Thanks for making me think so much! But maybe thinking is not such a good thing, because it might lead to knowledge, which is apparently a bad thing. Good grief.
DrWW, it is almost comical that you would think I am prideful. TWI knocked the pride right out of me, and I am just now starting to get a little bit of it back. Pride is really good stuff, an honor to God who made us. The Bible says pride comes before a fall, but it also comes after a fall ... slowly ... when you start to get back up on your feet, and then gradually gradually you look back and see what pushed you down. Without pride, I would still be cleaning toilets for the Way Ministry.
Now tell me THIS is not prideful:
"To imply the Bible (i.e. Paul's revelations) is not needed to know God's wisdom is inane".
You said that.
This makes it very clear that you totally reject any other belief system outside of Christianity. This is religious pride, which is absolute exclusivism, the basis for "mark and avoid" mentality. Exclusivism, while preached by Paul, is the OPPOSITE of the teachings of Christ. Exclusivism is why the first word in TWI was "The"; it says right there in its name, that it is THE way, implying there is no other way.
At the risk of sounding prideful again, I want to share with you that I am a midwife, and have delivered hundreds of little humans, whose parents represent many different belief systems. You will not convince me that those who were non-Christian families do not know about God's wisdom. Every mother I have ever attended - Islamics, Pagans, Jews, Crees and Sioux and Crow Indians - turned to God for help with birthing. These families have deepened my own beliefs in the power of God and how INCLUSIVE His love is.
I respect your freedom to choose your view of holy things. Clearly your view will not accept any doubts about Paul. Quite honestly, I'm still checking it out, open to your input for sure, but not likely to buy all of it. It gets hard to hear each other when the words get personal. I apologize for any apparent sarcasm.
So let me say it this way: I really do think I - and anyone who has read the gospels - would understand that God looks on the spirit. Heck, we learned that back in David's story, so you see Paul wasn't so clever in coming up with this concept. It wasn't such a stunning new idea.
And then there's the argument about Paul's insights into the "Great Mystery". Aw come on, DrWW, haven't you seen the movie, "the Secret"? It's an overly simplistic presentation of exactly what TWI taught about the "Great Mystery".
My Lakota friend will tell you that the "Great Mystery" is also a Native tradition, so-named because it is something we don't understand, can't understand, and shouldn't even try to understand, because then it wouldn't be a mystery any more. Paul, however, claimed to understand it, and so did VPW.
Well, now I've said too much. I sure enjoy integrating all these posts into my ... um ... knowledge.
You are mistaken in that you used a dictionary for the word from the bible instead of actually doing some searches for different ideas and meanings. The bible is NOT the only source for truth.
A slew of links? I gave you two.
If you don't want to learn more about it that's fine.
But you are the one who said someone else didn't know what they were talking about.
When it's actually you not understanding what the person is talking about.
And seemingly, you do not want to look any further then the bible.
Which is a big mistake imo, there is so much to be learned from many sources.
And God's hand can be seen in them if you look.
Most are afraid or just stubborn to consider other ideas and facts.
For a variety of reasons, which I could list.
But I'd rather just say be honest and consider more then you think you can.
Cause it is within you to look and consider without much effort.
If someone else does it for you then you won't get much from it.
What is this all about?
I CLEARLY laid out my definition of what gnosticism (from my stand point) meant...
Where did I get my definition? Not from wikipedia but long ago I studied it in the new advent Catholic encyclopedia. Several days of reading the various links...
The "Roman" Catholics (of which I am not one and never been one) trace gnosticism back to Buddha... I believe this...
The illustrious one and holiness based upon knowledge and life experience rather than holiness based upon the works of God?
You write a paragraph and dissect my method and you do not even address the substance of my post.
Hmmm...
Now in any of your two link is the connection to Buddha revealed?
Probably not.
I rest my case.
Don't believe everything you read on the net.
Much of it (regarding faith) is shallow and grossly uninformed.
Wikipedia also has the statue of liberty defined as pagan symbol too while it was made by devout Christian masons...
Figure that one out... I had to on my own with NO help from the wiki...
Nowhere in the net will you find an article revealing the Christian symbolism of the statur... Even the so called Christian sites on the net don't describe the statue as a Christian symbol.
