WordWolf

I agree.

Jennifer Lawrence Hunger Games Donald Sutherland

If the canon had been decided by a dozen good old boys in a basement with a case of 'shine and a stack of scrolls, deciding what should be "promoted" to canon and what shouldn't, then the question of the authority would ride on Paul's having written them and saying so, and a bunch of drunks. FF Bruce ("The Scrolls and the Parchments") and Neil Lightfoot ("How We Got the Bible") among others, argue an entirely different scenario took place. According to them, what was canon of the New Testament, FOR THE MOST PART, was considered self-evident. They were written within the 1st century AD, and all carried the feel of Scripture and the quality of same. (I'm paraphrasing heavily for brevity's sake.) What didn't make it, FOR THE MOST PART, was agreed to have been clearly of a different caliber. There were books written several centuries later, and most pushed some esoteric or Gnostic POV that felt like it didn't match the others. As for books like "the Infancy Gospel of Thomas", that was written as a fanfic and was accepted as such at the time- considered good for entertainment but hardly Scripture. When just grabbing all old documents together that didn't make it and calling them some sort of "Lost books" or "forgotten books", that's a lot like grabbing the contents of my Bible case (with any songs, poems, short stories, etc) and claiming they're of equal authority as the Bible that's in the case because it's in the same case. That was possible then because they didn't have leatherbound Bibles as a single book- they would have had a bunch of scrolls stored together. So, someone just grabbing all the scrolls indiscriminately could easily think they were all meant to be read the same, with equal authority and equal utility. Obviously, not everyone would agree with either or both writers. I find that it's a sensible position to hold even if one thinks it isn't what happened.

"Okay, you're focused on what Geer might have taught. " That's what I thought you were asking me about, and I answered making it clear I was addressing HIS positions specifically. "(I say "might," because I don't actually know. Seems like I may have heard some of what he taught years ago, but if so, I'm just not sure when it was or what he said about it, or what his reasons were for it.) " I'm giving him the credit of the doubt when I say that his reason was an honest attempt to understand God that went horribly off-track into what vpw called "private interpretation". That's the best possible motive he could have had for what he taught. I'm willing to grant him the best possible motive by speculation. "However... I have read and given some thought (again, some number of years ago) to what others have said on this matter. As a matter of fact, I think most of it (if not all) falls under a category called "open theism" (which appears to be quite alive and well among some number of bible scholars.) So, I have serious doubts that Geer was "original" with the concept, and if (as you've alluded to previously) he had ulterior reasons to use it to endorse or promote something else... well, he may have either taught it wrong or not understood it well enough. " He wasn't original, and I certainly knew that at the time. The book "the Trivialization of God" was published around that time, a book addressing "Open Theism" (I was familiar with the term, and with the existence of the book.) In fact, "Christianity Today" addressed this subject around that time also-which is how I heard about this stuff pre-internet. "Otherwise, I suspect a couple of teenagers would not have had as easy a time with the rebuttal of it as you say they did." I assure you, we had an easy time of it. He spent 3 different tapes laying out his position, and we successfully refuted each tape point by point, as well as the entire premise. Perhaps it might have gone differently with someone else presenting "Open Theism", but I'm skeptical it would have gone DRASTICALLY different. We refuted the premise in addition to every point he made, attempting to make his case. But that's an exercise in imagination, at this point. "'Cause the concept appears to be much more than merely "defensible"... (and when presented correctly and cast in the right light, I'm inclined towards believing it.) If anyone is interested in pursuing this a bit further, there's a number of books out there (I don't recall the titles.) A quick search brought the following site up, maybe it will help: https://probe.org/god-and-the-future-examining-the-open-view-of-god/ ======================================== Well, anyone's welcome to explore different POVs, and different ideas. I have too much to catch up with now that the World Cup ended.(Vive la France!)

Yes- in the sense that Geer said that God "knew what could be known", and then set about to make that definition cover as little knowledge as he could convince people to go along with. AFAIK, nobody or almost nobody he taught that to currently believes it. Frankly, if 2 teenagers can write a serious rebuttal that refutes every point you make, and makes solid counter-arguments you can't shoot down, then you as a career preacher have adopted an indefensible position.

