TLC

2 hours ago, T-Bone said:

link to Rico's teaching "obedience to the household of faith" was a link on this thread in Skyrider's Sept. 13th post - see below

On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 7:33 AM, skyrider said:

Apologia, Part V: Obedience to the Household of Faith (R. Magnelli)

 

Closing out his "class" with Obedience to the Household of Faith...........SEE, back to following orders!! 

Him leader........you grunt.

SSDD  

 

 

okay, ...I clicked on it.  (thinking, it's really bad, it shouldn't take too long to figure it out.)

and yep... less that a minute into it, and it was pretty clear.  (and a few minutes more of it was all I could stomach...)

In short, if you are convinced (or persuaded) that the church (i.e., the called out) of the body of Christ start on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), I suppose it's a piece of cake for certain talented or charismatic leaders to  likewise convince or persuade you - in one way or another - of incorporating and equating certain portions and aspects of the law into your own senses driven servitude.  In other words, your obedience to the spirit of God within you is thwarted and/or replaced with an obedience to the spirit in others. 

Seriously now... merely try looking up the word "obedience" in the church epistles, and see for yourself who or what it refers to.

Obedience to... some certain household ?
Surely you jest, if you say that is something aligned with what is written.

Ah, but this "teaching" was no joke.  He was as serious as a heart attack when he equated it with your "obedience to God."

2 hours ago, Taxidev said:

You're speculating.  It's over a year now and they have made no indication that they want money from anyone.  On the contrary, they have stated specifically that they do NOT want our money, that if we want to give money we should find someone who is truly in need and give to them.  That's biblical.

Speculating?  Okay, if that's the game, here's a little more for you to ponder...

Which of any of these people produced, provided, or in any way "manufactured" (for lack of a better word) a service (or product) outside of TWI that could (or would) have resulted in a means of income (or wealth, if you prefer) that any of them are now in a position that they are (evidently) independently wealthy?

Aside from some sort of sizeable inheritance (which, granted, some might have been the beneficiary of some caring and thoughtful parents or relative), how is it that you suppose any of them manage to live in a society (and world) that essentially runs on money?  What hidden "saddle making" skills might you suppose that any of them have or utilize? Or, who (or what) is it that you suppose actually funds their present lifestyle (if not the same - or very similar to that which did - while in twi)?

Might strike you as rather odd, but personally, I'm inclined towards thinking that the first three chapters of Genesis might be some of the most misunderstood scriptures in the Bible, and I have probably spent as much (perhaps more) time pondering their meaning than I have nearly any other section of scripture.  Although the way I view it now is far different than it was years ago (when closer to the doctrines and teaching of twi), and is still some distance away from being perfect or as complete as it might be for others, it does give me a certain perspective on it that I find extraordinarily difficult at times to convey in terms that can be quickly or easily understood.

God is a spirit (according to scripture.) Man is not. And that which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Between spirit and flesh is... what, exactly? What is the divide, and/or what is the bridge between these two?  How and or why did it start, or get to be this way? And once separated, how does (or is) anything that is spiritual in nature communicate with (or get communicated to) that which is by nature, flesh... that sees/hears/thinks ONLY in terms that are "fleshly"?

Hence, when something is referred to as being "literally true"... does that axiomatically restrict it to something that is (or can be) only known to the flesh?

Why can't something be "literally true" if or when specifically intended to refer to a spiritual reality? Ah, well... the difficulty falls back onto our expression and communication of it.

So, Genesis begins the task of communicating the whys and wherefores of certain spiritually realities to a fleshly mind.  An impossibility, perhaps? Or, perhaps not. As, it can (and often does) entail the usage of words and phrases with dual meanings.  Confuse, mix up, and/or otherwise exchange the two, and it positively looks like certain errors. 

On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 5:58 AM, Raf said:

...a ridiculous explanation you would reject if offered to support any other religion.

Actually, that's not true, as I tend to look quite carefully for the congruity in what someone else says they believe.  But, perhaps that's something that you don't care to do, and/or prefer to avoid dealing with.  