They all point to early pagan America and do not even wonder what law tablets she is holding in her hand. What are the chains at her feet, Greek tyranny???
It is the law of liberty of the new testament... (You will not find this information in wikipedia or on any other website...)
My father was a 14th level grand Mason and my mother a worthy matron of the "eastern star" (which represents Christ Jesus) and I know first hand how "Christian" the Masons really can be. The Masons carry on the same tradition of protecting the faith (even if in only symbolism) as the Teutons did during the crusades.
Wikipedia is dumb when it comes to spiritual matters and I hold little hope that it will change soon.
Excerpt from wikipedia...
"the Statue of Liberty appears to draw inspiration from il Sancarlone or the Colossus of Rhodes."
Thanks for making me think so much! But maybe thinking is not such a good thing, because it might lead to knowledge, which is apparently a bad thing. Good grief.
DrWW, it is almost comical that you would think I am prideful. TWI knocked the pride right out of me, and I am just now starting to get a little bit of it back. Pride is really good stuff, an honor to God who made us. The Bible says pride comes before a fall, but it also comes after a fall ... slowly ... when you start to get back up on your feet, and then gradually gradually you look back and see what pushed you down. Without pride, I would still be cleaning toilets for the Way Ministry.
Now tell me THIS is not prideful:
"To imply the Bible (i.e. Paul's revelations) is not needed to know God's wisdom is inane".
You said that.
This makes it very clear that you totally reject any other belief system outside of Christianity. This is religious pride, which is absolute exclusivism, the basis for "mark and avoid" mentality. Exclusivism, while preached by Paul, is the OPPOSITE of the teachings of Christ. Exclusivism is why the first word in TWI was "The"; it says right there in its name, that it is THE way, implying there is no other way.
At the risk of sounding prideful again, I want to share with you that I am a midwife, and have delivered hundreds of little humans, whose parents represent many different belief systems. You will not convince me that those who were non-Christian families do not know about God's wisdom. Every mother I have ever attended - Islamics, Pagans, Jews, Crees and Sioux and Crow Indians - turned to God for help with birthing. These families have deepened my own beliefs in the power of God and how INCLUSIVE His love is.
I respect your freedom to choose your view of holy things. Clearly your view will not accept any doubts about Paul. Quite honestly, I'm still checking it out, open to your input for sure, but not likely to buy all of it. It gets hard to hear each other when the words get personal. I apologize for any apparent sarcasm.
So let me say it this way: I really do think I - and anyone who has read the gospels - would understand that God looks on the spirit. Heck, we learned that back in David's story, so you see Paul wasn't so clever in coming up with this concept. It wasn't such a stunning new idea.
And then there's the argument about Paul's insights into the "Great Mystery". Aw come on, DrWW, haven't you seen the movie, "the Secret"? It's an overly simplistic presentation of exactly what TWI taught about the "Great Mystery".
My Lakota friend will tell you that the "Great Mystery" is also a Native tradition, so-named because it is something we don't understand, can't understand, and shouldn't even try to understand, because then it wouldn't be a mystery any more. Paul, however, claimed to understand it, and so did VPW.
Well, now I've said too much. I sure enjoy integrating all these posts into my ... um ... knowledge.
I am glad your "um ... knowledge" can be a new found form of selfish pride. You admonish human pride and the scriptures, Godly pride seems foreign to your reckoning.
1Corrinthians 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Comment: You can deny the wisdom of God for your own it is not my choice to make for you.
It was your choice that you scrubbed toilets and likewise your choice to now scrub the gutter seeking your own pound of flesh.
I might recommend in all meekness and my own humility that you stop blaming others and God for your own poor decisions in life. The way ministry did not hold you against you own will... I am well aware of this because I was there too.
These are harsh words spoken in love, I do care about you and your own delicate plight but should I kowtow to you at the expense of the truth? Is this what you want?
How could the mystery of "God in Christ in you" have been known before Christ?
When I started this thread, I mentioned that the teachings of Paul are the basis of many (if not most) of the divisions among Christians, the long-standing bickerings and finger-pointing and accusations, which can all be summed up in one word: "condemnation".
