Nathan_Jr
-
Posts
3,175 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
81
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by Nathan_Jr
-
-
9 minutes ago, Mike said:
Well, it's late and I have only a small amount of time to respond to many posts. Sorry about that.
Anyone got any ideas whom I should select?
Lottery?
Sorry, T-Bone yours is way too long for me tonight.
Please answer my questions about the Word.
-
4 minutes ago, Rocky said:
I'm not sure if this is a reasonable way to characterize this topic, but it sure sounds like vain babbling to me.
Word salad?It sounds like the Word that replaces the absent Christ is an opinion formulated in the mind through "research." A pretty flimsy replacement for Christ.
-
4 hours ago, Mike said:
It is what you get in mind when you work the research principles of the class, in study of the KJV or your semi-corrected Cambridge Wide-Margin Bible, or nearly any other version. Even go into the ancient languages and texts if you can. Other principles like Receive, Retain, Release are also involved in building the Word in your mind.
Jesus did the same as a youth and young man. Walking love to serve and help others are other things Jesus did to build the Word in his mind. It wasn't there automatically. He ate the Word. He did this to the max and to perfection, so he is called "the Word made flesh" in the Gospel of John.
I'm really trying to get down to it. I feel like I've been asking some simple questions. Some open, but many closed. I'm really trying to be direct.
I'm sure you'll correct me, if I get this wrong. Please do.
So, the Word is NOT the Bible, nor in the Bible.
The Word is NOT PFAL, collaterals, critical texts, etc., nor in those.
The Word is NOT something there automatically.
The Word is created in the mind - a product of thought.Very simply: The Word is the content of a conditioned mind? The content built by programming through research of the Bible, which is not itself the Word? The Word is built in the mind through quasi-academic research? It doesn't exist on its own. It's something constructed in the mind?
So, when victor says, "The word, the word, and nothing but the word," he could have just as accurately said, "The contents of your indoctrinated mind, the contents of your indoctrinated mind, and nothing but the contents of your indoctrinated mind!"
Or, "The word of god is the will of god." = "Your conditioned mind trained according to these research principles is the will of god."
Or, "Study the word much." = "Study your conditioned mind much."
Simple. Keep it simple. Direct. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Is the above what you mean?
-
3 minutes ago, Mike said:
No it's more the attitudes of trust and believing that he had, and mix that with the Word which contains the promises of God. With a mind believing the promises of God and having holy spirit, it is possible to do all the things that Jesus did. So it's the attitudes and the power where we can be effective replacements for Christ Jesus, the man who is absent.
What is the Word? -
13 minutes ago, waysider said:
I just want to live until I've got to die.
I know I ain't perfect, but God knows I try.
I think I'm alright.
Todd Snider is so underrated.-
2
-
-
14 minutes ago, Mike said:
The simple phrase "the Bible" is very ambiguous. Does it mean the originals? One of the critical Greek texts? All the critical Greek texts, ignoring their differences? The thousands of translations ???
We can't buy a Bible that is the official Word of God. Most of us have HEAVILY marked up our KJV to make it more accurate, but we all did it differently. To say that "The Bible is God's Word" could have a lot of different meanings for what "the Bible" is. Often context helps fix this, but not always.
I believe written PFAL is God-breathed, but it has NO NEW DOCTRINE in it. It is old doctrine, clarified or fixed where it was broken. It does not cover all the scriptures, but does make if possible for us to work those other scriptures.
But written PFAL and all Bible versions are worthless if they stay in written form, and not taken in and digested in the mind. Jesus said that man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.
The holy spirit in us is (Christ in us) built up by the words of SIT.
The forming Christ-like personality in our minds needs the food of the Word, and is built up by it.They both need constant refreshing of this food, just like our bodies need food constantly.
In many ways our bodies and brain are designed to teach us spiritual realities like the food of the Word.
So, the Word of God is the Bible as interpreted and corrected back to the original, according to victor?This Word is what Jesus had in his mind before he met John the baptizer? And later, the contents of his mind were accurately revealed in PFAL, collaterals, etc.?
