WordWolf

What do you remember from this timeframe?

I'm waiting to see if there's any basis for it, myself, but so far, a case for it is still pending... Perhaps. Sounds like someone missed the relevance of it-possibly due to cutting this post in half, but it goes to the heart of the FOUNDATION of this subject. I'm open to hearing support for various positions, but that means the support must be OFFERED first.

"Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who." "Who is that?" "Must be a king." "How do you know?" "He hasn't got sh* all over him." According to the actors, that was an improvised line.... "...She's rich, she's got huge....tracts of land!"

I thought we were going to hear how you view those Scriptures, Galen. That IS what you volunteered for, when I asked and you responded, right?

No, but nice try. For a moment, I thought someone had just zoomed in and got it immediately. (No, that's not a clue or anything.)

Ok, so you either insist on skipping the rather straightforward explanations- which I've run through more than once- that showed that calling Jesus a "thing" lacked any merit, or you're determined to remain locked in to the KJV rendering of the verse and completely disregard the consistent usage of the word that meant he was a "holy one" and not a "holy thing". With that single-minded an approach, I'm unsure how honest and fair a dialogue we can have here. Seems we can't agree on the most basic elements of "what it says", which would be the foundation of later discussion of contents which is where we are trying to get eventually. For the sake of discussion, let's suppose we all agree that God exists and knows the future.What's the DIRECT relevance of that to the discussion at hand? (Feel free to lay as lengthy a foundation to get there, but please end with a direct answer to that, since it relates to why you're bringing it up.) Are you trying to suggest, imply or otherwise talk around what it means to be called a baby in Luke 1? Please just say whatever it is outright if you have an opinion or comment. Are you trying to suggest that John wasn't REALLY a baby when he was CALLED a baby? We still haven't established a foundation for discussion on this subject yet, and you're still bringing in irrelevant topics. Now I can't even find the pretext. Kindly hold off on that until we have a basis for discussing it. The subject will still be there later when there's a less-inappropriate time to invoke it. I could look Abigail's friend in the eye and say "Friend of Abigail? We're not ready to discuss your situation yet. I'll be happy to address it directly once more proximate subject have been covered. No point in discussing Trigonometry when arithmetic and algebra haven't been covered yet, since those form the foundations for discussing Trigonometry. Likewise, your topic is dependant upon EARLIER topics we haven't covered yet." ========= So, JohnIam, is there hope of you continuing with the more basic discussion on terms and definitions first, or will you remain content to formulate all terms as they please you, irregardless of the sense carried by them or evidence to the contrary? Your last post seemed to indicate the latter, but the former would be much appreciated at this time...

"Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who."

Matthew 23:23-28. "23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. 25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." Screaming at people for forgetting the placement of one preposition, and committing adultery and other sins at the same time. I think we know what Jesus would have said to that....

Nice to see the hope for a dialogue here! So, Galen, in the last few pages, and especially this page(3), we were discussing John the Baptist at 6 months, who was referred to as a baby. He most certainly was not even expected to be born for another 3 months, and certainly seems-in the womb as he is- to be far from taking any breath, first or no. How would you reconcile the account describing John the Baptist in "the Visitation" with a "first breath" being the beginning of a soul?

*wild swing* "K-Pax"??

Spider-Man Stan Lee X-2:X-Men United

Ok, I believe that, concerning the initial question on the table, the question as to what the Bible says on the subject, that we have divided the posters into 3 categories. A) those who dont care what it says, or consider what it says secondary to the moral issues involving the life of a mother, the life of a child, and the thousands of things related to that B) those who found that what the Bible says does NOT match what we were told in twi, and that God considers a "fetus" as a "baby" by the 6th month at the very latest, with no guarantee as to what He considers the fetus at 1st month, 2nd month, etc, which is still open to interpretation, but in any case, well short of the 9 months vpw gave as the "first breath" moment which he said was the moment that defined "baby" versus "potentially alive." C) those eager to defend vpw's position, preferably through obfuscation and changing of the subject. Is anyone still here who wishes to OPENLY attempt to defend that position at this time? Is there anyone here who believes vpw was correct and wishes to try to prove from Scripture that a stronger case can be made for his "first breath" position than for "alive" before that? By all means, please speak up and we can pursue this line of discussion further. Otherwise, it seems the others either think the answer is clearly otherwise, or are indifferent to it, or wish to conceal their position and pretend to discuss with little snipes and changes of subject.

