TLC

If it weren't for that word "micromanagement," I'd be inclined to disagree. In other words, I do think there was... well, what should I call it... direction (I'll avoid using the word "control") from the council (aka, the 12) at Jerusalem. Moreover, it was different (and poignant) enough from the guidance from Paul, that it resulted in the confrontation recorded in Acts 15. And frankly, although they plainly shook hands and came to a certain agreement between them, it appears to me that by then there were already two remarkably different "paths" in place - one of which continued with the centralized authority in Jerusalem, and one which... in so many words, should not have. (I think I'll leave it at that.) TWI may have (somewhat) modeled itself after the centralized authoritarianism of the church at Jerusalem. Which, even as it did (under the best leadership and conditions imaginable) in the first century, failed. Why? (Well, not to mention or take into account the dismal difference in leadership... lol.) Simply put, because it didn't exactly match or fit with the new and more appropriate guidance that was given (by the risen and glorified Christ) to Paul. Which is precisely why Paul was told to get out (and pretty much stay out) of Jerusalem.

Thank you, T-Bone. Maybe my memory isn't so bad and I'm not so crazy after all, eh?

Though my recollection of it isn't exact (as in, when and where it was said), there is no mistake in the takeaway from it (at least in my mind.) In fact, the general atmosphere (at least, as I recall it) was fairly well captured in a large billboard that sat out on bend in the corner of Hwy 29 depicting an open bible, with the words "Read it for yourself." Exactly when (or for how long) that sign was up, I don't know. Maybe it was taken down when a basic appreciation for that particular message was lost.

Okay, so you read it. But no, you most assuredly missed the point of it, or you wouldn't have ignored the "if all of that is true, then..." part of the question. Because what it all boils down to is this: when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility. (Just google that, if you don't believe me...)

Obviously you either didn't read, or didn't grasp, the point of my post.

No, it doesn't. That was the point of my post (which was evidently lost in translation.)

If so, I must have missed (or ignored) that. And plainly, I heard it taught differently elsewhere. (Maybe it was the Corpse)

Perhaps you'll allow me to say that is an assumption on your part. But you're not alone, by any means. It's just not my view of it.

Okay, I'll drop it.

Genesis 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

When did this nonsense come about? Perhaps it's said in jest, as it wasn't so back in the day. Nearest I can recall anything to that was a mention to put all reading material aside other than Romans thru Thessalonians for 3 months...

Perhaps they are (on my part.) However, in light of there having been quite different directives given to man at different points in history, on what basis do you chose which ones to keep and which ones to replace?

Look a bit more carefully at exactly what I had asked. I didn't actually claim there was "scientific proof" for it, as I'm aware that it's rather debatable what scientific proof of anything really is. Some will contend that "science" can't really prove or disprove anything, and say that scientific proof is a myth. Yet, based on some great abundance of empirical evidence, it seems there arrives a point where enough of a majority will agree on that there is "enough" of a constant or consistency in the evidence to say that something is (scientifically) proven. Now, if all of that is true (perhaps you can convince me that it's not true... but, I doubt it... lol), then why and/or why would anyone draw a line and say that no life after death isn't just as "scientifically proven" as anything else that you seem to think is?

That particular directive was given to Adam, at a time when Adam was properly equipped and able to have dominion over all the earth. When Adam failed to maintain his original state of mind, such a directive was impossible to fulfill. So anyone's effort to do so afterward is... well, like relieving one's bladder in the wind.

So when do you decide when to, or when not to, apply this particular formula to your interpretation of the Bible? Because.... hasn't all the evidence of science proven to you that there is no life after death?

This undoubtedly strays from "the topic" of the thread (which will invariably offend some,)... so, I guess I either ignore the entirety of your post, or respond in snippets and endure the rebuffs they stir up... Actually, I don't recall that exact thing being said or taught in PFAL. (If so, my memory must be bad.) I have (for longer than I care to remember) always made a very precise distinction in my mind between "the Bible" and "the Word of God." Enough of a distinction, that I when I see or think "the Word of God," it is (in my mind) relegated to something that: 1.) is of (i.e., originates from) God; 2.) is perfect; 3.) is spiritual; and 4.) is invisible (and therefore, unknown to the senses.) Perhaps in other words, it is "the breath of God." (...which is a figure of speech, obviously.) On the other hand, I see and think of the Bible as being "the revealed Word and Will of God." (which also happens to match how I recall it being taught in PFAL.) Furthermore, taking it one step further (and I know not all agree this perspective), I think of the Bible as a collection of scripture -- things which "can not be broken." Regardless of the fact they were written by less than perfect men (who may indeed have some of those "warts and all" that you speak of.) The difference between what was/is given by revelation (which is perfect) and that which results from inspiration (which isn't always perfect), I've spoken on elsewhere. Simply put, I think that difference allows for a certain (and often times rather distinct) perfection being evidenced within various imperfect versions of the Bible.

