WordWolf

Oftentimes what "regular" folk believe and what the theologians believe are two different things. Your typical "man on the street" Christian couldn't tell you why he believes what he believes, or explain any inconsistancies; Jesus = God or not. In some cases, he may not even know that much. Back in my twi days, I had a Roman Catholic agreeing with the twi position and surprised that there was a position like the one mentioned earlier-with Jesus co-equal with his Father. Part of the reason is the phrasing. I asked him things in plain English, and answered in plain English. He answered from his understanding. If I employed "buzz words", his answers would have been rote, and not from understanding.

If everything you said is true, I think there's a much simpler explanation for John's concern. You touched on it yourself. Incompatible "styles". Jesus himself said that critics would chatter endlessly regardless of the substance of matters. He said that John came neither eating nor drinking, and they criticized that. He said he (Jesus) came eating and drinking, and they criticized THAT. To my thinking, John seemed to lean more towards aseticism and abstinence from all sorts of things. He had a strict diet and strict conduct. Jesus, on the other hand, related to the people-he ate with publicans and sinners, tax collectors and lawyers. Who was right? They BOTH were, for different reasons. However, a pragmatist would favour Jesus' approach, and a moralist would favour John's approach.

Various iterations of the idiom of permission have been around for decades. I'm unclear where this was originally picked up from, but I suspect it was Bullinger. I am aware that others like the Christadelphians, are aware of this figure.

Actually, I was under the impression that the Kipp farm (her PERSONAL inheritance) had already been sold off. Am I wrong?

If past behaviour is an indicator of what they would have done, they would never have mentioned she was evicted from her home, nor that her health was failing, nor that she passed away until and unless they were getting ready to bury her at the Garden of Dead Trustees. Even then, the information would have been only partly truthful. Business as usual. I expect they blame us for the needto have announced anything at all. They've much preferred the "mushroom" strategy of leadership until now: keep the peons in the dark and apply fertilizer periodically.

Sometimes I throw that stuff in just to see who's paying attention. :D--> It's approximately how I see it, however.

Sunesis erroneously thinks NO trinitarian thinks Christ IS God. This is wrong. SOME of them believe that. I've listened to them say it OUTRIGHT. I've no doubt SOME trinitatians believe that, but I know of some that do NOT. Just as there were multiple opinions in the early centuries, there's differences of opinion even among trinitarians. SOME of them do, some of them mean it LITERALLY and SPECIFICALLY. As far as I'm concerned, whether a Christian believes in the pre-Trib, mid-Trib or post-Trib position, he is still a Christian. If a Christian believes in charismata, "gifts" or "manifestations" present now, or is a cessationist, he is still a Christian. If a Christian believes salvation can be lost, or in OSAS, he is still a Christian. If a Christian is a trinitarian or not, he is still a Christian. I've heard numbers of Christians of different positions declare categorically that all Christians whose doctrines (these or others) are different from theirs are not TRULY Christians. I've heard it, and I shall hear it again. I consider it overly simplistic and incorrect. Therefore, all those who dismiss other Christians are themselves not Christian. (That was a joke. As I see it, they're ALL Christians.) Please note I'm not saying there aren't things that exclude one from being a Christian-just that the things most people call "deal-breakers" are nothing of the kind. P.S. Sunesis- I meant no insult by disagreeing with you-I just disagree.

WHICH reading makes more sense in a clear, straight-forward way? According to you, the verses around it, plus that verses, would read something like this.... Matthew 11:7-12, 15 (street version) Sounds like YOUR version has a 180-degree twist in the middle. "John's more than a prophet, he's the fulfilment of a prophecy, he's the biggest S.O.B. in history, he's the Elijah who was foretold." Everything EXCEPT your 'verse' fits together neatly. "John's more than a prophet, he's the fulfilment of a prophecy. He's the Elijah who was foretold." That's the OPPOSITE of what your "verse" said. Now, if you want to believe that this type of 180-degree reverse from sentence to sentence happens all the time-like TWICE in the verses if you are correct- than that is your privilege. However, I don't go around with that low a set of expectations when reading books written for 5-year-olds, and I certainly don't have it for the Gospels.