If I thought that, I wouldn't be ASKING what you think about other Christians, I'd figure you'd spelled out how you felt about them. It's healthier to ask rather than jump to conclusions, anyway. One thing I AM aware of is that it can sometimes take DECADES to get clear of the twi "we are supreme!" attitude, and some never escape it. So, I prefer to get specific about it from time to time.

RumRunner, they can control the access to the books, but they can't control the access to ideas in the internet.

I don't know, does it? I think that was OUR question FIRST. Does one set of beliefs-to YOU-mean that all Christians with DIFFERENT beliefs are INFERIOR, WRONG and REPUGNANT? Some people would say yes, some people would say no, and some would mean yes but would obscure it in a cloud of oratory. I mean, we all think we're right, but what one says about those that are "wrong" tends to be more telling, to me, than just about anything.

Correct. I found that song expresses some thoughts I've never fully articulated. Your turn, Ca Dreaming!

Then I'll post the next one: "We may never never meet again, on that bumpy road to love But I’ll always, always keep the memory of"

Or, to put it differently.... There's no doubt that Christians inside twi have something to offer. They are born again believers, they have the spirit of God! God is not restricted entirely from twi, for truth and deliverance. Having said that, one main issue I contend with in going to a twi meeting-or that of an offshoot- is having to sit and listen to someone butcher the truth twice a week. Do they get things right, sure they do. Can some people be excited about their fellowship? Sure they can, some do. There is something to be said about doing your best to get to the truth with an aim towards continuing to grow. Religion is religion it tends to stagnate, whether it's got TWI's mark on it or Roman Catholic mark or whatever. The structure that VP put in place through the late 70's and into the 80's made TWI into just another religion because it allowed for the centralization of money and authority and well you know the rest of the story. I don't see this in the 1st century Church as recorded in the book of Acts. To answer the question "what is wrong with twi?", it's just a religous organization with a stagnated and limiting structure. There's nothing new under the sun. The adversary has been squashing real movements of God for centuries. Sure there are good hearted folks in twi, the same is true of its offshoots. We here just have a unique perspective on TWI that leads some to think that somehow those good hearted folks in Churches are somehow different from the ones still with TWI. I want to be where I am challenged in my understanding of God's Word and where I can be reproved and corrected when needed. For me that is NOT with any offshoot. Dont' misunderstand I don't hold to the offshoot like I did with TWI. I get the Word I need-and that's from OTHER Christians. It's all in your perspective, sometimes.

They could not unite. Highlander Syndrome- "There Can Be Only One." Two lions on the same hill. Think about it. ========== Now, someone claimed that Christian radio programs are run exclusively by know-nothings who just push denominational doctrines. I don't normally listen to them myself, but not for that reason. One time, I was packing for a ministry event the night before, and had a Christian radio station on in the background. I was concentrating on my packing, and only vaguely aware of the content of the show. One Christian was being interviewed, and giving his opinion on a variety of subjects from Scripture. After a few minutes of me nodding along and agreeing while packing, I finally stopped and focused on the radio. The guy had NO connections to twi/vpw/ whoever, but had been outlining one thing after another that I agreed with, all on different subjects. He also mentioned in passing that he spoke in tongues more than an hour a day. So, I'd say that guy and whoever put him on the radio, to name two, were not fitting into the usual straitjacket of "not twi, therefore garbage!" ====== Reminds me of that Scottish store in that Saturday Night Live skit. Their motto? "If it's not Scottish-it's CRAP!!!"

