TLC

On ‎8‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 4:37 PM, skyrider said:

So.....TLC

Did any twi leader encourage YOU to go to God in prayer?

If so....would you be so kind as to give us the details.

Thanks.

To put it bluntly, unless you're trying to make some strange point about it being or using those exact words, there were so many times that I was asked "Did you pray about it," or that I overheard it being said to others, or that I asked it of someone else, at this stage in life it would be exceedingly difficulty (and pointless) to differentiate between them.  Evidently I must have been around an entirely different genre of people back in those days, ..or I'm totally insane, and my memory of those days (and my life) is somehow  entirely wrong and perverted. 

Or maybe it's simply a matter of what one actually heard, and/or might have paid attention to at the time when certain words were spoken.   

27 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Who are you to call anyone posting on GSC a liar?

Having delusions, are you, Rocky? Very plainly, I did no such thing. 
And speaking of arrogance, seems you're familiar enough with it.
Or what is it that you think gives your questioning a post here such righteous preeminence over my questioning of a post?

7 hours ago, skyrider said:

 Not once in all my years in twi did any leader encourage me to "go to the Lord in prayer." 

You weren't in so late that, quite frankly... I find that rather hard to believe of you.

You were at HQ.  Are you absolutely sure your memory isn't just a wee bit hazy or tainted on that LB?

Yeah, TWI had issues. But... not even once?

9 hours ago, WordWolf said:

Well, congratulations that your experience- in the "research fellowship" -  didn't match mine -out there in the living rooms.   Where I sat, we were encouraged to get the meaning, then read that into the occurrences.

my, my... such snarkiness.  confirms why I don't much visit or post here anymore.

fyi (not that I much give a chit),  said fellowship didn't even exist in the 70's, and was mentioned only to indicate the broader extent of what I saw and experienced over the years I was involved, from "the living rooms" all the way through to some of the depths of being (corps) on staff at HQ for as many years as I was,  but, I guess you speak for everyone else that was involved during those years, and what I saw and experienced must be the anomaly...

17 hours ago, WordWolf said:

...we were never encouraged to read the context to determine the meaning-  we were encouraged to get the meaning, then read that into each occurrence, which is backwards.

sorry... it's not that I don't agree that there was way far too much emphasis and focus put on greek... but I'll have to take exception to your blanket statement.

(and yeah... I was a part of the research fellowship there for several years.)        

Apparently you are confirming that a change (i.e., any changes) in the gospel would equate to a dispensational distinction.

Anyone who attempts to interpret plain this [Matthew 10:5-10] commission, which forbade the disciples to go to the Gentiles, and the commission that commands the same group to go to the Gentiles (Matt. 28:19-20) either (1) gives up in confusion or (2) resorts to spiritualizing one of the passages or (3) recognizes a dispensational distinction.

9 hours ago, Rocky said:

There you go again... did it ever occur to you that perhaps you are responsible for making your intended message more clear to your audience?

You really want to go there, Rocky?  Some people will only see or hear what they want to see and hear about something, no matter when or how it's said.  Now, you can say and/or pretend that's not true... but it doesn't change the reality of it.

Did you ever bother to go back and read the original post that Raf is still insatiably obsessed with spinning into something it never said or meant?  Probably not.

Here... I'll save you the effort (as it was a bit difficult even for me to find, after realizing he was went back three pages and took it out of the context of a previous discussion.)

___________

Before his death, Jesus Christ was a minister unto the circumcision. As were the 12 apostles. Period.
(If anyone can plainly show from scripture where this directive for the 12 ever changed, please do so...  because I don't think it exists.)

___________

Now, maybe you interpret words differently, but no where in there is there any mention of any Gentiles. However, the context of that post referred to what authority Paul did or didn't have, and I had (in the paragraphs prior to the above sentences)  just finished stating that Paul's message was different from what the 12 had been given.  

So, if I then go on to talk about what the 12 had (in comparison to Paul's message, logically, as the context of the discussion dictates) and say what they were teaching and doing (for the circumcision) never really changed... what the heck difference does it make whether they do or don't take a message that is designed first and foremost for Israel to the rest of the world?  The simple fact remains that "the message itself" that they had (to be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, etc.) didn't change, that I can find, anywhere in scripture. Argue over words if you want, but they're not all that much different from Matt. 28:19, nor verse 20, which says "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you."