It IS a matter of perspective. vpw fancied himself a big deal. However, even twi's total numbers, compared to society in general or Christianity in general, were insignificant. They were too small to rate even a historical footnote. However, if someone "only" ruins 3 lives, it's very important to you if you're one of the 3 lives they ruin. In 1982, I was hit and almost killed by a careless driver who was driving carelessly. That's not noteworthy among the statistics of pedestrians hit by vehicles, but it made a big impression on me at the time. When one looks back at vpw trying to grab power, I think it helps to look back to BEFORE his professional career. He was a child who shirked his chores and ran off for hours rather than work on the farm like his brothers. (According to TW:LiL.) He was a show-off and a bully who zoomed around on a motorcycle trying to get attention. (According to a big fan of his who actually went around and talked to people he knew in his childhood.) He considered careers in business and in show business before settling on ministry as a career. (According to vpw himself talking to the corps.) When he decided on it, he was met with disbelief that he was serious because he wasn't appropriate for it (according to TW:LiL). He chose to study "Homiletics" or preaching rather than any rigorous, academic ministry path- which is odd when contrasted with how scholarly he portrayed himself. And in the first year of his ministry career, he seriously considered quitting for the first time. All of that paints a rather specific picture- one of someone unsuited for such a career path but on it anyway.

"However, I would agree that a whole lot of doctrinal mistakes and missteps have been made as a result of the misunderstandings and the guesswork that has taken place right here in Genesis 3... so much so, it's as if it's designed that way - to purposefully confound and fool puffed up minds and the (egotistical) intelligentsia of mankind. " I don't think mankind needs the help. Old joke: Two Freudian Psychologists pass each other in the street. "Nice day," says one. "Yes, it is," replies the other. After they pass each other, both wonder "What did he mean by that?"

The entire purpose of rendering it "overthrow" rather than "foundation" (BTW, the Aramaic usages of the corresponding word match "foundation" but not "overthrow") was to support Geer's decision to declare God was not All-Knowing. He moved God's choosing us in Him "before the foundation of the world" as in Genesis 1:1 or thereabouts, to "before the overthrow of the world" which is supposedly Genesis 3:15 and preceded Genesis 3:17. This introduces several problems. One, if we were actually chosen in Genesis 3:!5, we would have been chosen after the ground was cursed (Genesis 3:6-7) but before God announced "the ground is cursed because of what you did (Genesis 3:17.) Two, Geer blamed God for the ground being cursed, when God was only announcing the results of what they did (Genesis 3:6-7, Luke 4:6). as well as the one who did curse it. Three, it isolated off everything else, and assumed God Almighty was asking questions in Genesis 3:9-11 because He actually didn't know the answers, and not like a parent who already knows everything, but is getting specific to a disobedient child as to why there's trouble. This assumes God Almighty was in complete ignorance of the voluntary fall of man in Genesis 3 with 3 participants in the picture, but that the verses saying He's watching over us (all of us) are reliable. This doesn't even make sense on paper. So, it was an elaborate structure that went completely away from the subject at hand. All of it was to support Geer's failure to be able to account for an Almighty God who is Love and yet also allows for human suffering and the existence of evil. Smarter men than him have crashed against that particular reef, but Geer really built up an elaborate house of cards to support where he limited God (he rejected "God is All-Powerful" by limiting God's Knowledge, and that allows God to be Love but also Oblivious.) So, to Geer, that's the difference it made. Bullinger claimed it but didn't say it made any difference that I recall offhand.

*wild swing* "The Man from UNCLE"?

Yes, but if you have one, take it. I probably won't have one until the World Cup finishes.

"For our learning." "..is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction..." Same word in Greek. What was written aforetime was for our DOCTRINE. vpw took a single verse and ran with a whole doctrine- which is often a sign the verse didn't mean what he said it meant. Jesus endorsed Peter, Peter endorsed Paul. As text goes, that's good enough for me.