23 hours ago, Raf said:

There's nothing there about blood being required for a sin offering. Not even a hint.

If the author of a novel gave you pertinent information later in the story, you would undoubtedly accept it as being relevant to (or in) the beginning of it.  Yet, because you don't believe that God is the sole author responsible for what is written later in the Bible, you can't and won't allow for it here. 

23 hours ago, Raf said:

In fact, if you were to take it at his word, it's clear that the problem was his attitude, not the absence of blood.

 In the sense of his "attitude" being a direct reflection and indication of what he did or didn't believe, I'd probably agree.  That said, I see the absence of blood in his offering as evidence that he didn't believe [God] that it was required.  Let's back it up to ask what the reason might have been for any offering whatsoever.  Was God actually in need of anything that man could offer?  (I think not.)  And if not, then what possible thoughts could have been behind Cain's offering?  (Some logical reading between the lines goes a long way towards explaining what might be going on here.........  but that's evidently something that most people solely trained at twi were/are either afraid to do and/or plainly suck at.) 

23 hours ago, Raf said:

Mind you, you're quoting a verse in which God speaks directly to Cain, nullifying your excuses about his unwillingness to speak to Abel, whose life depends on knowing what Cain will do.

And you either completely missed or flatly chose to ignore my earlier comment that I'm inclined towards thinking that God's intervention in men's lives throughout history tends to be rather minimalistic.  Perhaps it was understated.  Or maybe I just didn't want to draw that much attention to it, for reason of the effort it might take to better explain it.   

16 hours ago, lindyhopper said:

I’m fairly certain LCM got this original sin theory from the Jewish myth of Lilith...  

Given how whacked said theory is, what difference does it make where he got it from? Neither it, nor vpw's perverted opinion on what the original sin is ever made any sense.

45 minutes ago, Raf said:

MAYBE there's an alternate translation of Gen. 4:7. Maybe. (Psst: the burden is on you to find it, not to simply declare the possibility that such a text exists and draw conclusions from it).

Say what? (Psst:  It was in the previous post already... but, perhaps you weren't ready to hear it.)

20 hours ago, TLC said:

 

Genesis 4:7 (YLT) Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering is crouching, and unto thee its desire, and thou rulest over it.'   

YLT =  Young's Literal Translation (in case you didn't know already.)

3 minutes ago, Raf said:

Your guarantee of eternal life is as valuable as the Muslim's. As valuable as the Mormon's. As valuable as the Scientologist's belief in clearing the tanks from our minds. Your fervent belief is not a guarantee.

Of course it isn't from your perspective.  (And I've never said or implied otherwise.)

5 minutes ago, Raf said:

And yes, by comparing this life to the next in the precise way that you have to make the precise point you are making does indeed rob this life of value, and it does indeed justify any atrocity in this life as long as the victim has eternal life.

You make it sound like death by any atrocity is some sort of ticket to eternal life... which is ridiculous.

8 minutes ago, Raf said:

This is how YOU are applying it!

And you're nuts if you think that's how I applied it.

11 minutes ago, Raf said:

Why didn't God warn Abel?

Given Adam's sin and that man was already expelled from Eden, why think or suppose that man should or would be so closely connected to God?

I do not think or suppose that this life that we currently have was ever designed or intended as being "forever."  However, I also do not think or suppose that it needed to finish or end only by death.  That is, until Adam failed to preserve the purity of what was to be believed.  Instead, he chose to believe the reality of his senses above that which was revealed and known to him spiritually.  Part of the reality that he so elevated was the simple fact that this life is (and always was) temporal. 

Adam having so irreversibly damaged his own means to effectively perceive the spiritual realities of God's creation, God was then challenged with how to successfully bring spiritually impaired man across the finish line by the end of the appointed time. 