Not only does Raf misconstrue and then redirect the issue towards what may, in my opinion, only be an issue of timing, he ignores and/or obfuscates any subsequent effort on my part to clarify what should be a "non-issue," and so much as calls me (oh... not me... what I say) dishonest and a liar.

Well then, bullpuckey to y'all, if that's your only thought of it.  Have at it.  Evidently there's no interest or desire to discuss the real issues, so I'm as done with this incessant stupidity as done gets.

1 hour ago, Raf said:

still haven't demonstrated that Jesus didn't tell the 12 to preach to the gentiles

you know, after my second or third post addressing this, any dweeb that would have stopped long enough to take the wax out of their ears (or the blinders off their eyes), probably would have realized the point originally intended in that comment was to delineate the initial focus (and directive) for the 12 as being (foremost) to all Israel.

Matter of fact, if that were not so, then why oh why is it so plainly written in Acts that it was to go to them first? Or that Paul thought it "necessary"?

Acts 3:26  Unto you first...
Acts 13:46 ...It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you

But, whatever... do or think whatever you want.  Anything to continue disrupting or distracting from the real issue(s) at hand...

20 hours ago, Raf said:

Not all Christians accept hyperdispensationalism, and it's really a pity that you have to go against the Bible's clear teaching, denying that Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom as noted numerous times in Acts, to force the Bible to conform to your preconceived notion.

Hyperdispensationalism holds that there is a new adminstration/dispensation that begins in the middle of Acts. The Bible doesn't support this. Paul, according to Acts, preaches the gospel of the kingdom, the precise gospel that the 12 taught. 

You are not a bible scholar, nor the hot shot expert, nor the authority, nor whatever other scriptural or "biblical" pundit it is that you purport yourself to be with your blusterous claim "the Bible doesn't support this."  The fact (which you rather intentionally omit) is that some number of very real biblical scholars do accept it, and offer plenty of scriptural support for it.

19 hours ago, Raf said:

Regardless, I find it interesting that you don't post O'Hair's analysis or his findings.

It is neither my job nor duty to present, inform, or otherwise try to educate you on what others have or haven't said on the matter.  To repeat something just stated in a recent post, think whatever you want to think about it.  I am confident that if anyone ever has the heart to really care about and know what the real truth of what dispensations are or mean in scripture, I don't doubt that they can and will (with the help of the Lord) eventually arrive at a better understanding of them, and of the differences (i.e., betterments) inherent within the gospel that was first given to Paul.    

Furthermore, I don't see (scripturally) that it was the "majority" that were ever right about the things of God, at any time throughout all of history.  So, why (or since when) do "the vast majority" of any church or intellectuals ever add any great credence or credibility to what the truth of scripture is?  

However, for any that are interested in learning more or reading a fairly scholarly approach to this issue of dispensations, I'll offer the following book (not that I necessarily agree 100% with it) and what appears to be a reasonably decent review of it.

Dispensationalism, by Dr. Charles C. Ryrie

https://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/a-review-of-dispensationalism-by-charles-c-ryrie/

23 hours ago, Raf said:

O'Hair was a hyperdispensationalist.

no chit, Sherlock. it wasn't the only thing he was right about...

(But because it disagrees with your theology, or lack thereof, you apparently think that branding axiomatically makes them wrong and you right about any and everything you choose to finger.) 

23 hours ago, Raf said:

Wierwille said many bitter, nasty things about people who disagreed with him. And people who disagreed with him said many nasty, bitter things about Wierwille.

Accuracy is not determined by the quality of a researcher's name-calling acumen

So is TWI where you picked it up, or was it merely a matter of honing some natural, genetically gifted, talent?

"No intelligent student of the Scriptures believes, or teaches, that there is only one gospel in the Scriptures…”

– J.C. O’Hair. Unsearchable Riches of Christ. p 131.

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 9:28 AM, Raf said:

I'm sure Phil LaSpino is a very nice guy

Who cares?  I never heard of him before your mention of his name, as I never bothered to pay much attention to who's site it was after spending all of three or four minutes the other day plugging a few phrases into google and stumbling across that particular site.

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 9:28 AM, Raf said:

The fact also remains that Paul, in Philippians, says nothing that leads a reasonable person...