Of course, Paul states that there is no condemnation for those who are Christians, and then he proceeds to condemn and cut off and legislate and "confound" the early church.
The condemnation in this thread just proves my point - about the divisiveness and about how sad it is that Christ-followers have become just plain hateful to each other.
Yes, DrWW, I did scrub toilets because I wanted to. And I was made homeless because I wanted to. And I lost my daughter because I wanted to. You are a sick man. Or are you a woman? Paul said there is no gender. Whatever you are, you are a Paulist, and you have beautifully validated much of my speculations in this thread.
Paul said a little wine is good for us. I think we both need a little wine.
Whether gnostics have some hertiage that traces back to Buddah is somewhat irrelevant. Almost all religions have borrowed and swapped from each other. Christianity has its roots in Judaism and has borrowed much from paganism. Native American religions, Judaism, Christianity, also have much in common. Even Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have a lot of common ground.
It seems like you close yourself off to an awful lot. That is sad and I can't help but wonder why.
Joseph Campbell has some great writings on comparative religions. I somehow suspect you wouldn't be overly interested in reading his works though.
When I started this thread, I mentioned that the teachings of Paul are the basis of many (if not most) of the divisions among Christians, the long-standing bickerings and finger-pointing and accusations, which can all be summed up in one word: "condemnation".
Of course, Paul states that there is no condemnation for those who are Christians, and then he proceeds to condemn and cut off and legislate and "confound" the early church.
The condemnation in this thread just proves my point - about the divisiveness and about how sad it is that Christ-followers have become just plain hateful to each other.
Yes, DrWW, I did scrub toilets because I wanted to. And I was made homeless because I wanted to. And I lost my daughter because I wanted to. You are a sick man. Or are you a woman? Paul said there is no gender. Whatever you are, you are a Paulist, and you have beautifully validated much of my speculations in this thread.
Paul said a little wine is good for us. I think we both need a little wine.
The only condemnation in this thread that I detect thus far is "people" condemning the apostle Paul...
My point is that I simply don't agree... Is that ok?
I reserve making such a sweeping judgment of the work as to simply declare it null and void because the task that is necessary to understanding it is too difficult to easily perceive.
Paul had a difficult task and he gave us the most honest and forthright part of himself.
Your argument is the subservience of the wife to the husband then why should the husband be subservient to God? It is marriage and as I said he also said that there was "neither male nor female"... 2000 years later and the world still has a battle of the sexes going on. You really can't call him sexist when he declares there is neither male nor female... Had they only listened...
He spoke of "cultural norms", lust and hate and his own "thorn in the flesh". Theses are certainly not easy subjects to handle. Cut him some slack, especially if you expect others to do the same for you.
I tend to think that the writings of Paul are so mystical that they may take a few (or many) more years before the world really begins to understand them in a collective consciousness.
I know I spend almost every day thinking the same thoughts that rolled over in his mind so if that makes me an imitator of him I don't know how more of an impression he could have left on the world. Namely my world that is.
Whether gnostics have some hertiage that traces back to Buddah is somewhat irrelevant. Almost all religions have borrowed and swapped from each other. Christianity has its roots in Judaism and has borrowed much from paganism. Native American religions, Judaism, Christianity, also have much in common. Even Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have a lot of common ground.
It seems like you close yourself off to an awful lot. That is sad and I can't help but wonder why.
Joseph Campbell has some great writings on comparative religions. I somehow suspect you wouldn't be overly interested in reading his works though.
My point was to not just disagree and post links, whole books...
I hope the collective consciousness is moving toward inclusiveness, respect and appreciation of other's beliefs, not the type of exclusion seen in some forms of religion(Like TWI).
I don't see people rushing to Paul or to divisiveness, especially the young people I know. But then I don't hang out in that crowd.
I am relegated in this post to constantly trying to justify the sanctity of the scriptures rather than simply accepting the word and trying to understand it's various interpretations and meaning.
I never doubt the integrity of any verse of scripture. I do not doubt that they are written by holy men as they were moved by the holy spirit.
I just think that holy men (and women) were moved by the spirit in varying degrees.
I am sure there are many mysteries in the word that may never be revealed.