This is what replaces Jesus the Christ, who is absent? The contents of his mind, which is the Bible, corrected accurately by victor?
-
6 minutes ago, waysider said:
That is correct.
In addition, without the Hayflick Limit, our cells would continue to grow unchecked, causing a condition known as...(wait for it)...cancer.
OMG! ROTFLMAO!
-
31 minutes ago, Mike said:
So the Word is not the written word. It's not the Bible, it's not a theological commentary, it's not PFAL?
It's something in the mind? Something different from the Christ within, the holy spirit.
-
3 hours ago, waysider said:
I'm pretty sure it was in session 5 or 7.
Here's a quick question:
Is there supposed to be a comma between "forever" and "rule"?
Without the comma, it would simply imply that their days on Earth would be under the devil's rule. That doesn't exactly sound like earth shattering news.
With the comma, It implies they would never physically die, contradicting the Hayflick Limit, which would be scientifically impossible.
Waysider, I've learned that if you are pretty sure, I can be pretty sure.
HOWEVER, doesn't the Hayflick limit contradict victor's claim that no one dies until one stops believing, and the cessation of believing only comes when one gets too tired to believe anymore?
-
2 minutes ago, OldSkool said:
Oh...but...but....he didn't plagaraize he just collated all the material into one class to rule them all, claimed ownership, and copyrighted them. Dont ya know God sent him out to stea...I mean collect all these works together so we wouldn't have to?
It's revealing that when he was called out he didn't say that God told him by revelation to use Bullinger's material as his own. Instead he acted like it was all a REMARKABLE COINCIDENCE. Why didn't he speak up and explain the nature of his ministry was to glean what he could that hadn't been known for 2000 years...material he gleaned from existing sources...Im kind of being a jerk here to show how ridicoulous Mike's argument is that plagarisim is ok for VPW to do because it all belonged to God anyway.
Allegedly, according to his tombstone, his last narcissistic "poor me" plea, he couldn't be honest, even if he knew to be honest. He could only wish to be honest.I wonder why God didn't reveal to the Christ within victor to reveal to his mind to motivate his walk to be honest?
-
19 minutes ago, WordWolf said:
On top of that,
he plagiarized the Amplified Bible when he posted "his" "literal translations according to usage." He claimed he'd "worked the Word" and came up with renderings that were word-for-word identical to the Amplified Bible. The most egregious example, IMO, was Philippians 4:13. vpw: "I am ready for anything and equal to anything through him who infuses inner strength into me." Word-for-word, that's in the 4:13 rendering in the Amplified Bible.
Now, vpw would have you think it was a REMARKABLE COINCIDENCE that the phrasing was identical. However, nearly all of us see that as just ripping off their work and taking credit for it, aka "plagiarizing." Any of you who heard Acts 29's song with this as their chorus should remember it: "I am ready for anything and equal to anything through him who infuses inner strength into me. Yes, I am more than a conqueror, a real super-conqueror, and nothing will separate God's Love from me."
If you go to Divinity School, specialize in preaching, and spend NO time on studying the Bible, you might be this much of a lightweight, also.
He did the same thing when Dr. Higgins called him out for preaching like Bullinger wrote. So embarrassed and afraid of being found out as a plagiarizing fraud, he played dumb and presented it all as a REMARKABLE COINCIDENCE, one that independently validated his teaching. (Error verified by error?)
This is a textbook narcissistic cop out ruse.
If anyone believes any of these REMARKABLE COINCIDENCES, please reach out. I've got some property to sell you.
-
1 hour ago, Raf said:
I think the concept of the "absent Christ" is much ado about nothing. If he's not absent, why y'all looking forward to his return?
The problem I see with the "absent Christ" is that it's not a Biblical term. The Word never claims to take the place of the absent Christ. Rather, the Word IS Christ, and it is how he maintains his presence while we await his bodily return.
