TLC

Raf, I'm not even pretending to be a great historian. This happens to be an issue that I've never given any thought, time, or effort to, and the point was merely to say that I believed there were other possible explanations for the apparent discrepancy, which would probably show up somewhere on the Internet if one were to take the proper time and effort to search it. From what little bit that I've read today on it, I find it rather interesting that Luke specifically refers to the taxation (or census) being the first made by Cyrenius. It plainly was not the only one made, and it seems reasonable to think that Josephus's mentioning of it might not be referring to the first. Or, maybe this is more acceptable to you: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-1/JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf In any case, it is not a matter of great importance or concern to me. If it were, I would spend the hours it might take to study it more carefully. I would contend that there is harm done, if it's not aligned with the truth of what actually happened. Furthermore, when the door is, as you say, left open, I don't see that anything has to necessarily be projected on the evidence, nor that a conclusion has to be reached. I think it can be viewed as being inconclusive, or in other words, simply "left open." No harm done. If the reason for Joseph bringing his pregnant wife to Bethlehem doesn't negate the premise that he did so, then leave it unhinged. Problem solved. (Unless you need an error in Luke for some other reason.) Actually, I do recall reading the reason for it, as more evidence (on some papyrus, I seem to recall) showed up recently. But I haven't the drive to go look for it again. It's out there, somewhere on the Internet. Because of all the pieces that get waylaid or discarded as a result. If instead they are merely "set aside" as being inconclusive, there has been too many times later in my life when they suddenly flow together and reveal a new glimpse of truth. If nothing else, I have had to learn to not be so demanding with myself, with God, or with others. And I submit that such patience can have (and has had) its own reward. Whether it was this issue, or another, it would have likely followed the same course.

Given the speed at which I searched, found, and scanned it, it wouldn't surprise me if it fell short on substance. Doesn't mean there isn't more (as in better) substance out there, I simply didn't spend much time looking for it. Allowing for such possibilities leaves the door open. Yes, it allows for that possibility, but it certainly doesn't demand for it to be the only possible solution. As mentioned previously, I think they are (or would be) the exception to the norm or whatever resolution might eventually surface. Perhaps it's intentional, Raf. That no flesh should glory in His presence.

Agreed. However, I don't view these as errors in the system, but rather, possibly as corrections or redirections stemming from errors (or even, potential errors) in the system. (Odd talk, perhaps, but enough sense can be made out of it.) That's really not as far off from what was taught (at least as I perceived it) as you might think. Pretty darn close, actually. But, maybe it changed or was distorted at some point. I don't know when (or how) you might have heard it taught.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Census.aspx#Article I have neither the time, the patience, nor the desire to attempt refuting any and every claim to error you (or anybody else) might see fit. It did however, take me all of about 3 or 4 minutes to find the above link. (Anymore, information available on the Internet appears to cut both ways...) That was no appeal to "non-existent original text," which quite honestly, I don't recall ever doing. I fully realize that both "God-breathed" and "inerrancy" are premises, and do not purport either of them as being "provable." What I do think is provable is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. However, I see the context of said proving as being to oneself, not to somebody else.

You've drawn a nice square box around it, but I'm not so persuaded that's the whole of it. Nor do I concur with the "must accept" of it, as I think that there are too significant a number of apparent errors and contradictions that melt away when the viewed or considered from the proper perspective. Although you're quick to reject any and all appeals to "the original inspired writings," sound reasoning doesn't disallow it. More fairly, they would need to be honestly considered on a case by case review. And this "burden of proof" thing is yet another matter. To prove what, exactly? Inerrancy? If it can't be fully or completely done (which I'd probably agree with you, isn't likely), why require it prior to allowing any and all possibility for it?

Not that I've spent (or intend on spending) an extreme amount of time or effort dissecting it, as some here have or might, and I suppose the simpler the response the better it might be. In short, I'm not persuaded that any such hierarchy or structured organization should be (or ever should have been) built. I don't see that Paul did it, or even tried to do it. In fact, there were such significant issues stemming from the church in Jerusalem that he had to contended with, the problems that would arise in trying to model a ministry after the church in Jerusalem should have been much more obvious than they were. (In a certain sense, perhaps it's now easier to relate to or understand what was probably happening in the early church. But given the cultural differences, maybe that's too bold a claim.) So, at this point in time, it no longer surprises me that it (as you put it) "crashed and burned." If you care for a reason being assigned to it, I'll leave it at a failure to properly or adequately differentiate the gospel of Paul from the gospel of the kingdom (which was directed towards Israel.)