If you want to get lost in the weeds of how or why He did or didn't deal with anyone along the way, well... that's certainly a rather popular place to camp out in.  Personally, I'm sorta inclined to think his intervention in men's lives throughout history as they "work out their own salvation" tends to be rather minimalistic. If you don't want or need help, neither do you get it.  As far as why Cain's offering was refused, seems to be fairly straightforward as far as I can tell.  Regardless of the fact that we (as readers) aren't informed until much later, it is made known that without blood there is no remission of sin.  Even if, as you purport, Cain didn't know (or forgot) this, perhaps some alternate translation/interpretation of Gen.4:7 would clarify the probability that God reminded him of it, telling him that a sin offering (for Cain) waited for him by the door, and that he had rule over it.  But, Cain chose not to believe God, or accept that, and after talking with Able, chose rather to kill him.

Genesis 4:7 (YLT) Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering is crouching, and unto thee its desire, and thou rulest over it.'   

3 hours ago, Raf said:

...it does little or nothing to contribute to a discussion with someone who is not convinced there is any such thing.

did you expect it to be so different from the many other things in the Bible that do little or nothing for someone not convinced of eternal life?  

3 hours ago, Raf said:

Further, and I've said this before, looking at this temporal life from an eternal perspective opens the door to defending all manner of atrocity, as this temporal life of necessity becomes of no value compared to eternity.

I vehemently disagree that this temporal life "of necessity becomes of no value compared to eternal life."  Rather, I see it as both essential and formative for what that eternal life can or (forever) will be.  And in light of that, is not merely some doorway or path to "defend all manner of atrocity."  What it does do, however, is add a substantially different perspective and new possibilities for understanding the why and wherefores of this current life. 

3 hours ago, Raf said:

If that's going to be the answer to everything, then this "eternal life" thing had better be rock-solid guarandamteed.

I certainly do not see it as the answer to everything.
However, from my perspective, it is without a doubt, absolutely rock-solid, guarandamteed.

3 hours ago, Raf said:

people who struggled to come to terms with the finality of death.

I crossed the Rubicon (so to speak) of that in my own life well over 50 years ago (well before I ever knew or heard of twi.)  Call it a deeply personal religious experience if you want, it makes no difference whatsoever to me.  After once coming face to face with (and more or less accepting) eternal separation from God, the flicker of light that suddenly ignited within me simply cannot be changed or undone. 
 

On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 11:32 AM, Raf said:

On ‎7‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 7:20 AM, TLC said:

"natural" reactions, indeed, because the foolishness of God is wiser than men.

Actually, you don't just get to say this and have it be true.

That's arrogance. "My position is wise even if it makes no sense to you."

Well, I didn't "just get to say" that and have it be true.  I was quoting scripture, which surely you already knew.  So your accusation of arrogance is false and unfounded

On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 11:32 AM, Raf said:

"The foolishness of God is wiser than men" absolves you of any need to even consider the validity of what I've just laid out.

No, not at all.  But if I, in my own inherent weakness and shortness of complete understanding can make good enough sense of it, I am more than convinced that the foolishness  of God is wiser than men.  Whether or not I could ever communicate to you enough of my own perspective on the matter is another issue altogether.  Not that it even matters one iota.  Because it seems that you evidently want it completely spelled out for you in black and white.  Which, I don't see being completely possible, not even in scripture. 

However, I do think there's a thread, woven through scripture, that paints a picture of the invisible on the canvas of believing.  Sure,  I can undoubtedly describe a great many things that I see to you, and how certain things make plenty of sense if or when viewed from the right perspective.  But you will deny that my perspective is valid, or has any chance of being valid, because it's not how you see and think of it, or will allow room for, or if by chance my own communication of (or understanding of) some other part of it is not as complete or as thorough as you think it should be. 

Consider this, if you will.  Fifty thousand pieces of a jigsaw puzzle are set before you.  There are edge pieces, but many of the pieces appear to be similar, or have varying degrees of depth.  Some of the pieces look like they ought to fit together, but they don't. Perhaps they are part of some sort of three dimensional puzzle.  Or maybe it's pieces to more than one puzzle.  Do you pick up a piece of it and say, this piece is a mistake, because it doesn't fit where you think it needs to or should?  Or do you put it back in the pile and think, I don't yet have the right piece for this, or the right place for that?

