TLC

They don't? Guess I wasn't aware of that. (Then again, '92 was some time after being distanced from HQ.)

Yes. But to further clarify, I meant "the way tree" wasn't from the git-go. (and not that I think the tree thing was okay at first, but that later it got screwed up. "It" was jacked up from its inception... which to me appears to reflect an attempt of vpw to model things after the way the early church might have operated in Jerusalem, and not after what is depicted in the Pauline epistles.)

Yeah, the tree thing was pretty jacked up, as mentioned other places already. (But,it wasn't always that way or from the "git-go.") And it wasn't always like that either. Seems like we must have lived in different eras, or parts of the country, or something... yeah, but there was a time when most of these manifestations were done on a "first to get to it" request. If you didn't care or really want to, you just didn't. Well, there were exceptions. (It's a fact, as I was one...) But yes, I did do both of the above. Indeed it is. And I'm not denying that manipulation is also everywhere around us. We just have to learn to recognize and deal with where there are (or were) heavier concentrations of it.

Done sometime in the 50's, he actually considered it his most significant book. (...perhaps he thought it to be his most original.)

Because they've been mentioned 4 or 5 times already in this thread, 3 of which (including the first) were by your very highly respected pal, DWBH, in this post: Which stirred this response from you: Discussions wander, as that's their nature, especially on such an elusive subject as this. If you object so vehemently to my post, you're certainly free to report them for removal. Fact is, given your early suggestion to ignore me, I probably wouldn't even be here posting to you in this thread right now if it weren't for the interest expressed by krys in discussing things further. Furthermore, I actually posted a rather succinct, very carefully phrased definition of an apostle that elicited no comments or responses thus far. Evidently, I must not have the right title, nametag, or position that what I said warranted any of your attention or honest consideration, aside from sparking the abundant criticism that you've thrown my direction. But, whatever. It's no skin off my nose.

Seriously? Did you miss what I wrote in the following post (on this thread) from a couple of weeks ago? And as for these comments: Why do you view my asking you to further explain what your thinking is concerning how "modeling your life" after how Jesus actually lived while on this earth (which I briefly stated, but have no problem substantiating with scripture), when it appears to contradict what Paul plainly wrote in 2 Cor.5:16? Because I then offer what appears to be the simplest or most obvious possibilities? It appears that you're now merely trying to dodge the (logical and succinct) question. (Though, if I were to be argumentative, I would call you out the rather condescending nature of your response to my post.)

If you did that, then wouldn't you be endeavoring to live your life as a Jew (according to all the law), and your outreach message would be designed to and for the nation of Israel (as was his)? And what do you do with 2Cor.5:16? Cut it out of the Bible? Or, do you discard Paul's epistles whenever or where ever they disagree with you?

If it's the same Christ (the one and only) in you, then why think or suppose that you have (or would need) anything else (as in, "spirit") from him (or God)? Sure, I know what was taught (and what is predominantly thought) in pfal and twi. But what if something isn't quite right in how "body, soul & spirit" is taught from Genesis? What do the scriptures actually say concerning this "gift of holy spirit" from God? Gal. 4 [6] And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Where did (or do) we get the idea that once we have (the ascended) Christ (aka, "a quickening spirit") living within us that "it"(?) is now "my spirit"? I'm still learning and working at understanding how these things fit together... even after 40 some years. And you don't even want to know my perspective on how many WC (and I'll include myself) back in the day "thought" they understood a lot more than they really did concerning this (and "the gift.")

no worries. (shoot, I've read things that I wrote years ago and... well, I won't bother to tell you how bad it was! I'm still working on it...) Okay, let's stop right there and consider that. If the "it" is from Christ, then I take it that you don't exactly see or think of "it" as being Christ in you. Or do you? What does that phrase of "Christ in you" mean, exactly? Is Christ present within you? ...Or only something (i.e., whatever "it" is) that comes from or is sent by him? How did or do you think about it? (I'll back up to think about and consider the rest of your analogy afterwards...)