As if you are the authority on what constitutes a fact concerning what a reasonable person would or should conclude about what is or isn't part of the section of scripture in the first chapter of Philippians? phhhtt.... yeah, right.  Think this Phil guy invented the idea?  Nah... maybe you just think whatever dimwit did is pretty stupid or nuts, as is anyone else that might happen to agree (to any degree or extent) with them.  'Cause you've already researched what any and every scholars had to say about it... right?

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 9:28 AM, Raf said:

The gospel in scripture has always been about the kingdom.

Really?  Did you even bother doing any kind (whatsoever) of word study on it, or are you just pulling that out of your ear because it "sounds" plausible?

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 9:28 AM, Raf said:

What you are doing is comparing what Paul taught as a Christian to what Jesus and the 12 taught before the resurrection.

Actually seems like your rather clueless on what I might know or was doing.

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 9:28 AM, Raf said:

Post resurrection, the 12 taught the gospel of salvation by grace -- to the Jews.

Ever lay out, step-by-step, what the instructions were for salvation - according to scripture?  No, I don't believe you have. 
Do "according to Peter" first. Then do "according to Paul."  It just might surprise you.

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 9:28 AM, Raf said:

Moving back to Philippians 1, apparently I am not permitted to read the chapter and allow it to speak for itself without the approval of some very nice Marine who has no apparent training in scripture, hermeneutics, textual criticism, etc. but who is clearly deeply, deeply concerned with what men are doing to each other's genitals in America. I guess that's fine.

I have no idea who this Marine is, or why you so troubled yourself to dig up as much dirt (if that is what it is) to wallow in as you did, but I will say that it certainly seems rather hypocritical of someone that is so concerned about ad hominem attacks on their own self.  Not taking sides on anything (as I didn't bother to click the link.)  Just calling this for what it looks like, regardless of how "polite" it might sound.

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 9:28 AM, Raf said:

Can you show from the scripture that Philippians 1 compares Paul's gospel to that which is contemporaneously taught by the 12?

You can't.

Maybe I could, or maybe I can't.  But frankly, I'm just too tired of this and worn out here to give it much more thought.  Why bother, when even if I did, I don't have the right credentials that would make a spit's worth of difference to you, or maybe not anyone else that would ever read this?  Think whatever you want to think about it.  Because if anyone ever has the heart to really care about and know what the real truth of it is, I don't doubt that they can and will (with the help of the Lord) find a way to it through what all might be written about it in scripture. 

probably isn't that hard to post most of it again, though you obviously didn't like it...

On ‎5‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 6:29 PM, Raf said:

The whole point of the discussion is your claim that Paul's gospel is distinct from the 12 because of your belief that Jesus told Paul to do something He did not tell the 12 to do.

wrong.  it's not in the who, the where, or the how of whether it was or wasn't done.  It's in the changes in the message itself... which appears to be something most here don't have either the stomach, the aptitude, or the interest to discover.

13 hours ago, Raf said:

It is not comparing the gospel of the 12 to the gospel of Paul. It is not calling the gospel of the 12 "different" from the gospel of Paul. It is casting no aspersions on the gospel of the 12 at all.

That's why it does not apply to our discussion.

You are inserting into Philippians something Paul is not discussing. Because YOU have determined that their gospel, which they got from Jesus himself, was inferior to Paul's gospel, YOU have decided to inject that dichotomy into Philippians. It's not there on its own. You're wedging it in there because the scripture won't make that point unless you force it to.

Do you have the personal integrity to admit that?

Who made you the absolute authority on what Paul is or isn't discussing in Philippians? What unabashed and foolish arrogance!  And because what I (and many others) have chosen to believe it is discussing, you (unwittingly) have the balls  to call me dishonest and a liar (yeah, say you didn't... but you did)? And that you won't "put up with [my] $hit anymore"?

Truth is, yours are the posts that reek of dishonesty (or ignorance, or arrogance... take your choice.)

Not only did I link to another site that has the view that Phil.1:10 is referring to a difference between Paul's gospel and what the 12 taught (which I doubt you read), there are others, and much more (from others) that support such a belief.  Furthermore, you don't even have the courtesy to admit you "might" have been mistaken when you claimed I quoted the wrong verse, or that there was anything about a difference, or a gospel there.  Yet, I plainly pointed out the discussion was actually sandwiched in between an obvious discussion of Paul's gospel, and specifically asked you what you thought was being compared in verse 10... which you either ignored or refused to answer, other than to brashly assert that it didn't have any relation to what the 12 were teaching.

