anotherDan

Thanks, Larry.... I actually just posted another reply to you over there... I see we're both up on Saturday morning, posting instead of watching cartoons! I must shut this laptop and get some work done around here.... still haven't done a lick of work on my little boat in over three weeks. Always nice to be appreciated. I appreciate you, too edit: the selection of avatars is interesting (have you seen the animated pig one? whats the name? excorpse or something?) Your cover doesn't seem to match what's in the book! But that's probably part of your evil plan!

Your Gamaliel quote is well taken. Also makes me think in sympathy with others, that a once world-wide ministry has bitten the dust. The ministry in my mind has "come to nothing." But I think it is also true that something that God worked there in my heart still abides. I believe that is also true of many others. We've kept the baby, and thrown out the bathwater, best we could. If Dr.W's accusers are right, it could explain a lot of things about how the ministry died such an inglorious death. This has probably been done... maybe not, but perhaps now that there has been time for whomever wants to chime in with "me too," someone could collect all the allegations into one post on a new thread so that a visitor could hear all the evidence he or she would like, including all the salacious details. It might satisfy that need to be heard (or to vent) enough that a thread like this could survive without becoming derailed. It seems like quite a stretch for these to say that the appendage "and do you still believe them" justifies what is clearly a derailment. Here's the complete first post: Just wondering...When I first took the class...to learn that I could get born again and have eternal life I was amazed! To learn that Jesus Christ is not God...That made the perfect sense. To learn that when I die, I don't go to Heaven right away also made the perfect sense. These are really big things I never knew before the class and teach my children these truths. I've heard there was alot of errors in PFAL, but these few things...do you still believe them to be true? Just wondering... Someone could honestly reply that based on the allegations (pointing to the afore-suggested new thread), they felt that "the Teacher" was a disgrace, whose "good" was far outweighed by the evil that he had done, or something like that. That would be respecting the intentions of the person who started the thread, IMO. There is no enforced rule that strictly requires anyone to be courteous, and ridiculous to suggest that there could be one. "Please be courteous" is about all one can say. This thread could have been an opportunity to for authentic discussion about the actual material in the class. It was that opportunity, but it's long gone, (with Dorene, apparently). But reciprocity is in order! Those who today have been touched personally with the hurts others have expressed have an obligation to be forebearing, kind, and understanding towards those who are still dealing with that type of stuff.,

Reply title: sympathy for the Pharisee GarthP wrote: P.S., and there are actually people who get offended at people like me who make that kind of decision. ... Can you believe that? Sure I can. (GSC/Doctrine/describeyourselfdoctrinally). And it's very easy for the Pharisee to feel smug that he has remained "faithful" while another has "fallen." He is "enlightened" while another dwells in darkness. His tithe makes him very comfortable (not really the purpose of the tithe, bro) and doesn't understand authentic sacrifice. I can't recall where I met you, but I think it was after your TWI experience. Can't remember the context, but seem to remember it was a cyberspace thing. I'm afraid I fall into the category of one who fears falling into the hands of the living God. More properly, I feel that I am in His hands, and it is a fearful thing. There are "all stripes" here at GSC, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who would get offended at people like me, too! One of my biggest fears is of being the one to whom Jesus says, "depart from me, you that work iniquity; I never knew you." This is addressed to the religious zealot, who lived his life blind to the fact that his religion actually distanced him from the true purposes of life. Fails miserably! I'm still working it out.

T-bone: thanks for your work. First off, I should mention that I've discovered my own faux pas, and glad that nobody beat me to it. As you rightly pointed out, Moses was not even born by the time Genesis ended, and yet I'd said that it recorded his death. This is in Duet. 34:5, not at all in Genesis. I know where the brain-fart occured. Generally, the ascription to Moses is for the first five of the Books of the Bible. As we were correctly taught, in Jesus' day and to this day among Jews, the Tanach is divided into the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Torah, or the Pentateuch, the first five books, have long been ascribed to Moses. It is my feeling that we may be reading into Jesus' statements to say that he affirmed this authorship, but may rather have been using "Moses" as a figure for "the Law" (the first five books). Again, some may see this as periferal, and I won't argue with that. I agree that it may be a 'stretch' regarding the genitive, but I'm just wondering about the bald assertions that Moses was indeed the author. Certainly, as Luke couldn't have been witness to the birth of Christ, Moses wasn't witness of the creation. Perhaps it was given to him by revelation on the mountain when he received the Law, and wrote it later, or it was in a sense "dicatated" to him by God as he wrote it. Regardless, someone wrote Genesis by "inspiration of God." That is my conviction, anyway. Whether it was Moses, I must confess to being U. (unsure) BTW, I am a fan of the 7 Habits, with reservations, of course!

