Raf

A brief timeout to answer this question, which I overlooked when it was originally posted. It is correct that I put no credence in scripture as far as its truthfulness. It would be incorrect to say I don't think there is any coherent message to be found in its pages. I believe the Bible teaches what it teaches. Sometimes it's contradictory. Often it's not. But in any event, I think one can look at the Bible fairly and come to a conclusion about what it teaches, even without believing it. I believe in a very real, tangible way that the Bible teaches an absent Christ and that the Word is the only thing that takes the place of the absent Christ in a manner outside the subjective control of someone claiming to experience him. That I believe it's a bunch of hooey is rather besides the point, as OldSkool correctly noted in the remainder of the post I just quoted. To wit: [Emphasis mine] If you can't see my point scripturally, then I have failed to communicate it. If you don't agree with my point, fine by me. I'm not exactly disagreeing with yours. In doctrinal, I tend not to challenge the authority of scripture (now and then, as an aside, but not generally). This forum is trying to get at what the Bible actually teaches. That's what I tried to get at. That I don't believe it anymore has no bearing on what it teaches.

Here's the thing. We all agree that Christ is, in some way, absent. In what ways? Well, physical presence, but it would be silly to think that is all. He is also absent in his authority. If you and I have a dispute in that we think he means, we cannot go to him to resolve the dispute. So how do we resolve it? By spirit? Sure, except my spirit tells me I'm right and your spirit tells you that you're right, so how is the third person, who is neither you nor I, able to ascertain who is correctly interpreting the will of God in Christ? Easy. The Word takes the place of the absent Christ. See, that's the issue. When you list the ways in which Christ remains present, none are objective. All depend on the person interpreting his presence. And if two people disagree and one of them is wrong, the only way to know that is... The Word. Any Christ who is inconsistent with his Word is QED inaccurate. ... "God limits himself..." I find that statement to be accurate in the sense that God limits himself according to the requirements of the plot of the story being told by the author. :)

Almost forgot. The remake of Dawn of the Dead was helmed by Zack Snyder.

Apparently I was writing this but never finished it: There's broadcast and there's streaming. And there's the third basic option. Cable. Cable opens it up to A&E, AMC, FX, Freeform, TBS, TNT, ETC (which isn't a network but should be). So it's a cable show. Based on a classic movie that had official and unofficial sequels that are all fairly well known. EVERYONE has heard of the original movie. I would wager just as many have heard of the first official sequel. The rest, not so much. By the way, the original and first official sequel were both remade decades later. The director of the first remake has had a less than distinguished career. You've likely never heard of him. You've heard of the director of the sequel remake... And that's as far as I got. So if I'm not mistaken in how I phrased it, I was looking for the movies and official/unofficial sequels, which Wordwolf got right, complete with analysis. But The Walking Dead (and Fear the Walking Dead, and Walking Dead World Beyond, and at least three upcoming spinoffs) was the tv show. If you've never seen Return of the Living Dead, it is absolutely hilarious (and gory, and sick, and yuck). Anyhow, you guys can debate who goes next.

Charity, I do not believe we have been properly introduced. Quick primer: Modcat5 and I are the same person. Which account I use depends on which device I'm using at a particular time. I have a decades old reputation for refusing to accept or discard doctrines merely because of their source. As such, Wierwille apologists appreciate it when I've got his back, and his critics tend to (at the least) consider an alternative point of view when I defend him. I was the lead source of two major threads way back one, one of which reviewed The Bible Tells Me So [the Blue Book] chapter by chapter, ferreting out what I believed was right and wrong with what was taught, and Actual Errors in PFAL, a thread that demonstrated conclusively that PFAL and the other writings of Wierwille did not live up to Wierwille's own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. Mike has been in denial of it ever since. Some time ago I came to the realization that I am no longer a believer in God or Christ or any of those people. But that doesn't stop me from being able to see what the Bible actually says. So when I weigh in, by all means, have a grain of salt.

I'd like to reboot the thread, maybe make it a little less Mikish and a little more what were we talking about again? No longer having a stake in the "rightly-divided" answer opens up various avenues of exploration. I've seen you guys discussing this "absent Christ" issue for years now, and I honestly don't even remember the various things I've said about it. Is it possible, in my desire to find fault with VPW, that I hopped on the "how dare he say Christ is absent" bandwagon? It would have been easy. CES (STFI, John Lynn, Schoenheit, et al) criticized the "absent Christ" doctrine without overly criticizing Wierwille. I know I've recently said some variation of the following, and I stand by it: To some extent, Christ MUST be absent, or anticipating his return would be rather pointless. At the last supper, Jesus says do this "in remembrance" of me. You don't "remember" something that's present. You recognize it. You acknowledge it. You don't remember it. Christ must in some way be absent. But let's go a little further (as I believe some of you have). The Bible does not speak of a "return" of Christ, or a "second coming." The word translated "coming" is better translated "presence," as in, it's his presence, not his return, that is the hope of the Christian. Now you may say, same thing. And I may agree, except God (or Paul, or whoever chose the word paraousia) has a purpose for everything he says... So if your hope is in his return (Biblically, his presence), then the current state of affairs must necessarily imply, in some manner, his absence. So I don't think the "absent Christ" is unBiblical at all. It's the present Christ that needs defending, for if he is currently present, how can his presence be your hope? And yes, I understand there are ways in which he is present as well. They've been articulated effectively. The problem, as I see it, is this need to have one answer be correct and the other incorrect, when the Bible clearly teaches both. He is present with us by way of (the H)holy (S)spirit [I am not taking sides on that one]. He is present with us in prayer. He is the Word, and as such is present where his word is taught. "The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is a problematic statement, but not because it posits an absent Christ. The Bible posits an absent Christ. "The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is problematic because it doesn't. At least not completely. No one thing takes the place of the absent Christ. But all these things together do. The Word. The spirit. Fellowship. Prayer. Love. Mercy. The manifestation of the spirit. The fruitage of the spirit. YOU. YOU take the place of the absent Christ. Isn't God wonderful?

Anyone have any idea when the last post about The Absent Christ was?

That's the one.

Don't patronize me.

Way off

You need therapy man. This s#it isn't worth the pixels.

Trying to catch up on the shows I never quite got into. Batwoman. The last seasons of Supergirl. Superman and Lois (which seems to be pretending it was never part of the Arrowverse, which is fine).

Ok, the broken toe was too easy. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. It's when Aragorn kicks the burnt orc's helmet and lets out a howl that was not in the script.

What is wrong with you? Here's how you handle that: "Oh, I see. Sorry about that. Thanks for clearing it up." And then "Please stop it"? You should have followed that advice first instead of acting like it's on the rest of us. It's on you. You said something incorrect. You were corrected. You doubled down. You were corrected again. THAT'S ON YOU, not us. And if you have a problem with continuing the discussion, ending the discussion is on you too. We're not children. Stop treating us like we are. ... Whatever, Next. ... A funny thing happened to the copyright on this series of movies. Someone accidentally left the copyright notice off the original. At the time, that put the movie in the public domain and cost the producers $millions. A handful of movies are considered official sequels, with the same director and writer. There are other movies that serve as sequels, the first of which was written by a co-writer of the original. The two writers amicably agreed to distinguish their sequels from each other by the inclusion or omission of a single word in the title of each. A handful of current TV series owe their existence to the original (and the failure to copyright it).

You're thinking of Kids. It's not Kids.