But the mystery of Christ in us... NOW we know this mystery.
Some may scoff at it but some hold it dear to their hearts.
For faith does not require rocket science but simply meekness.
We cannot hold God accountable for the actions of people including ourselves. God is only trying to help us.
Paul teaches us that charity comes before knowledge.
For knowledge is what led to caste systems and divided the common people with the priestly orders and "medicine men".
I do know this stuff and I could become "advanced" and write in a critical fashion quite fast if need be.
Yet you imply that Paul divided people but it is quite the contrary.
If a human desires faith they will find the spirit if they desire fear they will find death. This is quite a new concept considering the spirit was first written "upon" stone and now written "within" the heart.
This new testament is a work of God not man/woman, it requires faith not genius.
With this written on tablets then only a few people would have known how to read and write and been able to glean the message from the words. Thus with the old testament God was divided by a wall of partition from the common person.
Christ broke down that wall spiritually and Paul broke down that wall in word. For Christ Jesus promised before the ascension that the world would receive gifts but he did not specify in what form these gifts would take.
He spoke of a new law but the idea of how this new law would work was completely unknown. Known possibly only by Christ Jesus and God. If not only by God.
Paul in taking the spirit and using it as the gift in his writing liberated the world. THIS WAS RADICAL. THIS IS WHY PEOPLE BECAME CHRISTIANS. Not because Paul revealed nothing new...
It gave a person who cannot read and write freedom from spiritual scrutiny.
For before Christ those without "the law" in their minds were considered dogs.
Now God became the judge of this aspect. So for someone to be calling Paul zealous for the law simply is completely errant.
It was the spiritual reality/law within the believer (revealed by Paul) that was the fulfillment of the wall of partition being broken down in the Gospels.
This completely obliterated the caste system that people (unbelieving believers) like Cr@ig Martind&le try to re-institute...
So we are here ultimately all pulling toward freedom of the soul but you do not have to hate Paul to find freedom from tyranny. We just need to recognize that this freedom we seek is in these words if you look close enough.
Little babies sometimes grow up to be the next crack dealers and serial killers (advanced class again), It is a fact of life.
It is not whether if you are a Buddhist or an American Indian or a whatever, if you do not recognize the holy spirit and equality in others and that it is the gift of God (endowed by the creator), then you are not living up to the level of your spiritual potential as a citizen of this earth.
It is not a matter of my opinion or that of Paul for once you understand this you can never unknow it and it will always be the truth that you perceive when you see your "brother" or "sister" in Christ Jesus.
For we do not imitate Christ because we have Christ genuinely within us already we simply put the love and faith of Christ on in the mind. Peter and the disciples tried to imitate Christ before the holy spirit came (just as some of you think you can do without the revelations to Paul) and it did not work they fell short of the mark. It was only until the spirit came that they lost their fear and became bold in the mind concerning the spirit. (We do imitate Paul though but we do not have Paul genuinely within us except in word from God) Yet it is not primarily the mind of Christ that saves us but the spirit of Christ is our salvation. For it is the spirit of Christ that is the image of God. For if we imitated Christ we would all die in the flesh prematurely. But we instead live imitating Paul and the Christians after the day of Pentecost with the mind of Christ (will of God/law of liberty). So it is a mixed bag... Takes a bit of spiritual discernment. This is where the law of liberty helps sort things out and solidifies our standing and state. For we already died with Christ so we now live in the spirit, yea, the logic even goes deeper. Paul hashes it all out but the translation makes things a bit hard to conceptualize. Ultimately we bear the image of God, as if we are equal to God in the state of quantum (or zero).
The only hope was spiritual redemption, for the flesh would never have been able to reach perfection without it. Only the perfect flesh of the passover lamb Jesus Christ could atone for our sins. The walk of the spirit in Christ could open the door for us to likewise walk in the spirit.