Well, that's part of what was said, but not all of it. (And it's the other part which I thought would be more difficult to make sense of.)

I'm not persuaded that the difficulty should be pinned solely or completely to the writers either not speaking of it in the same way or not agreeing with each other. I think the mind of man (courtesy of Adam) has a difficult time grasping spiritual realities, and compensates for it with imaginations. In other words, if there is an inherent (or seemingly) "blank spot" in the reality that man formulates in his mind, he might use whatever intellectual capability he has to project other known images onto (or into) it. If various scriptures are (divinely) designed to expose a "blank spot" (so to speak) in man's perception of reality, any effort by the intelligence of man to "fill it in" apart from his acknowledgement and acceptance of other spiritual truths will result in contradictions from what are probably "equally intelligent" men. Hence, scholars will continue to disagree, and the writers (as you've indicated) will continue to be perceived as being in disagreement. This may not make much sense, but I am not saying that I think there is no way to correctly fill in the blanks. But it's how they're filled in, not what they filled with that merits attention. For lack of any better way to say it, the missing (or invisible) pieces inevitably construct a "theological system" (right or wrong), or a "spiritual framework" of sorts, within our mind. In other words, they work together to paint a certain picture of "spiritual reality" (or, just plain "spiritual" if you don't think it's real.) It's been a long time since I've thought much about it, but years ago (as a result of a protracted discussion with another person) I was amazed to see a certain logical unity between several major "components" (or ingredients) of their belief system. Break one, and you break them all. Or, prove one, and you prove them all. But, on the other hand, if none are broken, then neither can the logic that binds them together be shown to be faulty. Most will probably think this silly or incredulous (and refuse to believe it), but (at least at the time) I honestly couldn't pinpoint or find "the break" between these various concepts: Reincarnation, The Trinity, Universalism, and there being no devil. I looked a few years back and apparently the (online) discussion (where we went down more than a few rabbit holes) was deleted. But, it was sure rather interesting at the time...

??? Do you honestly need to ask that? But why? Where are you "trying to go" with them or what are you trying to accomplish? To "prove" them wrong? Are you trying to lead them somewhere? I don't get it, and I guess it just doesn't make any sense to me. So, it seems to be nothing that I can offer any other comments on. I'm quite aware of what a rhetorical question is, and how to use it. Yours just didn't come across as being one. Furthermore, it's actually not at all uncommon or unusual for someone (i.e., myself) who's primary method of learning and/or teaching (which can sometimes be extremely difficult to distinguish) is Socratic to be mistaken as being condescending. Which is, at least in part, why I've tried to reveal that about myself. I do try to make certain adjustments for it (depending on the discussion), but it can be (and often is) difficult for me to suppress. So, my apologies for appearing as such, it's a known issue with me. Not necessarily, as that is often where I see or think a conversation might (or should) naturally lead or progress to, which would incline me to say certain things that I otherwise wouldn't. But, it seemed to be a presumption on my part. As mentioned in my previous post, I wasn't itching to get up on some soapbox and talk about the Trinity.

That's probably true, but why do you conclude that the Trinitarian view is better? How many discussion have you ever really had with a staunch Trinitarian?

First I've heard that, but it doesn't surprise me one little bit. It fits entirely with his character and twi's failure (IMO) to differentiate Paul's gospel from the gospel of the kingdom. Comparisons to the Aaronic Priesthood? What's that to do with the high priest after the order of Melchisedec? Is there any wonder why the WC training, namebadges, and ordinations were all such an egotistical trainwreck waiting to happen?

Same type of thinking as what? I don't get what you're trying to ask. If the assumption is that it's unavoidable, then why go there? It would make no sense to me. If I said something you didn't understand, you're free to ask. Given my engrained (probably genetic) socratic nature, I'm really not into soliloquys.