Larry, it took me over eight hours to read this thread. No lie. And that was even with some considerable fast-forwarding once I caught the drift of some of the posters. It's not really worth it. As has been said, this is done once or twice every year. There is gold to be gleaned.... I don't know, maybe worth it. I will leave it to your judgment. Overall, I'd agree with your initial impression. That being said, the high volume from one quarter has a reason; there is profound hurt that remains and NEEDS to be dealt with, somehow. I only wish to God that a bulletin board could somehow provide what is truly needed, and maybe it can. Dan <--- big time hugger! I'm in.

LOL eyes! I don't write to good, but I edit well! :B) Thank you wrds, that's it. Humility is a graceful ornament sometimes worn by the great.

Cross breading... is that where you dip the fish in the egg, then the flour, then the egg, and then the cracker crumbs? :P

I'm beginning to wonder. Maybe Abi is half-saved!

Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. Jhn 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. Jhn 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 2Cr 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. None of these seem to be saying that Moses actually wrote Genesis. I agree with you and others, that who wrote what might not be all that significant. I agree with you also regarding Hebrews. I think if there's anything we can know for sure, it is that it was NOT written by Paul, unless he was in a completely different frame of mind and decided to use completely different terminology and style. Paul's writings and the Book of Hebrews are both in a rabbinical style, but quite different from one another. The only NT personage I would consider a likely suspect would be Appolos, who was "mighty in the Scriptures," and proved from them that Jesus was the Christ. Since the author chooses not to name himself, I'm content that he remains unknown. Like "Eyes" said about Ps 23. Don't know, but I like it.

have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? Here, couldn't the genitive mean the Book "about" Moses? Or refering to Genesis figuratively as "the Book of Moses"? I'm curious as to what other NT references there are ascribing to Moses the authorship of Genesis.

By Jove, I think he's GOT it!

Nicely said, Evan. Knowing ones own mind allows for compact communication. Thank you, and I agree, though I've never said as well as you just did.

snip---> So do you think Paul is distinguishing between idols made by the hands of man and "god's, which would be spirit beings that man worshipps instead of the one true God? Not at all. All I see is a contrast between many Gods, and one God. The idols the "world" (heathen/gentiles/nations) worshipped are many, but YHWH is one. As I said, that other stuff is yet beyond me. The group with which I've been revisiting the Gospels at times jokes about how in a sense we've become a support group for recovering intellectuals (!) At one point we were reading and discussing something Jesus said, and although I'm often quite verbal there, as others shared varying viewpoints, I remained silent. This was one of those times where I felt quite "attached to the Vine," and at that moment, what was coming through the zylum or phloem (I'm not sure which, or even how to spell them!) was a sense of being present with the Lord himself. After the discussion wore down some, someone turned to me and asked my thoughts, and I replied, "It's beyond analysis!" The whole room erupted in laughter. I felt that everyone knew exactly what I was saying. A favorite quote of mine comes from Isaac Newton. I can only paraphrase him from memory, and seem to have misplaced the book. Something like I don't know what others think about me, but I feel rather like a child by the seashore, busily turning pebbles this way and that, and little shells, while the whole sea of truth lies before me, undiscovered. actually, it's a pretty bad paraphrase, but the best I can do at the moment

Honestly, I don't think Paul offered any shortcut at all. TWI as well as many denominations might make a shortcut of it, but to both Paul and Jesus, the process of salvation was just that, a process, and it included sanctification, a righteousness that exceeded the righteousness of the Pharisees (and no, it wasn't a fairyDust implication of righteousness ala PFAL and dispensationalism, wrapped in "spiritual celophane.") (((((( shifra )))))))'

Color or not... I don't care! Great post. Did you mention what degree you're going for? And then where to? Will you teach, or what?