She meant some people haven't gotten this out of their system yet, Oakspear, so you'll have to wait until they do. gladtobeout, I appreciated the information. To me, it was worth passing along, and not worth continuing to discuss once it had been passed along. So, for all I care, this is a closed subject. For all some OTHER people care, this is NOT. So, I will have to wait this out as well. Perhaps some people will benefit from getting this out of their systems.

Wherein is believed a general resurrection of both OT folks and Christians at the same time? That's the post-tribber position. The pre-tribber position makes a distinction between Born-Again Ones (aka the Kingdom of Heaven) and the OT folks. Hebrews 11 lists amazing things about those before Pentecost. It says (11:38) that the world was not worthy of them. That's not an insult. It ends (11:39-40) "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." John the Baptist didn't survive to the Day of Pentecost either, thus he did not receive the promise-and the world was not worthy of HIM, either. Revelation 21:4 spoke of those beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God, and their resurrection, the first resurrection, the resurrection of life, the resurrection of the just. But was John actually beheaded for that reason? Danny He was definitely beheaded for the witness of the word of God. Did he bear witness of Jesus? John 1 says he did. 1:15 "John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, 'This was he of whom I spake, he that cometh after me is preferred before me:for he was before me.' The rest of the chapter makes the same point-I trust it's not necessary for me to quote it. Going back to what Jesus said of John, then.... If the Gospels are to be believed, then Jesus made a statement of fact concerning the Kingdom of Heaven, which was not to say John was inferior (duh). That would make his claims John was "more than a prophet" and "Elijah which was for to come", prophesied of, SENSELESS. EVERYBODY, especially the disciples, knew who John was, and knew he was a heavy hitter. John was big news, and controversial for it. Using John as a comparison wasn't to make John look less, it was to use an obvious measure to explain an UNKNOWN QUANTITY (the Kingdom of Heaven.) If I was trying to explain how hard an unknown boxer hits, and I said "he hits like Mike Tyson and weaves like Mohammed Ali", I would explain an UNKNOWN by comparing him to the known. This would NOT insult Tyson and Ali. Mike Tyson is famous for throwing a heavy punch, and Mohammed Ali is famous for his speed "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee", and his famous "rope-a-dope"). By using THEM as a comparison, I am saying he's as strong and as fast as the famous greats. Similarly, if I sang "Superman and Green Lantern ain't got nothing on me", I would not be saying they were powerless, I would be comparing MYSELF to characters famous for having surpassing ability. (I'd also be making a BIG brag.) I haven't seen any evidence to support any claim of otherwise. Jesus respected his cousin, and mourned his death.

"We weren't sure at first what to make of this, but we developed a theory. We feel that when people committed great crimes against the state, they were forced to watch this." "Yes. That's exactly what it was." CORRECT! Sleeper was about a 20th-century schmoe accidentally frozen cryogenically, then thawed out centuries later. In one of his early scenes, someone asks him about various artifacts from the 20th-century. He "explains" pics of Stalin, Lugosi, DeGaulle, and some other things, including a video clip of Cosell. I remember a more distinct line: "Don't move, or the nose gets it!" but I MAY have misremembered the line, so I didn't use it. I couldn't confirm the line. George got that one (and pretty fast, I might add.)

Ok, new movie then. "I'm not really the heroic type. I was beat up by Quakers." "This was Josef Stalin. He was a communist. I was not too crazy about him, had a bad moustache, a lot of bad habits. This is Bela Lugosi, he was, he was the mayor of New York City for a while, you can see what it did to him there, you know. This is uhm, this is Charles de Gaulle, he was a very famous French chef, he had his own television show, showed you how to make souffles and omelets and everything."

I feel it's not complete without something like "and when he stepped forward, the sun shone directly on him, even at night." Mrs W. Hm. When she walks, she walks on the ground. Now, I KNOW someone will want to comment on this...