If you draw a big enough circle, it encapsulates (spelling corrected) the reality that any of us adhere to in our minds. There are always premises involved, regardless of whether we recognize, acknowledge, or are even aware of them.

Like Eve did, I suppose. Unfortunately, that world drew them in to its beauty and temporality, and mankind became ensnared in selfishness and its own mortality. It's the author's view that's of importance to me. Don't bother trying to send it. Long after my time around him, I'm sure. It's obvious enough that we see the issue from different vantage points.

Why suppose if they did notice it that they would waste any more thought or attention on something they regard as foolishness (which is how they'll view it, according to 1Cor.2:14)? So what if there is? What would be the purpose of it? Did the demonstration of it to the nation of Israel over about a 1500 year time span help move them any closer to the truth? Nope. And they stoned Stephen when he pointed it out to them. If such powerful demonstrations of spirit so plainly didn't help them believe much of anything beyond what they could know by their senses, why suppose that it would have any greater or better effect on you or me or any of the rest of the Gentile nations? Whether or not there are people that don't have the ability is more than implied, it's rather plainly stated. At least you see where that thought comes from.

Actually, there was virtually no difference between my two earlier posts, and in neither did I assume (or intend to imply) that you didn't care to know, or that you somehow don't have the spirit of God. (Perhaps my last post to Bolshevik helps explain the reason for it.) Perhaps not. Probably not in only a post or two. But you never know... I skipped over some of the VPW comments, as they don't seem to add anything particularly significant to the discussion. However, I am inclined to agree that his personal faults and failures do complicate the issue. Well, I never heard him make such a claim. (And I am all too familiar with a much of what he taught.) Don't take that to mean that I don't now (not back then) see or acknowledge the pride or arrogance that was there. I simply see what you stated as being "over the top" of the way it was. To be frank about it, I don't care about the snow. And neither do I think it matters how much it may have played into his positioning as a spiritual and biblical authority. Except to say this... if it was so fundamental to that, then how tethered to the truth could anyone possibly be before that? Sure, it was an impressive thing to hear about at the time. And, I won't deny that it seemed (at the time) to add a morsel to his credibility. Nor will I dispute that he was given far too much credence as a spiritual and biblical authority. But this snow thingy being FUNDAMENTAL to taking him as a spiritual and biblical authority? Nope. Not for me (and I'm not so different or unique that it was just me.) What do you know or think or suppose that spirit is? (I'll state in advance that you'll probably have to forgive my rather Socratic style of discussion, but it may be somewhat of a genetic thing with me, which some have taken offense to at times.)

(No analogy is perfect, but... here goes) You can, if you have an eye. But without an eye, you can only feel the effects of it. Requires them to likewise have an eye, but yes, some may be able to focus or see things more clearly than others. An eye is an eye, regardless of how (or how well) it works. If there is no eye, then there is no apparatus to receive or perceive light. Even if you want to contend that they might feel or notice the effects of it some other way, there is no way around the simplicity of saying that they cannot see it because there being no apparatus to detect light. Likewise, if the detection apparatus for spirit (or spiritual information) is not there (or turned off... however you want to think of it), then there will axiomatically be no recognition or acknowledgement of spirit (or spiritual information). I've made no implication that you or anyone else here doesn't have the ability to receive or recognize spiritual knowledge, so please don't try to pin that on me - it won't stick. The point of my saying what I said previously (and relating it back to 1Cor.2:14) was to clear the deck and note that there may be some that will never see or get the difference between spiritual knowledge and a whole bunch of other worthless donkey do, no matter what else is said.

Agreed, it not much of an argument, nor is it intended to be. It's two entirely different perspectives. Facts, in a manner of speaking, are like crystals. What they reveal depends entirely upon the light that shines through them. Change the source (or the position they're viewed from), and the picture changes.

Yeah, seems we can slice and dice it however we want. But what does it all amount to if it isn't put together right?

Oh, I'm sure you're going to get off on this response... Because processing all the facts take a tremendous amount of mental capacity, and God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. The really smart folk, those with higher and greater intellectually ability, ALWAYS want to start with the facts. It gives them an edge up. Spank me now, eh?