Thank you, beloved Roy! "Enjoy the waters of truth here, because the water is cool."

2 cents more: Paul said there are many gods... but we believe in one God, a direct reference to the shema and the first of the ten commandments. 1Cor 8:4-6 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him. Paul also, perhaps more obliquely, refers to it when he spoke of those whose "god is their belly" (their appetite). Abi wrote: I think many of us have seen it is quite possible to become so legalistic about keeping the laws that they too can become idols, which is a lot of what Jesus preached against. I'm confident that Jesus would agree with that! The elohim are indeed a populous group, and connected with spirits.... "mighty ones." That angle, at least for now, I must admit to being beyond me.

Sunesis, great quote, brother, great exhortation. Unlucky in love was he! dmiller ah! someone read it! thanks! how many lurkers will read this thread?

Abi, looks like we're posting the same time! Right. I have a number of books that discuss those terms. A prominent example are the two creation accounts, which are purportedly J and E. There is a translation of what is set forth as JUST the J version of Genesis, which I found interesting enough to browse at the library, but not interesting enough to purchase. I believe the author makes a case for "J" being a woman, BTW. T-bone, looks like we're posting at the same time! You're absolutely right, I'm looking for what YOU believe! And you made your points very nicely. Regarding doctrine, I must say I feel it is profoundly important, but I get such a kick out of enjoying the areas of agreement I have with folks, rather than feeling the need, always, to swing them over to what I think is true, in every detail. There is a place for confrontation of error, and there is a place for discussion, with respect. Somehow, it took me a long time to appreciate how wonderful it can be to visit the "second place." It's so enjoyable and PROFITABLE, in fact, I rarely visit the "first place" any more! edit: Oh, and Abi, actually, I do own a copy of that book I mentioned. It's called The Hidden Book in the Bible subtitle: The discovery of the first prose masterpiece. "Translated, Restored and Introduced by Richard Elliott Friedman, author of Who Wrote the Bible." Must have found it at a used bookstore! Oddly, no comma after "Restored." Wait! Here's another, and I'm not sure to which I was referring earlier! The Book of J "Translated from the Hebrew by David Rosenberg" (Good Jewish name!) snip from The Book of J: As I have said, few fixed ideas are as difficult to dislodge as the notion that the bible is a "holy book" in an altogether unique way. The Koran, the Book of Mormon, the sacred writings of the Asian religions, not to mention other rival works, somehow do not have the curious prestige that the Bible retains even for secularists and unbelievers. It is of absolute importance for the reader of the Book of J to begin with the realization that J did not think in terms of sacred texts as she composed the scrolls that constitue her achievement. The stories of the Creation, of the Patriarchs, of Joseph, of Moses, were not for her holy tales, not at all. Of all the extraordinary ironies concerning J, the most remarkable is that this fountainhead of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam simply was not a religious writer. This is not because, as some scholars insist, Yahweh was All-in-All to her. The Yahwist, unlike every subsequent biblical writer, shows no awe or fear of Yahweh. Her Yahweh is a lively fellow, dynamic in the extreme, who has very little in common with the God of the Priestly Author or of Jeremiah, though something in common with the Davidic God of the Court Historian. J's marvelous contemporary is not primarily a comic and ironic writer, as she was, but his sophistication matches her acute consciousness of paradox, and I will argue later that both can be said to have left their hearts behind them in the heroic age of David and the urbane civilization of Solomon. We can fantasize them as two mature survivors of a greater time, pondering the splendors of their people while enduring the equivocal reign of Solomon's inadequate son, Rehoboam, under whom the United Monarchy and its empire came apart. The age into which J survived was hardly an era of heroes. I think it accurate to observe that J had no heroes, only heroines. Sarai and Rachel are wholly admirable, and Tamar, in proportion to the narrative space she occupies, is very much the most vivid portrait in J. But Abram, Jacob, and Moses receive a remarkably mixed treatment... "We can fantasize them" indeed!