I have, some time ago, reasoned why there is no remission for sin without the shedding of blood.  And perhaps my perspective on it is far less than perfect.  Still, given my overall perspective on life (both as we know it, and as it was probably first in Adam) and sin (even going back that of the father of lies), it is not so difficult to think of eternal life's quality being far more significant and important than the trials and tribulations in the proving time of the temporal life currently bestowed upon us.

On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 11:51 PM, skyrider said:

TLC.........I distinctly remember vpw saying that "love in his little pinky finger" thing in reference to Wayne Cl-app, not DWBH.

What, you think he only once used that Jedi mind trick? ha!

You can spin the rest of my post however you want. It doesn't change it one iota. 

22 hours ago, Taxidev said:

It leads me to wonder if any of them actually were aware of the things going on with VPW, many of which DWBH has shared here.  I can't believe they could have known about that and still think...

...and still think and do what [so many] did ?

well, here's a free thought or two (which might be worth no more than they cost you...)

try doing a little research (ala google, if you like) on narcissism, and wrap it (i.e., the effect of it, or how it works) around your head for a while.

trust me, you won't have to look far to see it in operation all around us...  and once you "get it," the disparity so evident in a great many things might start making a whole lot more sense.   which side of the tracks you come from (or have learned to see things from) can make one helluva difference.  and once you know you're on "the high side" of the tracks, the other side is simply "not where you're at."  although not all (high dollar) managers and politicians (just to name a few categories that come to mind) are afflicted with this... I suspect most are. 

some are born into it.  others (especially those of higher intellect) are simply more "naturally inclined" towards it.  of course, those that are "there" already are often quite adept at fostering similar features in those around them.  perhaps DWBH will be so kind as to expound on why he did what he did and thought the way he thought "back in the day" when he too was on "the high side" of it, thinking (and speaking of) vpw as a moggie, in spite of being aware of those "things going on."  heck, I recall a time when vpw spoke of DWBH having more love in his little pinky finger than others did in their whole body.  sure must have made him feel pretty good about himself at the time, like it would have anybody, eh?  then there was that time vpw gave DWBH the warning he'd better keep [something... whatever it was] it to himself (you know, in the ol' lockbox) or (maybe not these exact works) God would take it out of his hide.

so yeah... I can attest to the fact that DBWH evident knew certain stuff that we (I.e., anyone on a lower side of the tracks) didn't.  so, no doubt his perspective is, in many respects, quite different than most here. (and the pride that flows so easily into and through the high side of the tracks, is so familiar and comfortable... it's hard to suppress.)   give DWBH some credit though, where credit is due... he rather early on recognized that breaking away from twi and "starting another ministry" wasn't the answer, and was going to go down the same road, ending up with the same problems (that these bozo's are finally admitting to.) 

1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:

Eden could symbolize not so much a paradise but a closed system,

imo, the condition of it.

1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:

Eve questioned the system and her perceptions were immediately altered. 

different... but not all that far removed from how I think it went down.  seems to be wrapped up in what she saw and accepted as the truth (i.e., "as reality.")
In other words, she (and then Adam) chose to change her (their) perception of reality...  to that which man has been ensnared in ever since. 

1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:

  That is something people may or may not experience over and over again

...not really available or possible, imo.  (it was a one way ticket, for all intents and purposes, and anything even remotely resembling it in our minds probably pales in comparison.)  how Jesus Christ may have succeeded in "reversing" his perception of reality within his own life is nearly incomprehensible... but I suspect those 40 days in the wilderness would have had something to do with it.  That any of us can (and do) believe in his resurrection is evidently what unlocks the door (to being able to see/believe a reality greater than what is revealed through the senses), but seems at best all we ever get are glimpses of the "reality" that Adam & Eve were probably capable of perceiving prior to the decision to elevate "another way" of seeing things to the forefront of their minds and heart.  But what do I know, eh?  Nothing new, nothing original... it's probably just some goofy bunch of gobbledygook for all you smart folk to pass over.  Ah, well... so much for that.