It is the writhing of Paul that details this SPIRITUAL perfection and no matter how much Paul or whoever the writers were that seemingly retract this freedom with scriptures about "deeds" and "occasions of the flesh" we are still free spiritually and nothing can ever change that. This very thought came straight from the apostle Paul. Jesus Christ never once taught of the perfect spirit within people other than his own (from God). In fact many of the spirits that Jesus cast out of people were far from perfect. Even John the baptist was unworthy to tie Jesus' shoes and John was "born with spirit from the womb" but Jesus was the "son of God" So without Paul's teachings we would have no more "holy" spirit WITHIN... and the "same" measure of faith, but we would have a caste system where some know and some don't, and the reason why some don't is because they can read and write rather than equality in the form of spiritual perfection. God would prefer to create the spirit in a barbarian than to create the fully educated mind of Einstein or some other great thinker. For it is the spirit that teaches the mind God's wisdom not the soul.
You accuse Wierwille of enslaving people with law but it was Wierwille that taught me that I was free spiritually in Christ Jesus. (The exact opposite of what you claim) I do not doubt that Wierwille may himself have been troubled just as Paul was troubled by his own life and the the law of liberty and the constant wrestling over the flesh and the spirit. WE ALL WRESTLE IN THIS SAME WAY. For we all have a legalistic nature that we need to cast away for preferably the perception and standards of the holy spirit. Jesus told us he was "the way" but Paul revealed the way, through the spirit of Christ within.
Have you have ever considered what life would be like without the "gift of the holy spirit"...
For without this gift it would be only the smart people that mattered.
Christ would have died on the cross like countless other Jews and everyone would have forgotten about it...
Gnosticism, just another self worshiping caste system... Only the spirit can teach us the way of God's perfect holiness.
I am not advocating faith without works... Just that the "works" were done by God.
When I started this thread, I mentioned that the teachings of Paul are the basis of many (if not most) of the divisions among Christians, the long-standing bickerings and finger-pointing and accusations, which can all be summed up in one word: "condemnation".
Of course, Paul states that there is no condemnation for those who are Christians, and then he proceeds to condemn and cut off and legislate and "confound" the early church.
The condemnation in this thread just proves my point - about the divisiveness and about how sad it is that Christ-followers have become just plain hateful to each other.
Yes, DrWW, I did scrub toilets because I wanted to. And I was made homeless because I wanted to. And I lost my daughter because I wanted to. You are a sick man. Or are you a woman? Paul said there is no gender. Whatever you are, you are a Paulist, and you have beautifully validated much of my speculations in this thread.
Paul said a little wine is good for us. I think we both need a little wine.
I find it a bit ironic that you can't see that you're doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing. Can't say I'm sorry for "raining on your parade." Next time think about bringing an umbrella. Good grief!
Paul nor his writings are "Gnostic"... If they were then salvation would be of works and not of the grace of God.
When I knew next to nothing about the subject of "Gnosticism" years ago, I erred like you in assuming that this "sound-bite" definition encapsulated and represented the beliefs
of all those ancient movements deemed by orthodoxy under the umbrella category of "Gnostics". In certain cases it just as well been a synonym for
"heretics". But the idea of "salvation of works, not of grace"was not shared by all those regarded "gnostics" - they had their libertine-to-excess movements as well, from what might be gathered from Epiphanius and other "Church Fathers".
But I also think there may be some risk in projecting and imposing this "Lutheran" dichotomy of "works vs. grace" back into the early Christian movements and their writings.
It's oversimplistic, especially when contemplated further in light of
"We are His own creation, created in Krestus
for those good works which beforehand
the [supreme] God had prepared
that we should be walking in them
(Laodiceans 2:10)
Hardly sounding like an edict supporting the modern libertine interpretations of "partying-till-one-pukes,no-strings-attached" brand of "salvation" sold
in various evangelistic circles. Before Luther, before Bullinger, before Wierwille, an early movement of Paulinists esteemed "The Gospel" and "The Apostle"
of their twofold canon; "The Gospel" comprising the sayings of Krestus were regarded utmost as"the new Law", the "new commandments" or "edicts" of the highest God
to be exercised and lived. For these Paulinists, the sayings in the Gospel were their new "torah", - no less the edicts of a "new God".
So, the "new testament". The "new man". The "new wine". All fragements of ancient ads used in the promotion of this new religion.
On the one hand, one will encounter intense rivalries among the adherents of the various "apostles". "Paul" attacks other apostles, assuming the superiority of his revelation over theirs; while on the other hand, polemical traces against Paul may be detected in material attributed to these other apostles.
