TLC

On 4/29/2024 at 7:18 AM, dkarateka7 said:

 I believe  romans 8:1  There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 

I choose to seek the things of the spirit and not walk after the flesh. 

You do know that the entire last half of that verse is omitted in all critical Greek texts don't you?

5 hours ago, Mark Sanguinetti said:

God did not create this spiritual being as the devil. God instead created this being as one of God's angles. God gives humanity and the angels, the free will to what ever they want to do. We are not puppets on a string. This angel was greedy and instead of being service oriented like God wants us to be, this angel turned to bad, while wanting to have the same authority as God or maybe more. Then when God saw that, God removed this spiritual being from heaven to earth. God in this age or period of time, uses this angel or devil to test humanity.  At the start of the new heaven and new earth as read in Revelation 21. God will place the devil and the demons who followed the devil in prison to at least limit the devil from the deception of humanity.

You either missed or hi-jacked the entire point of the post, Mark.
 

What does or doesn’t someone that says they believe in the “young earth” theory think about the devil (if they even think there is one)?  Where do they think or say the devil came from?

58 minutes ago, dkarateka7 said:

thank you for your thoughts  TLC

Why bother?  Evidently what i said flew so far and so fast over your head, you never heard the sonic boom of it passing by... 

1 hour ago, dkarateka7 said:

I stand approved to God by  rightly divining the word of truth. 

Doubt you could make a more presidential-like gaffe than that... 

1 hour ago, Charity said:

The issue for me is why in this biblical record was there even a need for Adam and Eve to make a choice. 

There's actually a rather simple, but very logical, answer for that if really you want to hear it.  Of course, whether anyone choses to believe it is another matter altogether, as there's never going to be an sort of empirical proof for it.  So, I'll merely preface it with some "if's."

If in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... and, as noted elsewhere in scripture, he is the Father of all (Eph. 4:6).. and even more specifically, the Father of spirits... then with that is it not clear that He also the Father of Lucifer?  Furthermore, without going too deep into the weeds here... perhaps you'll allow me to continue with some "what if's."

What if God needed (or perhaps wanted) a replacement for Lucifer (in reference to the devil, prior to the aspiration to "be like the most High"), who was second (only to God) over all of creation.  He could just create another replacement to fill the position Lucifer once held... yes?  But,  why suppose that there was some imperfection in God's initial creation of Lucifer, that God was going to somehow "do better" the next time around?  Do you see the problem with that?

If so, then perhaps it will make more sense why God came up with a two step replacement plan that wouldn't ever have the same issue that Lucifer had.   The first step involved the creation of man, and a proving period (an appointed time, so to speak.)  But the first Adam failed.  The second did not.

We, as the progeny of the first man Adam, were all subjected to the failures of the first.  The law, given many hundreds of years after that first failure, was not given to save anyone.  It was given that "every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."  Was the law harsh?  Very harsh. It is called the law of "sin and death" for a reason.

Yes, the first Adam made a horrendously bad choice.
Yet, the second man made a far greater good choice... that we can likewise freely participate in, should we choose to believe it.
 

18 hours ago, Charity said:

According to Genesis 1-3, God creates a paradise and many different kinds of awesome life and everything is perfect. 

Do you likewise think that serpent is perfect?  Or when and how is it that fallen creature excluded?
And if everything is perfect... why do you suppose God gave instructions to the man to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
Did evil already exist at the time of this instruction... or didn't it?
Can this be explained?

12 hours ago, Charity said:

I did mention some promises written to the body of Christ in 1 John 3:21-23 and 1 John 5:14-15.  

I see and have no reason to think that anything written in 1John is intended for the body of Christ, which no one aside from Paul  ever speaks of, or refers to.

Of course God is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us...
but that is no clear or certain promise that there there is anything that we can think or say that will bring it to pass.

12 hours ago, Charity said:

The “regardless part” is not part of these 2 verses, but it is something that Christians seem to add to cover for when our requests are not answered. 

Well, I strongly disagree.  I believe that it's an integral part of  understanding the difference between what was given and promised to Israel, and what was been done for us in Christ.  The gospel of the Kingdom was given to Israel.  The gospel of grace was given to us.  And there are differences between the two.  Even with many signs, miracles and wonders, Israel (as a nation) failed to believe and accept that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the Living God.  We, on the other hand, believe that God raised Christ from the dead... in complete and total contradiction to anything and everything that can be known by our five senses.  How or why did we do that?  Perhaps only because of a recognition and acceptance of the fact that all men (or most notably, our own selves) have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God... and that we needed a savior.  So we, in our heart, knew and understood that it was the only way... and believed the impossible.

There's a simplicity in Christ that should never be lost or complicated in or with any of the great many things that have been said or written to or for Israel...

On 4/15/2024 at 10:39 AM, Charity said:

When I look at the verses on prayers or receiving God's promises, they are a mixed lot. 

Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion (especially for many of us that were so deeply indoctrinated into the "what you can believe you will receive" teachings of PFAL) as to what - or perhaps I should say, which - of God's promises are specifically given and intended for us, rather that merely being "for our learning."  Frankly, it's took far too long a long time for this to have ever begun getting straightened out in my... but after finally hearing it (and seeing it pointed out in scripture) from someone older, much wiser (and far more humble) than myself, it explained and made much more sense of a whole lot of things.  

Honestly, there might be no really good or easy place to start, aside from ripping off the band-aid (which will probably take some hair and skin with it.)  So, here goes...

What if a lot (i.e., most nearly all) of the promises of God that you have heard and think or suppose are given and meant to be applied and work for you... really aren't addressed to you?  I said "what if"... because I know how hard that might be to even consider being a possibility.  So let's leave it at that.  What if they aren't?  

Then... what is?  And how does it differ from what we might have thought "was"?  Well, that's what we have to find and look at from scripture.  But, if you need or will want to have a possible reason why all the other promises aren't, then rather than chase that down some never seeming to end rabbit hole, perhaps you allow me to simply cut to the chase and summarize it in a word or two, and then move on.  There are a lot of promises that are written and given specifically to Israel, most of them pertaining to life here on earth, and a great many of them being conditional.  Jesus Christ was a minister to the circumcision. (Rom.15:8)  Would not then all of what he said and did while he was here on earth be specifically addressed to and intended for those that he ministered to?  So to, was all the law and the prophets of old.  The Gentiles had neither God, nor the law. (Eph.2:12; Rom.2:14.)  So... when did any of this change?

Well, I suppose one might say that it started with the resurrection.  However, there appears to be no proof or evidence of it on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, or in much of what transpires for quite some time after that.  It really isn't unit after Stephen's testimony before the council and high priest of Israel (Acts 7), their rejection of it, and the subsequent conversion of Saul that anything or anyone outside of Israel enters the picture.  This is why some (myself included) believe that the church of today (aka, the body of Christ) first began with the apostle Paul, and not on the day of Pentecost. (For whatever it's worth, I don't see 1Tim.1:15-16 as intending to make Paul as the worst sinner that ever was.  Rather I think being "chief" simply names him as being the first in line.)  Perhaps it's time to take a much closer look at the prayers or promises that are written in the church epistles, and compare them to what might have been written and intended only for Israel. 

Philippians 4:
[6] Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
[7] And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. 

If you can find anything else specifically written to "the body of Christ" (which we are part of) that tells us what God has promised or will or will not do for us in this day and time... well, maybe I haven't seen it.  But these verses alone leave little to no doubt that after we take things to God.... and then LEAVE IT WITH HIM.... regardless of whatever does or doesn't subsequently come to pass in this life here on earth, we are told that the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep our hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.  That's it.  Pretty much everything I've come to know and believe about what is and/or isn't promised to us in this day and time.  Give it to God, and let it go.  That's what Paul did.  So that's the example we are given to follow.  Paul had no easy life, that's for sure.  But... as for what is to come in all of eternity?  That's another matter altogether.  And whatever happens in this life... I believe God has been, and continues to, prepare us for whatever it is or will be doing for all of eternity.  

Eternity...

Have you thought about it?  

Israel was (and will always be...?) an earthly people and nation.  Recipients of a lot of earthly promises.
How many of the promises that Paul has written of speak of things that are heavenly in nature (and perhaps is yet to come), rather than things which are earthly?

On 4/12/2024 at 1:55 AM, WordWolf said:

That is, there's no way to figure out something, and say "if this is true, then that is false." 

Can't say that I'd agree "there's no way" to do that.   The problem with trying to use some "scientific" theory or formula (verified with certain empirical evidence) to reach a definitive conclusion resides in the failure to accept the premise it's based on.  However, I question whether or not there might be a way to look at the issue starting with a more definitive, yet... what shall I call it... "biblically sound," premise than merely launching anything and everything from a "God can do anything" premise.

I have yet to hear or make any sense out of what any proponent of this "young earth" theory actually thinks or believes about why God created the devil.  Or maybe they don't believe there is a devil.  Who knows?  But whatever it is, I can't see where or how it would make any sense or fit with some of the rest of the Bible.

I'll leave it at that...

TC

On 3/17/2023 at 10:42 AM, Raf said:

You can't just declare it to be true and then invent some way of accounting for the natural man's inability to understand it! But that is precisely what Paul did.

While it might not always be that obvious or apparent or easy to identify, all logic and reason starts with and builds on a premise that is simply accepted and presumed to be true, regardless of whether it is properly identified, or how common and universally accepted that premise is (or isn't.)