You can choose where to go and who to hang out with. It's unfair to judge everyone- and what they do all day- with what a handful of posts say in one thread that a few minutes were spent on. But you can prejudge everyone that way. There's posters who don't debate or argue- you're judging them based on posts they never made. And there's posters who disagree with the same posts you disagree with. "Wacky", you called them. Well, if you ever reconsider, you're welcome to return and try again. Perhaps you'll learn something.

The original poster may well think that. Some people do. Others do not. Don't be shocked to discover either in posters here. Oh, and learn to live with people disagreeing with you. In the real world, outside the cults, there's differences of opinions. There's morons who miss the obvious even when diagrammed in front of them, and there's brilliant insights we'd never imagined that were obvious to other people, Learn to evaluate it all. "Prove all things, hold fast to what is good." Sound advice, if strange to follow when in twi.

For the most part, I agree with you. (I'm sure I could find SOME far-out doctrines SOMEWHERE that don't seem to make even a little sense, but that doesn't count. Not even the people who say that vpw was getting revelation from God and pfal REPLACED the Bible.) Of course, there's no money in that doctrine, so don't be surprised that group leaders aren't pushing any form of eclecticism.

I agree with you on that, Keep in mind there's lots of positions represented by posters here, so don't be surprised if someone's posts sound like what you just said. Freedom to think and disagree tends to have side-effects like that.

What little time I spent live with him (and Sean, for that matter) made positive impressions on me. Then again, I can say the same of Geer, and he was nuts when I wasn't in the room with him. I know VF was defending Geer's "God doesn't know everything" doctrine even when he wasn't making sense doing it. (Really, VF? "Maybe God Almighty didn't know what the 'signs' meant in the Heavens when he MADE the 'signs'?" You mean He was following a careful design but He had no idea what He was designing or why?) Add that to the normal consequences of "you can lose your salvation" and it's a recipe for disaster. The questions are "when" and "how big" and "what type of disaster".

A) I agree, but not everyone here does. B) I agree again, but where there's people, I expect there will always be SOME caca, and I think it's referred to in prophecies of what's to come. C) I agree, and the splinters know there's lots of money in shoveling this caca around and selling it in one form or another.

You are correct. We all left twi, facing lcm's claim we'd all be "grease spots by midnight." Midnight has come and gone, and we're living our lives, thank you.

Of Some type or another, yes. Please keep in mind, however, that titles and categories are no excuse to stop thinking. I think more in terms of "covenants" than "dispensations", but I'm not interested in what's "standard" in "covenant theology" because I don't have to just jump on some bandwagon. If some doctrine makes sense to me, that's one thing. I'm not a fan of any theology in the same sense that sports teams have fans. So, technically, you're some type of Dispensationalist, and then go on to think for yourself concerning specifics. BTW, vpw would have HATED you to do the thinking for yourself, lcm and rfr also. So, every time you think for yourself, that's another poke in the eye for them, if you think of it that way.

You are correct. It's about diving the Bible into time periods, with different rules for different time periods. In Time Period A, Ruleset A applies, and in Time Period B, Ruleset A no longer applies but Ruleset B applies. And so on. That's independent on your beliefs about anything that happens IN them, or even which ones apply. Bullinger and wierwille both promoted them, but gave different lists. They vary widely depending on who you ask. Everyone here has a point of view and an opinion. Sometimes that leads to accidental errors of fact in a post (we're only human), and sometimes it leads to what's believed to be the truth despite not being factually correct (hey, we're only human.) So, yes, it's good to check. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalist_theology Naturally, you'll want to check if I'm right also. I'm only human. :)