sorry, but I can't follow any pattern of logic, reasoning or coherency in your post.

hmmm... in spite of any similarities, it appears my start was actually quite different. Not in always have a love for science (which I did from a VERY young age... and still do), but rather, in when it (forever) took a back seat (so to speak) to learning about God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Suffice it to say, it was most certainly before I ever knew or heard anything of the Way Ministry. There is a point (or gap, if you prefer) at which (sooner or later) there is an unfathomable chasm reached between what is (and can or ever will be) knowable through the senses and what is (or can be) knowable through the spirit. Want it more specifically? Think of life after death. Science neither can, nor will it ever, get you there. There, meaning, genuinely believing it. And quite frankly, as hard as "religion" tries to get you there, neither do I think that it (name any religion you want) is capable of it (i.e., getting anyone "there") - although some will undoubtedly think and contend otherwise. The way I see it, there's one (and only one) way that anybody can ever truly believe "it" (that there is life after death.) The precursors to anyone's arrival at the way (not meaning TWI or "the Way Ministry") can vary greatly, but it seems that invariably it envelopes some innate recognition and acceptance of one's own failure, or falling short. (However you want to look at or phrase Rom. 3:23.) But, in a manner of speaking, when the reality of the perfect man(Christ)'s death subsequently hits us between the eyes... and our own shortcomings and failures are rendered as being insignificant... the only (totally overwhelming) thing that makes sense is that God raised him from the dead. At that point in time (for me... and I suspect that I am not alone), there was nothing else that mattered nor made any sense. The "loose pieces" clicked... and I understood... well, in so many words, .. that he loved me, and laid down his life for me. It suddenly became very "personal..." and there was absolutely no doubt (nor has there ever been since then) that God raised him from the dead, and that he lives forevermore. So, like I said previously... science has (and will forever) take a back seat to something which I know in my heart is true beyond any and all doubt. While it may not be said of many things, on that, I suppose one might say that I am "fully persuaded." Yet, from a purely "scientific" perspective, I am well aware that it is quite "impossible" to prove it, or perhaps, even more logically explain it. What is unfortunate, is that it appears you (and some untold number of others) may have muddled this... how should I say it... fundamental aspect of Christianity with something learned or associated with TWI, rather than with the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Or maybe I just misunderstood something written in your post that only made it seem like you were putting science back in the drivers seat . If so, perhaps you wouldn't mind clarifying your position on it.

What difference does it make? Evidently you want to fight about it, and I don't. Define things however you want. Perhaps there was a kindness in Elena that somehow eluded you, or that you can't relate to.

EW certainly spread a lot of love in places where it was very sorely needed, and certainly didn't deserve such speculative debasement. As much as some here might not like it (and even argue against it), it is true that (real) love does cover certain things over with silence...

Seems to depend on whether you think it has much of anything to do with being born again. Not if you're persuaded that being born again doesn't (or can't) refer to something yet to come.

There's a variance of meanings in the phrase "born again." (for example, see Acts 13:33) And it's not "what" the new man is, but rather, who. New life? Yes, being it's that of the new man. What is it, really, to be born again or to enter the kingdom of God? And does (or how does) your answer to this fit with John 3:8? The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Seems that's how some thought it was taught in twi, and perhaps in a certain sense (of spiritual awareness) I would be somewhat inclined to agree with such a statement ... but not from the perspective of it being anything more than the (spiritual life of) Christ within them. In other words, I no longer see in Acts 2 the creation (or birth) of new life, but rather, the enjoinment to (and manifestation of) the living Christ.

odd. 'cause I thought it pretty much was... Once again, seems we have a very different way of looking at things.

Frankly, I don't recall actually thinking or caring much about whether he did or didn't demonstrate power back then. What I did think and care more about was how God worked in my own life, and whether I demonstrated power. (And I don't think I was alone in that respect.) But, after long last seeing that for the egotism that sort of thinking breeds, as well as taking a much closer and more honest look at when the church of the body of Christ started (it wasn't Acts 2) and how it operates, I hold a very, very different view on the need, value, and significance of this "demonstrating power."