I'd agree that people who pay SOMETHING feel more of an obligation to see a class through. I also think it is sensible to recover the costs of the textbooks. However, at $40, I paid RETAIL for the materials. That meant that the class was organized to turn a PROFIT on the materials. (All expenses except the tapes and books were donated, so the only costs were the books-which were sold-and the tapes.) Those of you paying $50, $100 or $200 were basically shaken down for whatever money could be gotten from you. LOCAL "peon" believers were always the noteworthy people in the ministry. People barely able to scrape together the $40 have been given Bibles and other assistance, and I've seen people offer to pay the full expense for near-strangers. It was always hq that watched the purse-strings and made sure they got "their cut." Frankly, it was STUPID of them to charge more than the cost of the materials from a Christian AND a monetary point of view. (This information won't help them NOW because the horse ran out, so shutting the barn door is useless now.) With faithful members supposedly tithing 10% of their income, paying donations at EVERY big meeting, attending ROAs and spending money there, buying books and taking OTHER classes, the SMART thing would have been to make it easier for MORE people to take it. Then again, the money was actually secondary to the blind loyalty. So they traded exposure and numbers for a smaller, more fanatical group. That continues to this day. The current group is the most fanatical, and numberwise, they can barely displace water in a hot tub. But they're loyal, these members. Both of them.

The answers to that are very simple. They are STILL the same tight-assed, overlegalistic organization that makes the power of God of little effect thru their tradition. They STILL wield autocratic power and lord over the peons. They are still whitewashing the sepulchre and keeping it full of dead men's bones. The ONLY difference is that the GSC is THE public forum where twi CURRENT members and FORMER members come for news. Thus, whenever we report an outrage, twi has to deal with the fact that something they were trying to hide has suddenly had 8000 watt spotlights on it. Thus, they begin the spin control or loosen the reins a bit. They shoved mrs w in a nursing home quietly. It was reported here and all heaven broke loose. Their press was so bad they actually tried addressing people HERE to calm things down. The slave wages, absence of social security, and absence of health coverage of staff have been discussed many times. So, there have been some steps in some of them. If they weren't topics here, I'm certain NONE of that would have happened.

It is interesting twi put this on their website. Does this mean even us copouts can go and pay respects without getting arrested? Possibly. Me, I'm wondering how she lost her first name in their "memorial" of "her".

*listens to crickets chirp* Ok, that was Andromeda's riddle from Clash of the Titans.

Bladerunner is the famous exception. Director's Cuts are usually thought of as "how the director WANTED the film to air, but the studio demanded..." cuts to shorten the movie, or simplify it, or to remove gore or explicit sex or something else. Thus a director's cut for Lord of the Rings includes scenes cut to shorten the movies, the director's cut for "Cursed" seems identical except for about 2 seconds of violence, and so on. BladeRunner ADDED something for the Theatrical Version- the voiceover narration- because the story can be difficult to follow without it. The first Harry Potter movie has a few incidental scenes that have been aired on commercial tv, which were left out of the theatrical version-cousin Dudley in his school uniform, the business with the egg carton, etc. Nothing critical to the story. So, it can mean different things for different movies, but generally it means something added that was left out of the theaters.

Sure... but I want my concordance in front of me so I can doublecheck what I said LAST time on this subject. I know there's high-tech stuff, but I still prefer thumbing thru the big book.

There's also the people who've suggested that Jesus was having homosexual relations with all or some of the 12 Apostles. What lends a certain weight to the theory of John the Baptist and Jesus having possibly been rivals (though I haven't encountered the notion that their rivalry actually led to one murdering the other),- in contrast to some of other zany beliefs you noted - is the existence of the Mandaean sect that exalts John the Baptist over Jesus. E.S. Drower had translated many of the Aramaic Mandaean scriptures that indeed confirms the belief of this sect, which claims its descendants to have emigrated from Palestine following the fall of Jerusalem. Then there are some peculiar lines preserved in our scriptures which might suggest traces of such a rivalry, as for example, Luke 7:28 - "I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." It's a rather bizarre way to speak of one's supposed pre-cursor. As if to say, "he's the greatest guy born into this world but he doesn't even amount to the lowest in God's kingdom." Danny It makes perfect sense in light of the end of Hebrews 11 and the beginning of Revelation 20. Unless you're a post-tribber or amillenialist. John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod before Pentecost. The kingdom of God was a substantial upgrade to the existing "prophet" package. John the Baptist was as good as a prophet could possibly get- until the next-generation "Kingdom of God" package was released. Had he received the upgrade, that statement would no longer have applied to him. Frankly, I think he would have been tops in the post-Pentecost church in that event. Being beheaded for the witness of Jesus threw a monkeywrench into that.