JohnIam: "In Acts 4:30, AFTER Jesus was born, he is called a holy CHILD. In Luke 1:35, BEFORE Jesus was born, when he was in utero, he is called a holy THING! Some versions of the bible tweak that verse to say holy one or holy child, but the greek is neuter, according to Bullinger. If it's neuter then it's not male or female. If it's not male or female it's not a child. I get mildly annoyed seeing those bumper stickers which say 'It's a child, not a choice'. If I had the means or the inclination I might alter the message to 'It's a fetus, not a child'." "To be fair, when John the Baptist was about to be born it says the BABE leapt in Elisabeth's womb. There. No partial birth abortions. If I could make law, I'd say all abortions must be performed before the end of the first trimester (13 weeks) the only exception being if a doctor concluded that the mother's life would be in danger later than that and that any doctor found to fraudulently sign off on that would permanently lose his med license." Ok, as to the second, I think JohnIam agrees with almost all of us on the second matter, that John the Baptist was referred to as a "babe" and not "a collection of cells", so that sometime BEFORE 9 months he would be considered a baby, which means that he counted as such sometime BEFORE "his first breath". (Which would mean an abortion at that point would be ending his life intentionally, which would be murder in the first degree.) Now, as to the former, JohnIam said =========== "In Acts 4:30, AFTER Jesus was born, he is called a holy CHILD. In Luke 1:35, BEFORE Jesus was born, when he was in utero, he is called a holy THING! Some versions of the bible tweak that verse to say holy one or holy child, but the greek is neuter, according to Bullinger. If it's neuter then it's not male or female. If it's not male or female it's not a child." =========== I'd like to proceed. ============ Oakspear: "According to the blue letter bible concordance, the phrase "that holy thing" is the single Greek word hagios - "thing" was added by the translators, and therefore has no authority. " ============= JohnIam: "It's been awhile since I read this, but yes the only greek for holy thing is hagios, yet in Bullinger's Lexicon and concordance to the NT he says the word hagios is neuter, hence the word thing. What? Are you pro life?" ============= Oakspear: "Actually I brought it up because I will not take anything as truth because Wierwille said it, not because of a position one way or another on abortion. For anyone who still has a good lexicon that lists the parts of speech for all words used in the NT: is johniam correct, is hagios is this case the neuter gender? What gender is used in other instances? Is the use of gender significant in this case? The actual form of hagios in this verse is hagion, and it is modifying the word gennōmenon, translated as "which shall be born". Earlier in the verse, "holy" is in the same form, hagion when modifying pneuma, spirit." ================ WordWolf: "I've wondered if anyone was ever going to bring that up. Actually, back in twi-timeframes, I was going verse-by-verse through the Greek on much of the New Testament. (I had the time.) I did look at this verse, Luke 1:35. It is true that the English calls Jesus "that holy thing". It also says "replenish" in Genesis, which has nothing to do with the Hebrew meaning of the word, "to fill". So, we look at the Greek. The most literal Greek I got from Luke 1:35 in that verse, from the phrase "holy thing", which was the Greek word "hagion", was "Holy One." That's because the plural of that word, "oi hagioi", is translated as "the saints." (My Bullinger's Critical Greek Lexicon notes that thus noun was used for "the saints" 61 times, and "saint" in the singular once.) This happens in the openings of several Church Epistles, like Romans 1:7, where the word "saints" in "to all those who are in Rome beloved of God called saints", the word "saints" is "hagiois". So Jesus, at the time of "the Annunciation" (Gabriel visiting Mary) was referred to as a "hagios", and I NOW am referred to as a "hagios". Either we are both a "thing" or we both are NOT. Basic English places a noun as a person, place or thing. Since I am a person, I am not a "thing", since I can't be both "person" and "thing" under basic definitions. (Unless one wants to split hairs and go into different specialist vocabularies in an effort to obscure the subject, anyway.) Therefore, since I'm a person or a "holy one" in that expression, so was he. That's using simple Bible cross-checking: the meaning in Luke 1:35 must agree with ALL usages in Scripture. And whether one is pro-life, pro-choice or pro-ball player when discussing what it actually SAYS is a nonissue." ============ JohnIam: "quote: so that sometime BEFORE 9 months he would be considered a baby, You don't know that. All we know is that shortly before John the Baptist's birth he was a babe, not a thing. quote: Which would mean an abortion at that point would be ending his life intentionally, which would be murder in the first degree.) At WHAT point? Shortly before his birth? or anytime before his birth? quote: So Jesus, at the time of "the Annunciation" (Gabriel visiting Mary) was referred to as a "hagios", and I NOW am referred to as a "hagios". What do you NOW have to do with Jesus in utero? I'm not really trying to pick a fight with you; as I said earlier, push comes to shove, I think the mother's life is priority over the fetus's. Even in the example of Abigail's friend. Your position on this is not clear. I have 3 kids. All 3 were born at home with a midwife. Our 3rd had the cord wrapped around his neck several times by the time he got to the birth canal. The midwife caught it and stuck 2 fingers in there and pryed the cord away from his neck so that he wouldn't suffocate when he crowned. I was there. Knowing what he has grown into, I don't even want to think of the idea of someone drilling a hole in his head at that moment thus ending his life, but I would have preferred that over having my wife die. You got kids, Wordwolf?" I said "sometime BEFORE 9 months he would be considered a baby" JohnIam replied "You don't know that. All we know is that shortly before John the Baptist's birth he was a babe, not a thing." Frankly, I'm amazed someone can read that and say you DON'T know that. Here's the account-which you YOURSELF CITED. Luke 1:41 "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" Luke 1:44 "For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." (Greek word 'brephos', which is also rendered "infant" or "young child" elsewhere.) So, since John was not born yet, he was considered a babe/baby. (I'm skipping any " 'babe does not mean baby thing' because I try not to get involved in discussions that are EXCEPTIONALLY stupid.) What month was he at? Well, according to Gabriel, 6 months. Luke 1:36. "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren." So, John the Baptist, at 6 months if not sooner, was considered a baby, which is some 3 months before "first breath" on the average. That's "sometime before nine months", so that darn well IS what we know. SINCE John the Baptist, at 6 months, was considered by God to be a babe and not a "thing", and therefore a person (a babe is a person, I believe MOST of us can see this without further elaboration) , then killing him is like killing any OTHER person, and planning to kill a person and doing so is Murder in the First Degree, under US Law. JohnIam then wanted to debate the precise point of gestation this would apply- but seems not to have agreed that this was the case. --------- When I pointed out God Almighty (by the mouth of Gabriel in the first place, and the pen of Paul in the second place) called Jesus and me by the same term-hagios, apparently this drew an exception. "What do you NOW have to do with Jesus in utero?" Well, I'll say it again. We're both people. God called Jesus a "hagios" when in the womb, at a point BEFORE 6 months. God called me a "hagios" as I am now. Therefore, GOD ALMIGHTY has drawn a connection between me NOW and Jesus THEN. Since as an adult I am a PERSON and not a THING, GOD ALMIGHTY has not "downgraded" all Christians into "things", he naturally refers to them as people or "ones", in this case "holy ones." That completely invalidates the poor translation of Jesus as a "hagios" into "holy THING". Jesus was a "holy ONE" at the time. QED. Therefore, the entire doctrine of claiming he was a THING based on ONE MISTRANSLED WORD is WITHOUT MERIT. GOD ALMIGHTY called it that way, and I for one am disinclined to disagree with Him on this. Feel free to disagree and tell Him "I believe vpw, not You" on this subject. ========= Now, as to exactly WHEN a baby is a person, and what to do when the life of a mother is in danger, and whether or not I have kids, this thread asked what GOD said, not what WORDWOLF said, and asked for avoidance of personal opinion. Therefore, before any other matter is discussed on this thread, by the rules of this thread, I'm addressing its designed purpose. So far, we have been unable to complete THAT issue, but instead have diverted from it to other issues FIRST. It's almost as if someone's disinterested in the stated purpose of the thread, or is making an effort to divert the thread. Me, I have to answer to my own conscience on this.