1 hour ago, Mike said:Answer to moderately difficult question #2 :
The devil tried his best to make Christ absent by killing him. But God had a secret plan, to make Christ MORE present by raising him from the dead, and then 50 days later, to ascend to become physically absent.
Had the devil known that all of us would get Christ in us and the potential to beat the devil just like Jesus did, then he would NOT have killed Christ. This is written.
This is the answer to why the PHYSICALLY absent Christ is beneficial to us. Instead of having Christ WITH us like the apostles had in the Gospels, in only one geographical location at a time, we all have Christ in us and with us wherever we go.
Had the devil known this secret plan for a widely distributed Christ he’d have backed off his crucifixion plan. Instead of only one Christ in one location to beat the devil, now there are millions that can beat him. That is the reason Christ is physically absent. It is so we can have Christ live within every one of us, and make Christ everywhere present wherever we go.
We were taught this abundantly.Limb leaders taught this to branch leaders, who taught it to twig leaders, who taught it to new people. This “Christ present in all of us” doctrine was probably the most often repeated teaching in the ministry. I heard it hundreds of times, if I include casual conversations with formal teachings.
The physical Christ is absent so we ALL can have Christ within, permanently, and incorruptible.
"The Word takes the place of the absent Christ."So, Christ isn't absent at all. Christ is within. I brought this up very early in this thread.
HOWEVER, Jesus, the Nazarene, the anointed, the perfect human being, God's only begotten is obviously absent in the sense that no one could expect to run into him at Starbucks. Sure. I don't think this is the issue.
What seems to be missing from this parsing is the subtle nuance of the implications of the proposition: The Word take the place of the absent Christ. (Maybe this should have been phrased more accurately according to mathematical usage: The Word takes the place of Jesus, the Nazarene.)
MOREOVER, what is this Word that replaces God's only begotten? Is it the Bible? God's perfect only begotten is replaced with... the Bible? A book put together hundreds of years later by hundreds of editors, redactors, interpolators, scribes? And not rightly divided for another 1000 years when Darby, Bullinger, and victor showed up? victor said the word is the ministry and the ministry is the word. What is this ministry? Obviously, it is The Way International, Inc. Or, is this not obvious?
-
27 minutes ago, Human without the bean said:
Sure, alright.
My girlfriend's gone off with my car
And gone back to her ma and pa
Telling tales of drunkenness and cruelty
Now I'm sitting here
Sipping at my ice cold beerJohn Prine?
-
1 hour ago, Mike said:
I find it tragic that VPW was not the man he knew to be.
What kind of man did he know to be? Why couldn't he be this man? Was it his lack of believing faith? Did he spit in the face of revelation when he got it? Or did he just not know how (H-O-W) to get revelation to be the man he knew to be? Or was he too afraid, too full of fear to be that man, whatever that man would be? Why couldn't he just renew his mind to be that man? Did he not know how (H-O-W) to renew his mind?
-
7 minutes ago, WordWolf said:
vpw didn't use those versions, therefore Mike won't use them. The example of the NASB is particularly silly, because the one possible benefit of using the KJV or New KJV is the italics- and the NASB uses the italics. Moreover, since the vocabulary usage of the NASB is more standardized than that of the KJV (more often, if you see a word in English, it's translated from the same word in Greek/Hebrew as before), it's more useful when reading to understand the contents. I'm not sure if it was just complete ignorance of the NASB that led vpw to use the KJV only, but I suspect he preferred the 450-year old vocabulary of the KJV to that of a modern version like the NASB. With few fans of Elizabethan literature taking pfal (fans of Shakespeare, et al) vpw could more easily get away with mistakes based on the KJV and relying on its vocabulary even when what he said was factually incorrect.