2 hours ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

Your continued condescending arrogance to posts which disagree with

Ha! It's the old pot (that's still largely clueless about who I am, or what I believe) calling the kettle black...
 

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

I thought Rocky was being sarcastic about your response to Chockfull - and I can see why Rocky said that...

Well, considering it was actually a response to Mark (and not Chockfull), perhaps I should be a bit confused by why you bother to say that.  But, I'm not, as Rocky's sarcasm was more than a little obvious (as uncalled for or as worthless as it might seem or be.) 

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

going on other discussions I’ve had with you - there’s been times when I’ve disagreed or asked for clarification and your response seemed to me to have been condescending (and you may not have meant for it to come across like that )

no, it's not my intent, but yeah, I'm not unaware that it can (and probably does) come across like that at times... especially if or when I've already made a "couple runs" at trying to make a certain point.  (For the record - and maybe it's just me - I've had an exceedingly difficult time trying to communicate with Mark in the past, even when asking or stating something as plainly and clearly as I think I possibly can... so, maybe my last post to him was laden with a bit more terseness that it could or ought to have been.  I just didn't want to beat around the bush with it.)

9 hours ago, Twinky said:

The first sin was lack of understanding, leading to God-rejection, leading to disobedience.

hmmm...  I would probably be inclined to agree if that were intended to be addressed more specifically to the woman.  But I'm not so quick to think or say that's as true or accurate with Adam.  Personally, I think Adam knew full well what the issue was, and intentionally and purposefully choose to follow her lead, to believe and do what he did.  Simply attributing it to "he didn't understand" actually strikes me as a form of rationalization, and that God somehow didn't do a "good enough" job of communicating to Adam what the issue really was.

9 hours ago, Twinky said:

In any event, the "first sin" wasn't anything sexual at all.

Agreed, as I suspect it was far greater and much more significant than that (even if something sexual between the man and woman may have resulted from it.)

9 hours ago, Twinky said:

Tempter: "Here you are.  You're wise now. 

Well, seems I don't see or know of anywhere in the scriptures, or in life, that anything related to sexual activity honestly results in anyone becoming "wise" as a result... unless a realization of what you did possibly having been rather thoughtless or dumb somehow counts for being "wise" because you suppose that you're not as thoughtless or dumb now as you think you might have been then. 

12 hours ago, Rocky said:

You can be so sweet and Christ-like sometimes. 

Trying to stir up a new or different way to look at something around here all to often seems to have about as much effect as shooting BB's at a Sherman tank. 

10 minutes ago, Mark Sanguinetti said:

To answer your question please read and learn from 1 Corinthians chapter 15.

Given that's not an answer to (and doesn't even come close to addressing) my question, evidently you've never considered the possibility that I asked... and either don't have (and can't think of) an answer, or don't comprehend the question.

20 hours ago, Mark Sanguinetti said:

no eternal life for our physical bodies.

What if that were never a part of God's original design or intent? (IMO, it wasn't.)
How would (or does) that change your view of what the original sin might have been?

here's another thought for you:

that which is born of the flesh (think, in Bethlehem) is flesh; and
that which is born of the Spirit (think, resurrection day) is spirit.

44 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

if you’re trying to prove Jesus wasn’t considered the Son of God until after he was resurrected - you may want to consider passages in the Gospels where a voice from heaven declared he was the Son of God.

Nope. I never said (and don't think) that.
(And any effort to move it over to that comes across as little more than setting up the ole' straw man punching bag.  Seriously? After all that I've posted in various places around here - that I'm sure you've read at least once -  you really think I'd think like that?)

52 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

As far as what was the life-force in Christ’s new body or it’s origin - - I don’t know - but feel free to share what you think...anything goes here.

Well, I've actually said or alluded to it some number of times already.