I don't think this is missing from Paul's writings... but, perhaps it is not all that obvious.  I think parts of it show up in places like Romans 3:23.  Unless or until someone relates to that, there probably isn't going to be much sense in (or need for) a personal savior, much less any change in the already common and universally accepted basis for reality in their heart.

Where or how does any change start? Well, regardless of whatever words are spoken, even by the apostle Paul himself, it appears they are only attended to when the Lord opens someone's heart.  see Acts 16:14.

So, now you're going to attack me for merely posting my opinion on the piece?

No wonder so few post here anymore...

On 11/14/2023 at 5:12 PM, Ham said:

Well, I listened to (all of) on my morning walk, and I don’t think you missed a thing.  Not a single word or mention of the resurrection (which is the crux of Christianity) in her entire diatribe.  So frankly, that tends to make me wonder if she even is a Christian.  Maybe she is, or maybe she isn’t… I don’t know (and don’t much care), but as a professed teacher (or critic… however one might refer to her), she should certainly know better. 
 

Whether you believe that Jesus is or isn’t God (which she seems to think matters, but it wasn't very clear to me what her position on that is), or profess that God loves you, or that Jesus is Lord, or claim to walk in his name or power… or anything else, for that matter… matters not one single whit without (truly) believing in your heart that God raised Christ from the dead. 
 

And honestly, I view everyone in that same light, including those that were at anytime involved with the Way Ministry (or S.I.T.). There is one criteria for being a Christian, and one criteria alone.

1 hour ago, chockfull said:

So no I don't think any ones belief regarding the Trinity affects salvation.

I do think Wierwilles Trinity explanation and book served to effectively erect a barrier between followers of TWI and all other denominations and community churches that has never been effectively broken down.

Agreed on both points, although I think that the book also served to effectively open a new perspective for a lot of people on how to think of and see Christ.  But (as so often happens), knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifeth. 

14 hours ago, chockfull said:

What part doesn’t fit?  In my experience it was all assumed to be “handled” at the foundational class level and not discussed past then including at HQ and with research dept members I spoke to.  Did you interact with people there that covered these 7 points  in your research and discussion?

Apparently our time (and definitely our experiences) at HQ and with research dept members didn't overlap.  
Do you mind if I ask if you think anyone's belief regarding the Trinity has anything at all to do with salvation? 

4 hours ago, chockfull said:

So in summary the trinity as a theological concept and interpretation of scripture is largely unknown by the Way as they discuss it only in the elementary school terminology of VPW and never stray far from his so called “revelation”.

Well, that sure doesn't fit with my experience while at HQ and some number of discussions I had with others in the research dept. (But, perhaps it did with others involved in the ministry, that I was unaware of.) 

On 9/27/2009 at 12:36 PM, Broken Arrow said:

And now for my 2-cents. My recollection is that it was called, "The Victor Paul Wierwille Word Over the World Auditorium. I think it was at Living Victoriously (1982) when the BOT with Wierwille as President announced that VP had asked them not to name it after him until after his death. The BOT still named it after him but agreed not to actually call it "The Victor Paul Wierwille...etc." until after his death. He died shortly after the official opening so most of us remember it carrying his name.

Well, I do recall him saying (probably in a staff meeting somewhere) that whenever a building was named after someone, they usually end up dying shortly thereafter...

Furthermore, it seems that sometime around the time the auditorium finished being built, there was something like $25 million cash sitting in the cofffers of TWi... (something which Geer brought to light a year or so after VP's death...) 

2 hours ago, Mike said:

We don't have much info on spirit and how it works. Even if we did have the info, do we have the minds that can understand it?  Not usually. 

Agreed.  And for supposedly being "experts in the holy spirit" field, the biggest achievement of going through TWI was a great puffing up of what anyone thought they knew about spirit and "how it works."  But, seems to me there's an incredible amount of pride that needs (or needed, if any insist on a benefit of doubt) to be flushed out before the door leading to any real answers (aka, truth) in this field even begins to crack open.  It was, is, and most likely will remain a "hit or miss" struggle that is never able to paint a clear enough picture to make much (much less "good") sense, especially for anyone deeply indoctrinated in certain religious beliefs...

2 hours ago, Mike said:

All we know is that people needed spirit, and Jesus knew it,

Seriously, Mike? You appear to be saying that people had no spirit whatsoever.  How in the world then might you explain what is written in Luke 9:55?  If you're some expert on spirit, exactly what "pneuma" do you suppose Jesus is referring to in this verse?  And yes, I'm not stupid... I am aware that spirit (or pneuma, if you prefer) can and might refer to different "things" (for lack of any better word.)  But my question (again) is simply this... What spirit do you suppose is being referred to in Luke 9:55?  And why might Jesus refer to it being a "manner of spirit"?     

Or, if there's someone else in this forum that supposes themselves to be an expert on spirit... please feel free to answer the question.

1 hour ago, oldiesman said:

A Catholic friend just sent me this email.. now gotta do more research why the powers that were, left this book out of the King James and other versions.   Am sure there's an interesting story behind it.  I should have asked VPW why...when he had his arm around me ...   LOLOL

 

It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they might be loosed from sins. — 2 Maccabees 12:4

 

Considering that's such an obvious and blatant contradiction of what is so plainly written in Romans 6, perhaps it shouldn't be all that difficult to figure out why 2 Maccabees was left out of the King James...

1 hour ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Belief has nothing to do with the seeing. 

That depends entirely on what you see... or, depending on how one prefers to say it... on what you believe to see.

In other words, people (for the most part) can only believe what they see.  However, according to scripture, it is not only possible to believe what is not (and can not be) seen... it appears to be one of only two very specifically given requirements written in Hebrews 11:6. 

9 minutes ago, oldiesman said:

From what I've heard and experienced the RC church doesn't go exclusively with the scriptures for everything; they also consider and obtain information from tradition, popes, counsels, investigations of apparitions, what they believe to be newer revelation, etc.     Am still investigating if there are any scriptures that the RC church relates to purgatory.

Dante's writings are not scriptural... lol.

On 11/1/2022 at 4:19 AM, oldiesman said:

There's no exception from punishment that I know of in the RC church, except possible cases of martyrdom.    From what I've heard, the RC Church teaches most all (all without exception) go to purgatory, or hell itself.   It's apparently very rare that someone directly goes to heaven and be with Jesus immediately after death, even when they confess all their sins and be absolved from the priest.   So, pray to Jesus for mercy, and ask to be with Him forever; but you still must go through the cleansing process Jesus set up for you to enter the pearly gates.    Don't ask me how, or where it is in the scriptures because I don't know.   I'm still struggling with this. 

If there were any such thing as a '"cleansing process," why might you (or anyone else) suppose that it so plainly omitted from Heb. 9:27?

...it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment...

On 10/15/2022 at 9:13 AM, T-Bone said:

By applying the screwy “keys” and crowbars of PFAL – using either con artist finesse  or  brute bully force  -  one can make any Bible verse “fit” into wierwille’s perverted and misguided theology !

Is not one of the primary "keys" of biblical interpretation a consideration of "to whom is it addressed"?

If so, then who spoke what is written in John 10:10, and to whom was it directed?  Who were those words given to?
In other words, exactly who does the "you" in John 10:10 refer to?

Matthew 15

[22] And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
[23] But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
[24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Rom.15

[8] Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers

But, I suppose you can cut those verses out of the Bible if you don't like them. Or, you can just ignore them and claim that anything and everything that Jesus Christ said or did here in his earthly ministry was actually directed to anyone and everyone...  then ANYONE can have POWER for Abundant Living !!!  Because having a wonderfully rich and prosperous life right now is available for everyone that wants to pretend this is addressed to them...

1 hour ago, Raf said:

TLC

I don't think you have any idea how unbelievably condescending that sounds to those of us who spent a lifetime pursuing God and the things of God and leading people to Christ, only to have some self-appointed authenticity cop come along and say "You know I bet if you look deep down he didn't REALLY believe." $#%! you, if the truth be known.

Because your inability to process a genuine change of heart doesn't invalidate it.

Try again,

thanks for the reminder why I stopped coming around here.  It's mean, arrogant, comments like yours that just can't stand the plainly stated opinion of another ... which reveals far more than I care to think about or know.

2 hours ago, Oakspear said:

Full disclosure: I'm no long a Bible-believer in any sense of the term.

Well, you're certainly not the first (nor are likely to be the last) to proclaim that.  Typically stirs a rather simple question in my mind as to whether (or perhaps I should say, why) someone ever truly believed that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead.  Because I see that as the real (and perhaps the only) crux of the issue.  Furthermore, there's not a doubt in my mind that more that a few think that they do (or did, at one time or another) "believe" it... but if the truth be known, don't (and/or didn't ever.)

Okay, so it brings up the question of what "believing" really is or isn't, which I don't have a pat answer for.  But speaking from an obviously personal perspective, I simply can't relate to a "change of mind" about something that from a strictly "physically real" perspective is genuinely impossible to believe. So, to ever arrive at a time or place in life that you can and do cast aside the reality that you know, and replace it with the risen saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.... well, seem to me that it goes way beyond a crossing of the Rubicon, mentally speaking.  I just don't know how anyone that "makes that jump" ever ends up being appeased or satisfied with going back to what was (or might have been) before. 

4 minutes ago, cman said:

Well, yes, "children of" and other such phrases would imply relations or relatives of.....like the "father of lies" is obviously a relationship. I tend to think it's (whatever it is) has been passed down through generations.

well, yeah... I suppose most probably are the product of certain genetic breeding, but beyond that, I'm inclinced to think there's also a rather distinctive commitment involved.