"Sin-consciousness" is often self-consciousness I've noticed. Better to be HIM-conscious and confess sin when you need to. I have to say, "wow", too, Linda. All of your stuff. Enough with the "enough already!" Very seriously, your pearls are not unappreciated here. Lots of good stuff I need to read several more times... I did look up manology and chiasmic... was surprised to find them! Let me know when you're ready with the narrative answer to the 1Co. 12 question. Haven't touched it, yet, myself. Start with the short answer, if you must. I agree with Abi... I didn't see the confusion that supposedly brought... only clarification. Thanks for sharing. The "nifty pics" are file attachments (not available in Fast Reply... go to Add Reply or More Options). Select pic on your computer (Browse), click Upload, and it will paste a clickable thumbnail (sounds like a new product for ladies!) Others put full pictures in their posts... probably with the IMG function linked to a pic on the internet... I'm going to try that soon. Roy, now that's what I'm talking about! Thank you, brother! Eyes, you are a darling, and thanks for your addition to the "big things" thread! Yes, I found the right controls :B) (aren't you glad I didn't put that in PINK? Couldn'tadunnit without you! (I had tried.) chi·as·ma (plural chi·as·mas or chi·as·ma·ta) noun Definition: 1. crossing over of body parts: a crossing over of biological tissue, e.g. the intersection of the optic nerves 2. crossing point of chromosome parts: the point at which two chromatids join during the fusion and exchange of genetic material crossing over in cell division [Mid-19th century. Via modern Latin< Greek khiasma "crosspiece" < khiazein "mark with an X" < khi "the letter chi"] chi·as·mal adjective chi·as·mic adjective trying this: It worked, somewhat! That's Liz and myself on the left. From the right, Sarah (our daughter) and husband Javy, Rachel (our daughter) and Tim her husband, and Eden, their son. Couple in the middle are Tim's parents. Missing: Lauren, our middle daughter.

Eyes and wrdsandwrks, thank you!

Dan, you were smart to get out when you did. You left right around the time I was joining up. smile.gif My goodness, Abi, I feel for you! Anyway, I'm glad you're out. The insanity seemed to grow exponentially. LindaR I said to be careful because there are people here who will chew you up and spit you out. There is a "decaffinated" section just for those who can't take it any more (and it can even get rough in there!) Just a friendly warning. Roy, I was saying that I agreed with you on the "impossible commands" question, because I too felt it was true in a sense and false in a sense. Yes, it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

"some of Jesus' commands were impossible to carry out" My answer to this (in Roy fashion!) is "true and false". Loving your enemy, doing good to those who despitefully use you... these are "impossible" with men, but not with God. When Jesus said "he that believes on me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works..." I believe it includes these "impossible" commands. Remember, loving your enemy is loving HIS enemies as well. Beware! Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the religious leaders, you will in NO WAY enter the kingdom of heaven. have we all just become "members" now? no more "newbies" and "advanced members"?

George, I think you may be right about me reading too much. Better than watching too much TV, though. LindaR, great answers and great first post! Thanks for joining in. You be careful in here! Eyes: when you say "the basement" do you mean the doctrinal area, or GSC? Still figuring out the lingo... also, why does my moniker say "wants to sit at the counter"? I didn't write that and I can't seem to change that. And what does "do I have kids or did I read it in a thread" mean? Abi, I'm going to fish and crab in the Chesapeake Bay, take my wife on sunset dinner cruises, and on very nice days, go offshore for tuna and mahi mahi. I left TWI around 1990, I guess. Had quite a tough time at ROA '90 with some of my former friends because I wasn't buying the "present truth" concept. Mr.H: "collective consciousness" can be a good thing, better, at least than "relative truth."

Garth, are you Garth Patterson? (You can PM me if you like). Anyway, again, you seem to be one of the disillusioned ones (a great term that set me up for a snappy reply! --- you're no longer "illusioned"? Beat you to it.) But you're hangin'-in, and moving on. God bless you, if He exists. Yes, you get extra credit for the narrative questions. :huh: