TLC

Evidently you're still having difficulty making any sort of distinction between the gospel of the Kingdom, which Jesus and the 12 preached, and the gospel of grace, which Paul taught.

It's truer than you think, Raf. Regardless of whether or not you care to admit it, you obey and serve yourself.

There's something referenced in scripture as being "utterance," and more specifically in one place as being, "a door of utterance." It's not rocket science to realize that all communication (like a radio wave between two walkie-talkies) involves senders and receivers. But if one isn't tuned in to the other and each are talking on different wavelengths, the message - at best, if any noise is even heard - is garbled. If the goal is to communicate... then some sort of commonality (or synchronization) has to be in place between the sender and receiver. But if there isn't... well, to me that would appear to be a rather tightly closed door. I lean towards the belief that everyone worships/serves one sort of god or another, regardless of who or what they call it, even if it appears to be nothing more than themselves. Frankly, I don't know that it's possible not to. However, seems fundamental ignorance of who or what anyone serves or is captivated by (or addicted to, if you prefer) is also very commonplace. (And in light of that, maybe the "keep your religion to yourself" is fairy sound advice, as it might run parallel to the old adage, "better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.") Given some of what you have indicated was said to you, I suppose I'd be inclined to question and dig rather deeply into how well they really know what they say they believe. (...'cause there appears to be some real flaws there.) Which, by the way (if you haven't noticed already), is pretty much the direction I was headed with that posting of "What do you think of schmoe and schmoe" who played such a significant role in the miracle working ministry of Rev. Healed-A-Lot?

Do you understand that His ministry was to Israel (not to the Gentiles) and that those words were spoken to those (of Israel) that were with him that day? see Matt. 10:5; Rom. 15:8. Aside from Mark 16:17 (which, once again, appears to be specifically given only to Israel), what scriptural references or basis, if any, might you have for that being suitable or applicable to the church of the body that Paul ushered in? Just because that was said or taught in twi doesn't make or mean it's true. So says... James? Ah, ha. Another of the Israelites, and a rather obvious adherent to the law. Faith without works is dead, is it? Why adulterate or otherwise (in any way) frustrate the grace of God? It's clearly and plainly written that faith is counted for righteousness (Rom. 4:5), and no where in the church epistles does it require some sort of activation or proof or validation by "works" in order for it to be genuine and real. Perhaps you think that little statement from James and the Pauline doctrines of grace are symbiotic, and can peacefully cohabit the same space in your mind. Well, they aren't... and they don't. Though they may not be diametrically opposed, fight against each other they will, and do. And unless (and/or until) you grasp and understand that subtle difference between the two, I suspect it would be (probably is) virtually impossible not to boast a little (in one way or another) of whatever works result from your own (or anyone else's) believing. Or, on the other hand, pass a bit of judgment and/or reproof (i.e., condemnation) upon oneself (or others) when "it ain't there." Maybe you've never seen or heard of anyone (or yourself) give witness to or carry on about what a great job (or great failure) of believing happened or took place somewhere. But, I doubt that too, if you really want to be honest about it. Yeah, take the blame for it yourself when it fails... but at least "mouth" the praises to God when it does works. Think you do one half of that only, but not the other? Really? So easy it is to pretend, and deceive ourselves.

Agreed... though I've already tipped my hand as to my perspective on the matter. Feel free to have my previous post moved to doctrinal if there is any continued discussion or interest in doing so.

So... why all the concern and so much focus on healing, or "healing miracles"? Have you ever stopped yourself, and very carefully (and honestly) thought that question through? Given the nature and tone of so many of your postings here, I doubt it. Maybe you haven't (or can't) because it's simply beyond your own knowledge and understanding of various signs and miracles that are recorded in the scriptures. But, rather than rain too much or too hard on your parade here... maybe I better just leave it at that. And if you can eventually figure it out, then great. But if not... well, it'll all wash out in the end. So what if healings and miracles make a few things in this (temporal) life easier and/or more pleasant. If that's all what it's about... why be so impressed by it? Who or what does it draw attention to? However, I'll leave you with these few little thoughts. THIS life (in the flesh, that we have now) was really never intended to be "forever." And if you believe that, then is it so difficult to also believe that maybe... just maybe... all that really matters is how anything and everything in this life might or can (and does) best prepare us for our (eternal) life that is yet to come? Israel (the best of the best of all humanity) experienced more (genuine) signs, miracles, and wonders than you can shake a stick at. Yet, think carefully what it did (moreover, what it didn't) do for them, on a lasting (or eternal) basis. And we're not talking about fake stuff or quackery. Those were "the real deal." Yet, in the much larger and broader scope of things, seems it didn't much matter. And God Almighty knows that, too.

TLC........as I understand it, Momentus was a short, intense experience. If you read the entire thread, Steve Lortz... Yes, I recognize Steve's name from earlier postings... and also recall reading a number of previous postings regarding Momentus. However, it appears that you may have missed the intent of my post. Given the magnitude of elitism so deeply fostered within and (somewhat permanently) engrained into the WC, anyone referring to that as mere "Mickey Mouse Club" stuff evidently either wasn't close enough, familiar enough, or perceptive enough to see or recognize the extent of its effectiveness. No matter how intense and/or provocative Momentus (or any other) experience might be, any comparison to years of WC training might (at best) be likened to throwing frogs into a pot of boiling water (a certain number of which are sure to jump out) versus putting them in cold water and slowing turning the heat up (which surely cooks them, one and all.) ... in other words, no matter what size your ego was going into the WC, the programing process ensured that it was enhanced and thoroughly "baked in" to your life and walk with God.

Wasn't Momentus training a relatively short experience? Frankly, that simply strikes me as something said and claimed by someone quite distant from (and well outside the pale of) early (or earlier) wc training, or perhaps even HQ staff...

Comatose for 15 days? Thought he went to heaven? Okay, could be... Dead (no breathing, no heart beat) for 15 days? yeah... what Raf said.

not a problem - it's why I asked for some clarification. well, not sure how you're relating this to anything in this (or much of any other doctrinal) thread, but... just for the record, I was at HQ in 84, and at the time... 1) I took "needs and wants parallel" as meaning "parallel with scripture" (not "needs and wants" parallel to or in alignment with each other) 2) I didn't actually hear, take or acknowledge the "tithe" as being either appropriate or applicable. Being on staff, neither was "abundant sharing" taken to mean a giving of monies - aside from the rather rare (and odd feeling) request to contribute a few dollars towards some "special occasion" gift here or there. Giving time and services? Well, that's another issue altogether, but without a doubt falling under the umbrage of "God will bless you back for it..." Probably would have been far easier just to "give money," but probably less rewarding in other ways. Nowadays, I'm not so persuaded that we really know much of the why's and wherefores of God's goodness and blessings. Seems best just to accept them as being "free" whenever we're tuned in enough to even recognize them as such... and finally, 3) I was (along with quite a few others) quite oblivious to the numerous sexual shenanigans (and crimes) that happened in and around HQ. Sorry to hear that you experienced it as much as you apparently did. It should've never happened.

I'm not following what you're trying to say. How all what got "got over our heads"? And I'm not sure what you mean by quoting "Revelation is not for us"? Yeah, (aside from what Paul wrote) I think it's written to Israel. Doesn't mean that we aren't supposed to (or don't) learn anything from it... Perhaps you could explain what you mean a bit more.

...as surely as the serpent will bite without enchantment... it's simply the nature of the beast.

Ask whatever you want. Perhaps it'll stir up some new thought or perspective on something old...

Ha! He didn't get the moniker "round windows" for no reason...

So, do you think Paul contradicted himself in any of his writings, Raf?

I doubt anyone here would seriously object much to any tangential discussion to this particular thread... Besides, I'm curious as to why (or what part) you don't think you can agree with.

Yeah, I didn't actually think that was what you meant; I was merely stating the only way of looking at it that I could possibly agree with it. Although, after re-reading your previous post, I am a bit curious as to your use (and/or expanded meaning) of this phrase: Why the caps, and why the (tm)? Seems I'm missing something there. Because I don't necessarily (i.e., probably don't) claim or believe whatever (and what all) you mean by that. Plainly stated, I do not see the gospel of Paul being exactly the same as the gospel of the Kingdom, which Jesus and the 12 preached. But, before diving deep into that, perhaps you wouldn't mind expounding on what all you mean by that "tm" phrase, and why you think it's the mold that any contradictory scriptures need to be cast into.

If interpreting that to mean man's perception of Yahweh evolved over time, or maybe even how Yahweh chose to reveal Himself, I would likely agree. Well, possibly not. It appears that Israel's relationship with Yahweh was predominately, if not entirely, based upon what was or could be known by the physical senses. Simply put, the relationship that the church of the body of Christ (which Paul introduced) has with God... isn't. Without any understanding of said difference, I'm inclined to agree with you that it's not difficult to see why anyone might think that. Given that I'm inclined more towards the thinking that God may not have anticipated the rebellion prior to God's creation of Lucifer (as it is written that Lucifer was, at the time of his creation, "perfect"), I see that there is probably an element of truth in that statement (regardless of how difficult it might be to pinpoint or precisely define it.) Admittedly, I'm not keenly aware of exactly how either Geer or CES endeavored to address the issue. But, in light of the omniscience and sovereignty of God revealed elsewhere in scripture, I am somewhat aware of the difficulty of it. However, oddly enough, it is the combination (or conundrum) of these two aspects that offers an answer in my mind as to why God may have (re)designed and/or created man the way that He did in Genesis... If given free will (whatever that means), a "perfect creation" can (and/or might at some time in the eternal future) fail... as appears may have happened once already with Lucifer... what or how does God do or create any different? Ah, well... perhaps you see the problem. If it was created perfect the first time, by definition, there can be no improvement on perfection. What there can be, however, was (and is, in my opinion) a "proving" time designed for what is made/created. The first man, Adam, failed... (which God anticipated.) But a redemption plan was already in place. As I see it, this life in the flesh - that Adam had (and that we still have and know) - was, never designed nor intended to be "forever."

And how much of John 6 do you think might also be a parable?

Well, I did not say (and do not think) that the Bible contains the revealed Word of God. Rather, I believe that it is the revealed Word of God. But, seems there is a bit more I would need to explain... No, I do not believe that the Bible is (much less, might contain) ALL the Word of God, as I see the Word of God as Living (and hence, not something limited or bound.) It is only the portion which was revealed to and written by (or perhaps for, if dictated) men (prophets, if you will) chosen by God to do so. Furthermore, if the Bible should be defined (and I'm not saying it is) as ALL of what has God has ever given to said men and intended to be revealed, then it's rather likely that we don't have all the Bible, much less have perfection in what we do have of it.

Well, I don't see that he ever said or revealed much of anything either (if anything) about life in heaven, or man living eternally anywhere other than here on earth. Matter of fact, seems I don't see in anywhere else in scripture, aside from certain things that Paul spoke of. P.S. The parable of Abraham's bosom is just that... a parable.

Given how easy it usually is to learn at least something, it seems rather dumb (and a real waste of time) in one doesn't. At the very least you'd think that you might learn how to better communicate with other people (only) through written words...

Granted, most (in the Way) did... and occasionally (in certain casual conversations), I undoubtedly did also. However, most times (in more thoughtful conversations) I was quite careful to note that the Bible wasn't actually "the Word of God, " but rather, "the revealed Word of God." This was probably due, at least in part, to the much thought I had given trying to wrap by head around what the "logos" of John 1 meant. After concluding that it (i.e., the Word) was spiritual, it only made sense that it wasn't the exact equivalent of "the Bible," which is physical.

Can anyone here actually show how or point to where anything written in the Old Testament speaks of an eternal afterlife, living in heaven (i.e., any place other than on earth)? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think it's there. All I've honestly been able to find or see there is the promise and hope of new (resurrected) life in what might be aptly described as "heaven on earth." And, even if (yea, when) at some point that requires new heavens and a new earth (Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22), there appears to be no indication of man living anywhere aside from here on earth. All of which raises the question... If these prophets of old (and the nation of Israel) didn't actually have or believe in this apparently much latter view of heaven (i.e., inherent within the Pauline epistles), then what logic exists in thinking that they actually had any more of a belief in any sort of eternal life and everlasting torment in hell? The grave was the grave. It was not a place or torment, nor was it a place where man could know or experience anything. There was no conscious or awareness of anything. Thus, as I see it, this "mythology of hell" - as it is referenced in this thread - seems to be a rather pagan invention, and never had any other place in Old Testament scriptures. But, if you think otherwise, please feel free to show me where this is wrong.

As a follow up to that last question, what does the destruction of a soul mean to you? Or what do you make of the destruction of "brute beasts" spoken of in 2Peter 2:!2? Do they "utterly perish," or not?