TLC

Because it was sitting at the top of the list, and I didn't recall reading it previously. What, am I'm not entitled to an opinion here? Unreal. Do you give lessons or something on performing ad hominem attacks? Perhaps you will find me the post in this thread where I made reference to DWBH. Because it's a bit of a mystery to me. I'll leave soon enough, don't fret about it.

Clearly most of that is your opinion. Of course what I post are my recollections and personal opinions. However, they were not combative (certainly not in intent), and they were written entirely as a contemplative response to what someone else posted. IF they came across as combative to everyone else here, then evidently I did a .... poor job of communicating in in a manner that anyone here is open to, and for that I apologize. Perhaps this is completely the wrong forum to be in, and having no pressing need or desire to be here, and I have no problem moving on. No skin off my nose, as they say. You appear quite expert at that, stepping in here with the flame thrower that you did on this thread, in light of the fact I had never once mentioned you here. Unless, of course, you presumed my earlier nametag and "Rev" comment was somehow aimed specifically at you. It wasn't. But I don't know what else you thought might have been. So, when you start a fire, don't be surprised when you get burnt with some blowback. Why purport that my reasons are any less honorable or noble than yours? Maybe you'd see they aren't if you'd ever ditch the already prejudiced attitude. But as I said once already, if everyone sees it as you do, I have no problem with bowing out. Still, you were part of the hierarchy that was built, by your own admission. Not me, but enough others were hurt by the rampant and out of control egotism so prevalent in the structure of TWI. It is your opinion they are not, as you have repeatedly indicated. But they are what they are, regardless of your opinion of them. Does your ad hominem flaming have "off" valve? Apparently not. That diseased bandwagon is one of egotism and arrogance, that no ever gets thrown off of. (Unless they're knocked off in a manner like Saul.) Do you honestly think and claim that you were not arrogant and egotistical back then? It isn't an issue of being an authority on you. It was a ministry wide issue (and not just in leadership, where it flourished.) But you still are. I'd simply prefer any validity or credibility be observed in what is actually said, rather than hinge upon who I am.

Wasn't the truth I was looking for (I go to God for that, not Google.) I was interested in what you were trying to communicate. But, have fun entertaining others with your mind games, if that's all you're into. It wasn't intended as, nor was it set forth as, any kind of quality research. Evidently you didn't follow the thought. Then again, the discussion wasn't with you. But go right on ahead and jump onboard that wagon DWBH is steering, if that's your style.

Now at least I see why you didn't respond to my last question to you. You weren't really interested. No big deal. Think what you want.

A while back I was moved to take a more honest look at what effect my involvement in the minitsty may have had on my own elitist, know more truth than others, attitude. To put it bluntly, it wasn't a pretty picture. (The road to recovery ususally starts by first recognizing and acknowleding the problem.) Having said that, I can say with a clear and pure conscious that I do not (and have never, really) held any bitterness, anger, or resentment in my heart towards anyone or anything that took place during those years. Mistakes were made, and I certainly own my share of them. But given where I am at now, I would neither trade, nor want to go through them again for anything. As for your mistaken and misperceived comments, I'll set the record straight. No such slant exists. Who you were then had little or no effect on me, nor had I any on you. (So there is no reason whatsoever for such a slant.) What I've posted to date on this site have been straightforward and honest efforts to communicate my thoughts and recall the accurate facts to the best of my ability. If I am unsure about something, I'll say as much. If sure, then that's my recollection of it. If you don't like it, or disagree with it, you can then discuss it, or you can flame away, as you're poised to do in this post. I really don't care. Think what you want. I believe that my comments are accurate. If you care to look again, you'll see that I said all were invited. If some were subsequently "disapproved," as per your account, that's another matter. Furthermore, there is the matter of ordination vs. "gift ministiries." Perhaps you missed the meeting (imagine that) where VPW plainly stated that everyone in the first three corps had gift ministries. Not all were ordained, obviously. Nor am I saying that VPW was necessarily correct. I'm relating what he actually said, which is in opposition to your "obviously not every one had gift ministries according to the "revelation" given vic by god" statement. It's ironic that your post appears in this thread on "Why isn't TWI as big as it was in the 1970s?" rather than the one on ordinations. For any of the younger readers here, it offers an encapsulated picture of that same ministry leadership attitude from the 70's. No surprise, though, because that was you then, and evidently, is still you today. If anyone didn't have the right credentials then, they were a mere bug to be squashed if or when they were in the way or questioning anything that the hierarchy dictated. So, if anyone is thinking... if I had been there, I would have seen it and spoken up. Well... did you see it, and did you speak up? Not as easy as you think, is it? It's far easier to "go along" with it. Jump on the bandwagon, in fact, and show you're hip. Perhaps it's worth repeating something I posted a few days ago on this very same thread: Have you ever stopped to remember, DWBH, what sort of person you were before the ministry, or honestly pondered what effect it, and the lofty titles given to you, had upon your ego? Take the question however you want, but I ask it with no malice or ill will intended. (because I was sucked up into it right along with everyone else.)

Evidently others reading here can make sense out of this, so pardon my apparently less educated ignorance, but I can't. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining in mere layman's terms what you see as the exact difference in makes when viewed from a Stoic position rather than Platonic. Because (correct me if I'm wrong), weren't the Stoics two principles of the universe (matter and God) derrived from Plato's dualism? (duplicated word edited out.)

Thank you, Steve. Not that my voice means much, but I'd also beg to differ. Evidently 2Pet.3:15-18 has quite a different meaning to most folks here. Yeah, TWI had it's share of issues alright. Probably the least of which was the issue being alluded to in this thread. As mentioned in a post elsewhere, the way I see it, there was never a sufficient enough understanding of just how distinct and different Paul's gospel was from that of the apostles at Jerusalem. Which led to no end of problems.

I about barfed when I read this first post in its entirety. I'll try to read a bit further in the thread, but I'm not sure how far I'll make it without getting sick.

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?