Whatever it is, it is clearly and plainly marked out as being "brand new."
Never been before.
First (and only one thus far) of its kind.
"Birthed" (or begotten) of God for the very first time on "this day" of the resurrection.
It's stunning.  So "mind numbing" that most simply pass over or miss the significance of it.

1 minute ago, T-Bone said:

hmmmm....on Sonship i left off the part about in what sense ...???...- Well ok - whatever floats your boat.

 

Feel free to clarify in what sense you’re talking about...

in the sense of "This day have I begotten thee."

Do you suppose that the life in the resurrected Christ was the very same life that was in the blood (which was poured out at Calgary)?
If so, why is there no mention of there being any blood in his new body after resurrection?
If not, what happened to that life that was in the blood? And where did the life that replaced or superseded it come from?

7 hours ago, Grace Valerie Claire said:

WW, I don't know Jack about light, but I can offer a simple explanation about the Bible.  In my opinion, people usually believe what they want about the Bible; it may or may not be right.  

Probably true.  It's probably also true that people are naturally inclined towards thinking if they just try to be good, or do the best they can, that it will be "good enough" before a good and righteous judge at the end of life.  But you know, how different do you really think that is from what Cain might have thought when he brought what he had before the Lord in Genesis 4:3? 

37 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Guess I should ask what you think Acts 13:33 means...I can only assume - since you have debated other points I brought up - you might think his resurrection had something to do with his Sonship - but you can clarify or correct me if I’ve got it wrong...

Sonship, but in what sense?  (seems you left that part off...)

The language of Acts 13:33 actually appears to be quite clear in this regard, in my opinion.   It calls to mind a specific prophecy that was written in the second psalm (Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ) and  tells us the exactly event (i.e., in resurrection day) which fulfilled that very prophecy .  But, you obviously don't agree. 

42 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

V33 seems to carry the idea of an already present reality being manifested for all to see..

So, it appears that we have arrived at an impasse... as this, for me, is an irreducible belief.  For I have, for a long time now (and far too many years), seen the simplicity and beauty of it fit perfectly with all else that I know and understand of scripture... 

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

your question about how he did miraculous things kind of puzzles me ; and makes me want to ask you what difference does it really make as to HOW Jesus Christ was able to do miraculous things before or after his resurrection ...he’s Jesus Christ! Just curious - Do you have an issue with that - or why is it so hard to believe he could do all that?

I wasn't so much interested in how he did it as I was in your thoughts on how or why it was any different from what he did after his resurrection.  Which, I supposed, would help reveal what, if any, change you think did (or didn't) occur as a result of his resurrection.  For the record, I have no issue whatsoever with believing any of the miraculous things before his resurrection.  Nor do I have any issue believing what he did after his resurrection, regardless of whether they do or don't fit into that exact same category.  The only difference (for me) that it makes, is the (rather stunning, mind numbing) change that I believe happened at his resurrection.  Mind numbing... because of how it is so easily and so often subdued, skipped over, or completely missed.

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

I simply imagine the changes to his physical body after the resurrection were quite significant- going on the testimony in the Gospels and what Paul said in Corinthians about the new body. I assume you are familiar with those details, no?

Quite familiar.  And yourself... by any chance are you as familiar with this line (and its meaning), from Acts 13:33?

 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

You are correct in assuming I believe in the pre-existence of Christ - as conveyed in John 1 - in the beginning was the word & etc. as far as being a hybrid - i am simply speculating what John 1:14 means by “the only begotten” the Greek is monogenes - which can mean “one of a kind” or “the one and only”.

Well then, that's no surprise.  Like it probably doesn't surprise you that I don't... as I see his birth and life before Calgary being like (though, not exactly) that of Adam, and I relate his becoming (the only) "begotten" specifically to the day of his resurrection and his being the firstborn (and only one thus far) raised (such as he was) from the dead.  After which he most certainly is "one of a kind."  In light of that, and from this perspective, he's passed on... from what Adam may have once been, unto a new, never been before, second man (aka, "the Lord from heaven.")