Based on those two points alone, I'd be left wondering why you'd want to try understand how anyone's mind thinks concerning such a convoluted subject such as the Trinity. However, if and when the subject ever does comes up (rare are the times I would think to initiate any discussion of it), my thoughts fairly quickly turns towards assessing what impact or place of importance the subject holds in the other person's mind. IF (and this a mighty big if) it appears to be (in their thinking): 1) An issue of salvation, or 2) A probable issue of salvation, or 3) A possible issue of salvation, or 4) A probable point of contention. Then, I'll probably (and typically) avoid the subject altogether. It's probably dangerous to assume much of anything related to this subject... lol. I happen to agree with the thinking that Jesus Christ is not God. However, the reasons for it extend beyond what vpw or twi taught. It's been debated (and fought over) for hundreds of years (long, long before twi). Maybe you've heard that vpw once said that he thought Isalm wouldn't even exist today if it hadn't been for the Trinity. Whether or not that's true, or whether it's an original thought, I don't know. Perhaps. Maybe somebody else knows more or wants to add to it. As mentioned once already, I think there's far more significance attributed to it than ever should have been. (For reasons that might be less than noble. It's far, far easier for me to learn to separate truth from error than it is to determine and/or separate motives of the heart.) Well, my opinion is that it can affect (intentionally or unintentionally) how (or whether) some number of other issues or doctrines of Christianity are perceived, regardless of any association with (or knowledge of) twi or vpw.

Well, that's the first I've hear of such nonsense. While I don't remember the exact phrase that was used, as I recall it (presuming it was the same incident), the thought from Geer was more along the lines of the bones being picked clean (which was in no way viewed as either being good or healthy for the body of Christ.)

In short, aside from certain doctrinal aspects of it (which without a doubt weigh very heavily on the church, and on how people think), I don't think it makes a hill of beans worth of difference. Thanks, WW. Lucky timing, I suppose.

Neither was the context of it directed towards you. Doctrinal discussions (most especially concerning the Trinity) frequently encompass a lot of material apart from scripture. But as there's obviously no doctrinal intent or interest, then have at it.

Might not have hurt so much if you'd managed to get yourself fired. Then again, that's its own kind of hurt.

I've tried to consider this several different times or ways, but I still can't seem to make much sense out of it. When you say "it's like a body of water"... does "it" refer to a gift ministry, or to spirit? And if to spirit, which spirit? The Christ? (which is what I would presume.) Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining... and possibly adding some other way to express what you mean. (And thanks for your effort to "flesh it out.")

While I certainly don't agree with your take on the Pauline epistles (as I regard them as scripture), I am inclined to mostly agree with all of the above statements. However, it appears that we also significantly differ on how they use the Bible to endorse (or as you say below, legitimize) these things. Personally, I think the major issue was the failure to recognize Paul's calling as the start of a new dispensation (and not the day of Pentecost - as taught by vpw, twi, and its the offshoots - nor after Acts 28, as taught by hyperdispensationists such as Bullinger.) Consequently, much of the political and authoritarian structure in (modern) Christian denominations and churches appears to initially stem from Judaism and from times long before these new revelations to Paul (which were received directly from the ascended Christ.) The diligent and concerted efforts to meld and blend together the gospel of the kingdom (which primarily concerned Israel) with the gospel of grace (which Paul introduced) resulted in the need to also blend together the message (and ministries) that Paul spoke of with the message (and practice) of the 12 apostles in Acts 2 and following. (And THAT is what I believe to be a major fallacy among what was and is still taught most places.) And yet, you're against dispensationalism. Seems nearly ironic. I should have read further in your post (and seen the above.) That was my basic point. (Though we seem to differ on any beneficial effects of it) Thank you. (And I mostly agree with the rest of your post - though not all. When time allows, perhaps I'll say more.)

Do you know when was this? (Curious on how providential the timing of it was...)

Well, it sure as heck looked (still does, actually) doctrinal to me. (Maybe it's just the way my brain works.)

My perspective on it is one that you will undoubtedly never really know, much less understand, Bolshevik. (So "laugh" about it all you want...)