Despite the program and its attempts to make surrogate lcms and vpws of all its candidates, many Christians came out of it as great Christians. Let us not underestimate what this says about each of them. They were each quite a set of individuals to come through that fundamentally good Christians. Some even only cherry-picked out the good things in the progam. Amazing. They each had quite a heart for God, to have managed that.

I believe the title of the song is "Country In My Veins." I never had that song, so it's not on "Branded:A Lifetime."

I was operating under the assumption that VF knew about the rapes and stuff since he told someone to shush up. However, I now think it was a psychological blind-spot he showed later. Whenever anything controversial ever came up, his response was to embrace what was most harmonious, least-contentious. He seemed to think "that the ministry be not blamed" was an edict that meant to silence dissent regardless of the CONTENT. So, if you found a problem with "the establishment", his response was to silence the objection, and it would ALWAYS be so regardless of what the problem WAS. Of course, this strikes me as consistent with the current comments about "legalism", in that it means a slavish worship of the organization. It's also interesting that I also remember him responding to the firings, including his own, by saying "If I want organic unity, I'll join a bowling league", but was in his own way dedicated to organic unity as well when the microphone was off. And, of course, someone might claim that the off-microphone issues don't exist, since they contradict his press releases. Up to each person what conclusions they'd draw.

Worked fine with Firefox and Real for me. You would think that it would fail with one or the other if that was the case, since neither is a Windows product. Maybe you're overdue to update your browser or media player. I think it was on that subject that Monty Python had a viewer "write in", saying that he was beaten as a child, and never suffered any harm, except for the maladjustment and occasional blurred vision. (I forget the Monty Python episode.) This here clip was from an episode of South Park where the parents were convinced ALL the kids had ADHD and drugged ALL of them. Most or all of them were just fine once they went off the Ritalin and tried the "new experimental" behavioral method used by this Doctor.