Hello! I've been out of twi proper for about 25 years or so, with twi splinter groups being a few more years of personal history after that. I'm doing great, thanks. We're free to answer your questions. Keep in mind the answers will be a mixed bag. There's no mandatory POV here. So, the answers will range from erudite to frivolous, from deep to flighty, from casual to scientific, from reverent to blasphemous. After twi, the chance to hear from all sides should be a welcome surprise! Why would we stick around after getting on with our lives? Actually, I heard this one IN twi, but it made the rounds long before twi. In was probably published first in 1900 (it may have been published before that, however.) The Bridge Builder By Will Allen Dromgoole An old man going a lone highway, Came, at the evening cold and gray, To a chasm vast and deep and wide. Through which was flowing a sullen tide The old man crossed in the twilight dim, The sullen stream had no fear for him; But he turned when safe on the other side And built a bridge to span the tide. “Old man,” said a fellow pilgrim near, “You are wasting your strength with building here; Your journey will end with the ending day, You never again will pass this way; You’ve crossed the chasm, deep and wide, Why build this bridge at evening tide?” The builder lifted his old gray head; “Good friend, in the path I have come,” he said, “There followed after me to-day A youth whose feet must pass this way. This chasm that has been as naught to me To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be; He, too, must cross in the twilight dim; Good friend, I am building this bridge for him.”

TrustAndObey: "There are 2 covenants. Galatians 3 sets these forth. The one of promise, which Christ is the mediator of, which is by promise. The other has it's basis in the law. They both have been in effect. And they both are important until death has had it's final defeat. They both are good. Just because the law brings death, Romans still says it is considered good. And as Galatians 3 states, is it against the promise of God? No, it's not. They both are entirely important. But for different reasons. They are both entirely for everyone and for our benefit. But we, who are in Christ, have died to the one, that we might be made alive by the other. " I see it this way also, T&O. I think Galatians seems to address it more than once- since chapter 4 tackles it from a different angle.

"Israel"- Hebrew, "beloved of God." ("Theophilus"- Greek, "beloved of God.") Galatians 4 seems to match your thinking. It contrasts the Law with the Promise, and it contrasts Abraham's children of Hagar (the bondwoman) with Abraham's children of Sarah (children of the promise), and says that the Law is analogous to the children of the bondwoman and corresponds to the nation of Israel, while the Promise is analogous to the children of Sarah, and that's US. Galatians 4: 22ff "22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." =================================== That seems fairly straightforward to me, but it's not a universally-held read of those verses. Here's the same verses, with me commenting along. 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons[Ishmael and Jacob/Israel], the one by a bondmaid[Ishmael, Hagar's son], the other by a freewoman[Jacob/Israel, Sarah's son.]. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman[Ishmael] was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman[Jacob/Israel] was by promise. [Ishmael's existence was entirely due to an attempt to physically accomodate God without taking His promise literal- which would have been miraculous. Jacob/Israel's existence was entirely due to taking God's promise literally, it being a promise of a miracle.] 24 Which things are an allegory[They symbolize something]: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.[/b]["Answering to Jerusalem which now is" at the time of that writing was the literal 12 tribes of the nation of Israel. That corresponds to ISHMAEL, the child of the bondwoman, and they hold Mount Sinai as a huge deal.][/b] 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.[We are the children of promise, the children of The Promise of God- just as Jacob/Israel's existence as a son was entirely due to God's Promise. We correspond to Jacob/Israel, and a heavenly Jerusalem which is not a physical city on this planet.] 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. [God took care of Ishmael and he prospered-but nothing like the child of the promise prospered. Ishmael troubled Israel/Jacob then, and as of this writing, the Jews troubled the Christians. Both won't be dealt with on the same level any more than those were the first time. Jacob/Israel was a "type" of US, and Ishmael was a "type" of the Jews. ======================================= Really, I think that's pretty straightforward. However, I obviously don't speak for everyone.

*checks* I'm pretty sure that whole section will be rewritten. It was lacking citations, and neither the Wikipedia entry on Colu nor on Brainy show anything of that kind. I think both we and the writers had the appearance changes as a holographic device in use. Seriously, if he could shapechange, there would have been an actual instance of it, even a minor one. Someone jumped to the conclusion that he's completely artificial, AND his body is totally malleable, AND that his consciousness can just jump into machines and stuff. Again, we saw no evidence of that. And, frankly, he would be able to fly the entire spaceship if he could do it cybernetically.

Jamie Lee Curtis True Lies Arnold Schwarzenegger