And God forbid that anyone outside TWI should ever have one of these, eh? Nothing gets "added" later to you (or the Christ within.) I hesitate mentioning this, but shoot, as long as we're hanging stuff out there... VPW once said (I don't recall the exact time or place, but circa 1976), that if a person was honest on their corps application and had "leadership ability," they had a gift ministry. And don't ask me who I heard this from, I heard it straight from him. Might have been around the time they were redesigning the Corps logo. Might have been a smaller group he was talking to, I just don't remember. But I heard what I heard, and it stuck. Whether it's right or not, well, that's another matter. (added after first posting): To be fair, he might have added to that, that not everyone that applied for the corps was honest about it (of course, I probably didn't pay as close as attention to what followed, so I'm not sure about this part of it...)

This appears to incorrect: >> then, when the third corps graduated, the same "routine", with one major change.............not every male in the third corps was "invited" to be ordained While it's true that not all were ordained (at that time... as JC opted to at a later date), all were invited. This also, DWBH probably has incorrect (though, with the amount of sarcasm in it, it's a bit difficult to interpret what he means or may have meant to say): >> meaning that, even though they all graduated, obviously not every one had gift ministries according to the "revelation" given vic by god I suppose VPW probably had a different take on "gift ministries." How right or wrong some of it was or is, is debatable, and is not without a fair amount of uncertainty. More visible is the rampant hierarchy that sprang up as a result of it, and the "push" that fell on so many to catch the brass ring (or should I say, the gold dove...) Furthermore, ordination was never some kind of prerequisite for a gift ministry, nor were any ever given or received at the time of ordination. Even though I openly admit that I don't have or know as much as some others may know on these matters, I do know that there sure as heck was (and evidently still is) a whole lot of screwed up information floating around concerning these "gift ministries" (and if or how they operate in the body of Christ.)

Not knowing what you do or don't understand, I tried to allow for a couple of different possibilities. The first was a response to what might have been someone "probing" my thoughts on the matter (which I don't mind.) In other words, I simply restated what I had said previously in another way. It usually helps (or starts to help) clarify what is meant and show how well something is or isn't understood. The second was essentially an introductory statement to communicate the probability that it wasn't going to be possible to explain "spiritual knowledge" in a tangible or meaningful way to anyone that either didn't care to know, or couldn't know for the very reason stated in 1 Cor. 2:14. Well that's odd, because at least in part, I thought I did. Being what is it, I'm really not sure how well or how completely anyone is able to define it. But, as you ask for more, I say this. If spiritual knowledge isn't discerned as something of spiritual origination, then it will not be recognized or acknowledge as being "spiritual knowledge." In other words, as I see it, whether or not any piece of information or knowledge is spiritual depends primarily on where it originates from. If you need or want something more than that, perhaps it would help me to know where you're at or coming from. What do you suppose it is (or isn't), or how do you see it?

Perhaps it comes down to whether or not one believes that enough of the truth that was revealed and written down is preserved in what has been canonized as "the Bible" to communicate what God intended for it to communicate. There are always going to be fundamental premises that one either accepts or rejects for what may be no other reason that it is what they believe. It doesn't mean that premises can't ever be called into question or revisited, because if they don't or can't satisfy the reason for their acceptance, they're going to eventually prove to be worthless. However, if they continue, time and time again, to show or explain how or why things are as they are, there's no reason to ever change the premise. In other words, the deeper one's understanding of a matter (i.e., the more perfectly all of it flows together), the less likely it is that they are ever going to change what they believe about it. Given the amount of "makes perfectly good sense with all other" scripture that's currently stored in various places in my memory banks (some much more difficult to locate than others... lol), certain premises underlying it all have a lot of cement holding them in place.

It's hard to know when it might have first started (or who first asked), as it may have only come into vogue with VPW's letter (which I seem to recall being prior to the sic corps graduation, but that might be wrong.) All were invited 3rd & earlier. Perhaps DWBH knows what the flavor of the day was with the fourth or fifth.