As a fan of Shakespeare, I'd found it irksome when people tortured the KJV English in twi, especially when a quick look at a concordance could expose the mistake. I think the one that bothered me most often was in the Intermediate class. When getting to Colossians 3:5 and the KJV said "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth", Earl said that the word "mortify" meant to "blow to smithereens." Ridiculous. As if Paul was referring to a mortar cannon which was invented millenia later. The KJV has a strong influence from the LATIN (like the Vulgate) because it draws from Tyndale's early efforts to go from Latin to English because that's the best he had. However, modern Bibles aren't hobbled the same way. Tyndale did good work with what he had, and the KJV was a fair accomplishment 450 years ago. So, what did "mortify" mean? Well, come on, anyone with a good vocabulary in English knows what a "mortician" is, and probably knows that "mortis" in Latin is "Death" "Mortify" meant "kill off". All of that would have been avoided by just checking a simple Greek-English Interlinear. That word "mortify" is the Greek word "necrosate." The root word is "NECROS." Again, if you have a decent vocabulary, you don't need to look up "necros" to know it means "death." It's used in many words in English. Doctors deal with necrotic tissue, Paul condemned necromancers in the Bible, etc. vpw made a number of ASSUMPTIONS based entirely on the KJV English, and taught them that way, even though a simple check of the Hebrew or Greek would have shown it was a mistake. In pfal, vpw spent MINUTES on the significance of the word "REPLENISH" in Genesis, when the Hebrew root word meant "FILL" and had NONE of the implications of "REPLENISH". If his doctrine was correct, it wasn't because the KJV used the word "replenish" as a poor translation from the Hebrew. (This has been discussed here, more than once, it's in lists of mistakes from pfal.)
Don't be shocked if this is the only answer you get- or the answer is some vague HINTING there's a different answer that he never actually gives.
Thanks, Word Wolf.
The KJV is what I was raised on, and I find many of the Elizabethan phrasings spine-shivering in their beauty. Some passages just can't be rendered so exquisitely in any other English idiom. Just knee-bucklingly beautiful! MOREOVER, as an English major, I have a special affinity for that version.
With that being said, it is the absolute WORST study Bible, in my opinion. One can use it to study, but one should have a subscription to the OED - extremely useful! So many words in Elizabethan English don't mean today what they did then. Like the word STUDY!
I studied French, Spanish and Latin in high school; Latin, Italian and Spanish in college. I'm no expert. Ive forgotten more Latin than most will ever know. I know just enough to know how much I don't know. So, I know something about translation and interpretation of foreign languages. I know that most idioms cannot be translated literally without corrupting the original, intended meaning - hence, the italics. Really, to understand how (H-O-W) the KJV committee made translation decisions and used italics, read the preface. Translation and interpretation is an art and science.
I never studied Greek until I took the class. And I still know very little, but I probably know more than victor ever did. And what I don't know, I know how (H-O-W) to find out.
-
16 minutes ago, Mike said:
I have a strong feeling, from that response above and many others, that you will NOT understand the answer.
Don't get your hopes up.The NASB and RSV utilize the oldest and best manuscripts. What's your problem with those versions?
-
I'm buying dinner to make it easy on you boys - it was my idea to come here instead of Chili's.
Somehow, I arrived at this song via Human's Kris Kristofferson reference.
"Well, when you're sitting there in your silk upholstered chair
Talking to some rich folk that you know
I hope you won't see me in my ragged company
Cause you know I could never be aloneTake me down little Susie take me down
Cause I know you think you're the Queen of the UndergroundYou can send me dead flowers every morning
Send me dead flowers by the mail
Send me dead flowers to my weddingAnd I won't forget to put roses on your grave
Well, when you're sitting back in your rose pink Cadillac
Making bets on your Kentucky derby days
I'll be in my basement room with a needle and a spoon
With another girl to take my pain awayTake me down little Susie take me down
Cause I know you think you're the Queen of the UndergroundSend me dead flowers every morning
Send me dead flowers by the mail
Send me dead flowers to my weddingAnd I won't forget to put roses on your grave
Take me down little Susie take me down
Cause I know you think you're the Queen of the UndergroundYou can send me dead flowers every morning
Send me dead flowers by the mail
Send me dead flowers to my weddingAnd I won't forget to put roses on your grave"
-
4 minutes ago, Mike said:
Nathan_Jr, I'll give you a hint.
