things I listed prove logically that it is not (only number 2) Neither do no. 1,2,4,5,6,7 fit into number # 2 of the VP comment that you quoted. Why? because they are from other sources than the Bible "itself." Therefore I have proved mathematically and with certainty this statement you quoted is incorrect or an error. I agree therefore that you can learn some things from "the Bible itself" just not all things from the Bible "itself".

VP said: 1) either there's no interpretation possible or 2) it interpets itself. By saying both, I do not mean to say that I beleive #1 above(that there is no possibility), but that there is interpretation in addition to #2 above by the means I mentioned in my previous posts, Ie (application, the holy ghost etc.)

Johniam: 3rd post on the same deal: I apologize for not laying it out mathematically. It's been years since I have thought this way. Your comment: Peter 1:20 doesn't mean the bible interprets itself, then what DOES it mean? VP said either there's no interpretation possible, or it interprets itself. Sounds logical to me. VP said: 1) either there's no interpretation possible or 2) it interpets itself. The key word is or meaning one or the other but not both, My assertation is that it is both. In my referencing I am talking about EVERYTHING being self explanatory. My problem therefore was who needs God in the learning process.

John: You can also look at that scripture humorously. I think God has a good one. Idios bieng the Greek for private. Idios means ones own. VP made the argument that either it could or could not be interpreted. I agree then with both halves of V.P assertion. I do not agree that it can be only interpreted aka (thats the end of the matter) but that it has other meaning as well. The humorous aspect is that we don't own it. (We really don't you know. I mean there his words not ours.)

johniam: Certainly fundamentalist believe also in the infallibility of scriptures also. I agree that the Word of God is infallible. I do not agree however that the written word is in a form that is infallible. Even the King James has some things that the Young's concordance points out are error. In addition it is removed from several different languages. God did that on purpose so that we would be more hung up on his person than on semantics of languages. It was on purpose that God did that. What I am saying is that in people everyday lives it is not necessary to sort out every dot and tick in order to have proper doctrine. The difference I believe is in the living word Jesus Christ. What I am saying is that the written word needs the anointing of the Holy Spirit Secondly, I think that its all about application in our everyday lives. If we are obedient to the things God is teaching us, we get more . For example, in Revelation it says him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna. It therefore must come from the Lords hand. With respect to the interprets itself thing, I am not saying that reading the Bible with only the content in mind is not a good idea or beneficial. All I am saying is that it is not the only ingredient necessary to understanding it. For example, The Psalms say who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? Him that hath a clean heart, and pure hands who hath not lifted up his soul to vanity nor sworn deceitfully. The scripture is simply directional about how to live our lives. What I am saying is that scripture is primarily directed to application type matters. I bring up this matter of a clean spirit and cleanliness for a major reason. It is the one matter that most clearly causes people to error in there application of the Word of God. It is very easy to presume things about God and find out he is not interested in doing something we think he is. This is pivotal in my view. It means that we must sit at the feet of Jesus and grow. It is not an ever learning type thing either, it is an ever-growing thing. If in fact man was born in this world with a spirit (because of sin) that was not cut off from God, you are correct man would not need the word in written form. Adam communicated with God before and after the fall. So did Abraham and other of the Patriarch's who did not have any form of guidance in writing. What does that particular text mean? In perhaps the most mathematical type assertion that we were used to: When you look at it a closely, it does say that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any ....... It only means just this(private interpretation)". Private interpretation meaning: it only means just this. That is precisely what it says. The word private being key and not being able to exclude yourself from something it might be down the road. Right? From this aspect drawing on precisely the same words from PAL, it says not to do what we were taught, which is to say it only means this. That is control. Some people dot like that. I in particular do. It means to me my understanding of it is increasing. This is consistent also with other scriptures. Collisions 1:10 "increasing in the knowledge of the Lord" Vs (saying increasing in the knowledge of the scriptures which it does not say.)I don't know fully. There may be an application for it that hasn't reached my understanding down the road. In this context, you may not agree or like what I am saying. I do think it means that we cannot limit the scripture to one particular application, nor can we control it and say this is the only thing it means. With respect to the thousands of interpretations I agree that that has caused no end of controversy. It is also the reason that we are discussing it today. As a young person I wanted to sort it all out also. The Spirit of God must have prominence in the interpetation though. Even if that causes us to struggle with certain things. That struggle , my friend, is what brings us to perfection as a person in the sight of Jesus Christ. My disagreement with this group was that that also was what they were trying to take away from me. That is to say, God's right to governance over what he was teaching me. The perfect word situation created a problem. I didn't need God anymore for instruction. That is simply not so at all. With respect to those who have murdered with the Bible, you make my point exactly. It is all about pureness of heart. A corrupt heart is capable of twisting words in all kinds of ways.

Pawtucket: thank you, I think what you did was approbriate. Mr Lynn: I dont know if you read this stuff or not. At a minimum, I would like a response in detail to the questions I posed Under the subject The Way on your letter thread. Please also indicate wether the things that I indicated as the most grevious of doctrinal errors to me personally, are still found in your literature and when exactly it was that you tossed them out if at all.

sprockets, sprokets sprokets sprokets

Darryl: I dont know that discussing old way doctrine is beneficial at all. You and I left at a time long long ago. Please do stick around. It would be nice to talk to others about our living Lord Jesus. :)--> Do you know of any other web sites that are good to such effect? The thing I like about ex-way people is that the bible was read upside down in so many ways, then when you talk topically it comes pretty easy for them. It also seems some of the folks have really matured. One fellow uses historical things to paint some really good pictures which are very insightful (Invisible Dan). So far ive had some fun. It kinda had the same effect on me when i found this web site, I just wanted to talk a big blue streak and I think i really did.

Notinkansas: Am I missing something in your letter? Steve Lortz didnt post the original letter, so why critique him on trying to clarify the authors thoughts? Please do explain?

Darryl: thank you so much, your message was refreshing. Interestingly i think 1979 was probably the time I last had any meaningful contact with the teachings of the way. I found the grease spot forum a little over a week ago. I was fortunate to have read Nee and others prior to running into way doctrines. I see tho it works the other way as well. later....

Kieth: No problem, I wasnt offended at all. I just would never myself be an apologist for VPW. I am not saying you did that either. :)--> Anyways, so good to hear some folks like you are really thriving in the Lord. I guess I always thought there would be those that would like you. Thank you so much for your comments.

Keith: That really wasnt my point. TWI limited that phrase to the exclusion of itself. I dont ever recall them saying this is going on before we got here, do you? Why then are you bringing that up?