So, when it's written that the love of money is the root of all evil, do you think and suppose that it's only referring to any money that already was or had been? The point being, if it says "scripture," why think or suppose that it refers only to scripture that had already been written? Or, perhaps your position is that neither the gospels, Acts, the Epistles or Revelation qualify as "scripture." But if so, then why does Peter speak of Paul's epistles in relationship to "other scriptures" in 2Pet.3:16? (Obviously, I don't yet get where your at or what your thinking is on some of these things...)

Not even close to a fair representation, Raf. (but good job on the straw man argument.) Yes, Paul and James plainly had differences. No question about it. But the question that needs to be asked and reasoned is WHY? And that question can be approached from either perspective (errancy or inerrancy.) Now, I can't speak much of what it might look like from the side of errancy. But, from the side of inerrancy, it makes perfectly good sense to me once you see that that were following two very different paths.

Well, seems I disagree. Division certainly can be because of a wrong dividing of the Word, and I don't know why you think it wouldn't. Neither do I see why you might think that an acceptance of some doctrine of errancy (if there be such a thing) would eliminate (or even alleviate) any division. (Not that you said that, but it's alluded to.) While inerrancy may indeed breed an attitude of inflexibility, neither should it (nor does it always) demand an immediate answer or solution to every apparent discrepancy... meaning that certain things might be subject to ongoing evaluation and possible change. If that's not flexible, then perhaps I don't understand your use of the word "inflexibility."

Then I suppose you might take John 10:35 to mean something else when it says "scripture cannot be broken." An interpretation of Duet. 18:22 might also be needed. But, perhaps you want (or are making) a distinction between "the Bible" and scripture. Okay, so the Bible (as we have it) is what has been canonized (or, endorsed as being scripture.) Perhaps the real thing being discussed here is whether "all scripture" is inspired (or "God-breathed"), and not whether all scripture is or isn't included in the Bible. Care to clarify and/or explain? What part of living in this world doesn't involve a premise of some sort? Somebody here will likely take a position against man having (or making) a choice (I'll steer clear of referring to it as "free will"), but that's another issue. But I see no problem in acknowledging that there were no errors in the original inspired writings, and considering/studying/working (whatever you prefer) the scriptures from that vantage point. Logic can serve to build tremendous theological systems. But if the premise is faulty (or incorrect), then... well, you know the rest. Whether one accepts that premise that all scripture in inspired of God (and without error) significantly changes what is results in his (or her) mind. Personally, I chose which premise to adhere to a long time ago (well before VPW and TWI). Sure doesn't mean that I have always built right, or that I haven't had to (a number of times) dig deep and rip out significant chunks of ideological error. However, it has always been the bedrock that I've been tethered to. And (surprisingly enough) more answers have come to light for me in recent years, not from the Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic or any other "in depth" research into the early manuscripts), but simply by changing certain perspectives on what (and why) things are written where and as they are in the Bible, primarily using the KJV. The difference such a relatively small change can make is, well... for lack of a better word, astounding.

Much to interesting a topic not to comment on. After reading DWBH’s drab take on it, Steve’s was somewhat refreshing. It’s true, VPW disagreed with Bullinger on when the church started. Bullinger reasoned it to have begun after Acts 28, essentially submarining SIT and the manifestations of holy spirit. VPW (and others, such as Scofield) taught that in began on the day of Pentecost in Act 2. Personally, I’m persuaded that the failure to “rightly divide” these things has resulted (and continues to result) in errors, the magnitude of which is stunning. Speaking of rightly dividing, I’m also of the opinion that this matter fits directly in the crosshairs of 2Tim.2:15. Furthermore, I’ve come to the realization that some number of the practices of TWI were incorrectly based on the things in Acts 2, many years prior to the start of the age of grace, which (as alluded to in here in Steve’s post) was ushered in by Paul. Les Feldick does a fine job on the different administrations of time (as well as quite a fair number of other things.) Saul (Paul) was so tightly wound, evidently it took some isolation time in Arabia (mount Sinai?) to set him straight, and there was a lot to learned from the ascended Christ.

Well, as I haven't read it elsewhere here (perhaps I missed it), it should probably be noted that though it might have started one way (where it was offered to anyone graduating the corps,) ordination relatively soon became something which, if desired, was to be requested. There were exceptions, of course, but that was usually how it began. The request was reviewed, and if approved, apparently the requester was then "invited" to be ordained. Perhaps it was a little less mysterious or glamorous route than some may have imagined.