Read carefully and study Romans chapters 4 thru 8 in the KJV.
Find the New English Bible and read that version also.
This will point you in the direction of understanding the absent Paradise.
What about the NASB and RSV?FYI. Paul wasn't accurate about EVERYTHING. But he sure thought he was.
-
4 minutes ago, Mike said:
I want to discuss what we were taught about the absent Christ, and what the Bible says about it.
But you aren't.
I don't know what you were taught. That's why I'm asking the questions. What do you think the Bible says about it? The absent paradise? Go ahead.
-
2 minutes ago, Mike said:
What I brought up so far, like my two moderately difficult questions, have not gotten nearly the posting or thought.
I think you are trying to change the subject, because you can't answer my two moderately difficult questions. Did I guess right?
I've asked multiple times. If you don't know or they are rhetorical questions, just say so.
-
12 minutes ago, Mike said:
Back to topic:
Can you answer my two moderately difficult questions above?Can YOU?
victor hated questions, too. My fellowship/PFAL leader hated questions, also. He probably couldn't hear my questions over his own "mmmmmphs!"
Why do those who pretend to know how (H-O-W) to teach, those who fetishize teaching, those who fetishize leading, hate questions?
-
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Now, after getting the timeline on his absence straight, it would next be good to discern what VPW meant by “Christ” in the phrase “absent Christ.”
Did he mean the man Jesus, or the man Jesus Christ, or the man Christ Jesus, or the man Christ ?…
OR did he mean the gift of holy spirit, which is Christ in you?
OR did he mean “the anointing or the unction," which is what “Christ” means.
It seems "Christ" has multiple meanings. I can accept this. Three meanings. A TRINITY of meanings. A trinity of Christs, in a way.Some concepts are just too complex or deep or esoteric that they require nuanced, paradoxical models to illustrate meaning.
"The Word" has many more than three meanings.
-
5 minutes ago, Mike said:
Does that mean you can't answer the two questions?
Why did God make Paradise hidden or absent?
Why did God make the man Jesus hidden or absent?
What did victor believe the answers to be?
-
1 hour ago, Human without the bean said:
I have heard the song. Maybe Kris Kristopherson, but I think not. Someone more rocka'billy like Marshall Tucker or Charlie Daniels. Anyway, I'm just putting out a few guesses to help me narrow down the song. Other than that, I really don't have any idea as to the title. Long shot for me, at any rate.
The song is so well written, Kris Kristopherson is a good guess.
The song is "Willin'" by Little Feat.
The Absent Christ?
in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible
Posted · Edited by Nathan_Jr
Right. So, I let you cut through the ambiguity of "the Bible" and establish a definition when I asked, simply: What is the Word?
My response to your answer:
"I'm really trying to get down to it. I feel like I've been asking some simple questions. Some open, but many closed. I'm really trying to be direct.
I'm sure you'll correct me, if I get this wrong. Please do.
So, the Word is NOT the Bible, nor in the Bible.
The Word is NOT PFAL, collaterals, critical texts, etc., nor in those.
The Word is NOT something there automatically.
The Word is created in the mind - a product of thought.
Very simply: The Word is the content of a conditioned mind? The content built by programming through research of the Bible, which is not itself the Word? The Word is built in the mind through quasi-academic research? It doesn't exist on its own. It's something constructed in the mind?
So, when victor says, "The word, the word, and nothing but the word," he could have just as accurately said, "The contents of your indoctrinated mind, the contents of your indoctrinated mind, and nothing but the contents of your indoctrinated mind!"
Or, "The word of god is the will of god." = "Your conditioned mind trained according to these research principles is the will of god."
Or, "Study the word much." = "Study your conditioned mind much."
Simple. Keep it simple. Direct. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Is the above what you mean?"
========
THEN you clarified. It sounds like the Word is scripture. But not the Bible? Where do I find the Word to study it? Didn't victor open PFAL with something like: The greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the Word of God? I'm paraphrasing.