No, you don't have to agree with what I'm inclined to believe is being compared in that verse.  I don't expect that.  But you have no right, and it is evil (and totally dishonest) to say that what I think about it is "a deliberate untruth."  Who in there right mind can (or would) have any respect for such maliciousness?

22 minutes ago, Raf said:

I'm calling your comment a lie

And I'm calling your comment a manifestation of insanity.
You say that's the same as calling you insane.
Yet, you also say that you're not calling me a liar.

You think and speak with forked tongue.

4 minutes ago, Raf said:

But you said it's talking about something it's not talking about. You're either wrong or you're lying. You have too much info to merely be wrong. Ergo...

 

And just exactly what do you think it's talking about, Raf?  And what makes you so dang confident (i.e., arrogant) that there's no possibly way you might have misread or misunderstood the context of what Paul is writing to them about?

I happen to believe that Paul called it "my gospel" for a very simple and compelling reason, which is rather explicitly laid out in Galatians 1:6-12 (because the Galatians had plainly failed to see or recognize it.)  The letter to the Philippians commends them, not just for seeing and recognizing it, but for:

1) their fellowship in it (verse 5)
2) their defense and confirmation of it (verse 7) - specifically noting that they were all partakers of "my [Paul's] grace.
3) and further to that, it was Paul's prayer that their love might abound more and more in knowledge and in all judgment... to what end? or for what purpose? what was he just talking about?  C'mon man... stop and think about it.  Where was Paul? In prison.  Why was he in prison? Where had he just been? What had he done there?

Paul was different.  His gospel was different. (Better, mind you.) And the Jews in Jerusalem sure didn't like it, nor him.  Yet, here were these Philippians... that Paul saw as partakers with him, in defense and confirmation of the gospel... and with the means to approve those things which were... better.  Better than what?  Ah, well... it all gets back to that.

Let's see... what is it again that's on Paul's mind while writing this?

4) the furtherance of the gospel. (verse 12)
5) to speak the word without fear. (verse 14)
6) to preach Christ. (verse 15)
7) defense of the gospel (verse 17)

Yeah, you go right ahead and try to convince everyone that the context here doesn't relate at all to the gospel that Paul taught or our previous discussion...

13 minutes ago, Raf said:

You literally lied about the verse being relevant to our discussion.

Saying (or thinking) I lied about the relevance of a verse confirming that there were indeed differences that are better, is a manifestation of insanity.

2 hours ago, Raf said:

You're misleading people about the translation of "differ."

The "differ" is always an improvement, never, ever a distinction in terms of onw being real and one being a fraud.

More spin, Raf?  Perhaps it's such a part of your nature at this point that you just don't know how (or can't) stop it.  Contrary to your implication, I never said, implied, or otherwise alluded to any kind of distinction that regards one as being real and one as being a fraud.  That's a fraudulent fabrication straight out of your own imagination.  Maybe it's some sort of rationalization that you invented to cover over or draw attention away from your initial failure to see the relevance of Phil. 1:10 in my previous post.

But shame on you for trying to (falsely) credit me with being either the first, or the only one, to ever see or think of it's usage here in Philippians 1:10 as being "different," in an improved sense.  The nuance of it's usage just as strongly (probably more so) indicates that something is different (or changed) from whatever was previous as it indicates that said difference is an improvement.

Furthermore, this is merely one little old verse among many others along the path leading to the FACT that the gospel that Paul received and took to the Gentiles was not the same gospel that the 12 had and (by and large) continued to adhere to.  Of course, that concept is something that you have already determined to be invalid, and have completely closed yourself off from.  Which in and of itself is fine.  That's your choice.  I just don't care for the idiocy that you try to brand everyone else with that doesn't happen to agree with you. 

Young's Literal Translation:

3I give thanks to my God upon all the remembrance of you, 4always, in every supplication of mine for you all, with joy making the supplication, 5for your contribution to the good news from the first day till now, 6having been confident of this very thing, that He who did begin in you a good work, will perform [it] till a day of Jesus Christ, 7according as it is righteous for me to think this in behalf of you all, because of my having you in the heart, both in my bonds, and [in] the defence and confirmation of the good news, all of you being fellow-partakers with me of grace. 8For God is my witness, how I long for you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ, 9and this I pray, that your love yet more and more may abound in full knowledge, and all judgment, 10for your proving the things that differ, that ye may be pure and offenceless — to a day of Christ, 11being filled with the fruit of righteousness, that [is] through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. 