There's also the people who've suggested that Jesus was having homosexual relations with all or some of the 12 Apostles. Dan Brown claimed Mary Magdalene had kids with Jesus, with Jesus having sex out of wedlock and choosing not to marry her. Just because someone holds an idea, I DON'T have to seriously consider it.

The suggestion that the Gospels support the idea that Herod was fine with John the Baptist living, and it was Jesus' idea to kill her, is ridiculous and easily refuted by reading them. Luke 3:19-20. Matthew 14:3-11. Jesus faced the news (verse 12) by trying to go alone to pray. (verse 23.) Mark 6:14-28. So, if the Gospels are to be believed, Herod the tetrarch was a sick puppy who saw his brother's wife and wanted to know her, and PLANNED for it. John the Baptist said "No dice-adultery is wrong!" so Herod sent him to prison. (Hm, this sounds familiar. Guy gets in trouble for saying adultery is wrong...) Herod put him in prison and WANTED to kill him but was worried the people would produce an uprising. (In Herod's time, that was the most annoying single thing for a tetrarch to have to handle, uprisings.) Herodias was a sick puppy who wanted to know her husband's brother, and PLANNED for it. John had angered her by saying "No dice- adultery is wrong". He was in prison, but she sought his death. So, she figured out how to trick Herod into agreeing to kill John the Baptist. She used Salome, her daughter. This plan worked, and Herod killed John, which Jesus regretted. This is NOT difficult to understand. Why would I believe this is false but that woman's made-up "interpretation" was true?

No he wasn't. That should tell you a lot about her "objectivity". The Pharisees certainly noticed him, as did Herod. Using that same logic, one would say that Raf and I are "rivals", because we studied together and worked together at one point, and now do not. Or it happened the way it says in the Gospels: John's ministry started 6 months ahead of Jesus', John baptized Jesus, and maybe they hung out some here and there. They BOTH certainly would have benefitted from the company of each other. (How many other people REALLY understood either of them?) This is evidence of a feud? I think Jesus, of all people, would be the LAST person to insult someone based on whether or not his genetic parents were married or not. I imagine someone could find a way to think Jesus was insulting John the Baptist if they were not reading WHAT IS WRITTEN. Rather than mention the words, how about reading them IN THEIR CONTEXT? Matthew 11:7-15. Jesuswas saying a lot about his COUSIN. He said John was prophesied of old, and that he was a super-prophet. No, (Matthew 9:14) it was a direct answer to John's disciples, who wanted to upbraid Jesus for not fasting. Right, we know her name, also. She's got a bad reputation.The gospels mention her but not by name. There are several possible reasons for this, but she seized on one as if it was the only possible one. "A" Salome is a disciple of Jesus mentioned TWICE-Mark 15:40 and Mark 16:1. There's also at least 2 Marys in the SAME verses, and neither is Jesus' mom. There's 2 Ananais' in Acts-Saphira's husband and the one who was sent to Paul. There's a Saul in Acts and one who's King of Israel before David. Somehow, though, she jumped to the conclusion this is the ONLY Salome in all of Palestine. Am I supposed to take this writer seriously? Or maybe it wasn't in the original Gospel at all. Judging from her sloppy work so far, I'm dubious as to ANY claim she makes. If so, the daughter of Herodias, an evil woman, who saw nothing wrong with seducing an evil man who was her UNCLE, or having John the Baptist KILLED, is perfectly comfortable as a disciple of Jesus-John's COUSIN. And Jesus is comfortable with her around while she's complicit in a murder...which, this writer asserts, was something Jesus WANTED. This "Jesus" she knows is foreign to me, and she does not know MY Jesus. Or she had nothing to do with it beyond what was mentioned.That IS the most obvious explanation.

I think Mike's done on this thread. Still want to know my 2 cents on these verses?

Hello, Jack! --> *raises eyebrow* ========= I'll make the semi-obvious shot. Cameron Diaz There's Something About Mary Ben Stiller