1 hour ago, Raf said:

Philippians 1

¹⁰ ...what is excellent,...

 

There is no "different" or "gospel" in the verse cited.

It's ok to cite the wrong verse. But to lie about it when you're busted is dishonest. Can't you just admit you were thinking of a different verse? Are you SO lacking in integrity that you can't even say oops?

https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto&tl=en&text=Διαφέρω

Now that you've so arrogantly opened mouth and inserted foot, how about an apology?

55 minutes ago, Raf said:

It isn't twisting. Read it again.

call it whatever you want. It won't change what I see it as, no matter how many times it's read.

55 minutes ago, Raf said:

There was ONE gospel, the gospel of the kingdom. The delivery of the gospel changed, but the message of the gospel has always been the same: The kingdom.

Might be how you see it.  Which is okay.  You're certainly entitled to be wrong if you want your opinion.  Maybe you haven't done enough research on the matter.

Can't say this will be the most or best help to start digging more into it, but I only spent a couple of minutes checking to see what might be easily found on the Internet about it:

http://www.seekfirstwisdom.com/are-there-two-gospels/

55 minutes ago, Raf said:

Philippians 1:10 does not even remotely discuss this topic.

 Sure it does.  You simply have to consider the context of it and connect the dots.

13 hours ago, modcat5 said:

Raf posting:

 

First, the post-resurrection gospel never changed. In the gospels, pre-resurrection, it was the kingdom. But at the end of the gospels, Jesus gives the explicit instruction to disciple all nations in his name. The only change, scripturally, is that he's resurrected now.

You obviously sidestepped the question and spun it in a completely different direction.  Call it whatever you want, but I see that as twisting... as I am more inclined to agree that there was little change in the gospel that the 12 had and preached post-resurrection. What could or would save them before appears to be the same that could or would save them after.  But what was given and said to save them was not the same gospel that was later given to Paul.  Which is undoubtedly why he (Paul) very plainly and unmistakably referred to it (three times, that I can think of) as "my gospel."  

The gospel which Paul preached was not simply "more" than what the 12 had been given.  While certain things may be similar, other things are different.  And it's a difference that is important enough that it even appears to be called different (if the Greek were translated more consistently) by Paul in Philippians 1:10.

23 hours ago, Raf said:

Jesus explicitly sent the 12 to the Gentiles and they couldn't process it. 

Why change the message (i.e., gospel) that was given to Paul?

On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 6:00 AM, engine said:

So, I can see how Peter and the others may not have truly understood until Acts 10 and Cornelius. After all, Jesus wasn't exactly "with" them on a daily physical  basis after that. The little birdies got kicked out of the nest so they could learn to fly. It took Peter 10 chapters. LOL.

You suppose that he "truly understood" exactly what, after Acts 10 and the incident with Cornelius? That he no longer needed to follow all the laws of Moses, and should (or could) eat with the Gentiles? (see Gal.2:12, if you're wondering about an answer to that.) 

There's little doubt that he was called on the carpet over his visit there, and the mere fact that he stood up and came to Paul's defense (in Acts 15, probably some 9 or 10 years later) only after "there had been much disputing" might be an indication that the incident with Cornelius was so strange and abnormal (and from a practical perspective, changed virtually nothing) that Peter might have nearly forgotten about it (until it was needed for Paul's defense, in Acts 15.)  Furthermore, considering that in lieu of Peter's remembrance of it (as no one else there at the council in Jerusalem evidently remembered it prior to Peter's bringing it up) it's doubtful that those that were at that meeting would have ever kept quiet long enough to even hear what all Barnabas and Paul had to say on the matter.  And, in light of that, it seems fairly reasonable to wonder whether or not the primary reason (and effect) for the entire event with Cornelius was not so much to alter or change the course of what the 12 and the church at Jerusalem were thinking or doing, as much as it was to enable Peter to rise to Paul's defense and give his (Paul's) gospel the stamp of approval from the church at Jerusalem some many, many years later.