Similarly, there existed rivalries between followers of John the Baptist and those of Jesus - their relationship was not universally viewed as amicably as the orthodox canon depicts.
Even long after Christianity emerged, there were still those which continued to pledge their faith and allegiance to John the Baptist against the figure of Jesus.
They didn't consider John merely a "forerunner" hailing Jesus as the Messiah - to the contrary, they viewed Jesus as a "Roman Christ" and an imposter, the supposed "holy spirit" as a spirit "thoroughly evil". These attitudes have been preserved and passed down to us through the the literature of the Mandeaens (a few still found today in modern Iraq).
You might want to sturdy that foundation of yours a bit before you start breaking up the writings of Paul with supposed "other" authors...
I've hardly only "started". And I don't find it necessary to "break up" Paul - material attributed to him does a good job on its own. But if you need a primer
in this area, Albert Schweitzer's "Paul and his Interpreters" might be a good place to start. As Knock's "Marcion and the New Testament".
Or even any standard, critical introduction to the New Testament. Treat yourself to an afternoon at your local university library and have a look around.
It's like a phd trying to get a 1st grader to 5th grade.
It does happen with some.
But this 1st grader just keeps getting mad.
Well...don't bother responding ww, I gotta go to WORK.
Can't waste time with an infidel....:)
But you probably will respond with more 1st grade stuff we already know.
And know it so well that it's getting done.
You are saying nothing NEW... I have documented my opinion with both scripture and sound logic and you are busy stroking yourself...
Time will tell who knows what when you get you head out of your butt (infidels my foot!) and write in a post, your lack of understanding and commitment to the word will stand out like a sore loser...
Your lack of patience and and doctrinal skill already stands out, and it ain't pretty...
You are just fracturing the truth with pure rhetoric.
Let me break this down to see if I understand you correctly.
"You" (=me) are just fracturing [ = "to break, or the act and process of breaking"] the truth (reader, fill in the blank_____) with pure [ spotless, stainless]
rhetoric [art of oratory, of speaking or writing effectively, skill in the effective usage of speech].
Why, thank you.
Now I am sure you could find a hundred contradictions in what I just wrote and fill volumes in this library that I should go and spend some time in.
Why would I want to do that?
Don't get me wrong, you might make an interesting subject, but I have quite a few projects in queue at the moment.
You are just fracturing the truth with pure rhetoric.
WearWord, I take offense at your harshness with Dan, who has never had a harsh word for anybody, afaik. Now, you may wave a dismissive hand at what he says, and of course that's your privilege, but just be aware that what Danny says is backed up by a great deal more scholarship than you're exhibiting.
Since you seem interested in communicating your ideas with others online, may I make a couple of friendly suggestions?
-Visit your local library and expand the horizons of your chosen subjects of interest. It will not only give you the sweep of ideas on the given subject, but you might also learn a thing or two.
-You might consider a remedial course in English and/or writing. You certainly have the pieces and bits, but your written communication is often unclear and filled with syntax problems that further muddy the meaning.
Let me break this down to see if I understand you correctly.
"You" (=me) are just fracturing [ = "to break, or the act and process of breaking"]the truth (reader, fill in the blank_____) with pure [ spotless, stainless]
rhetoric [art of oratory, of speaking or writing effectively, skill in the effective usage of speech].
Why, thank you.
Methinks WW's use of the term rhetoric was probably applied with one of it's lesser known definitions -- insincere or grandiloquent language To say someone is being grandiloquence is not exactly paying the speaker or writer a compliment. Yet, I can see how someone (who has a lofty opinion of him/herself) would prefer the more complimentary definition. ;)
WearWord, I take offense at your harshness with Dan, who has never had a harsh word for anybody, afaik. Now, you may wave a dismissive hand at what he says, and of course that's your privilege, but just be aware that what Danny says is backed up by a great deal more scholarship than you're exhibiting.
Since you seem interested in communicating your ideas with others online, may I make a couple of friendly suggestions?
-Visit your local library and expand the horizons of your chosen subjects of interest. It will not only give you the sweep of ideas on the given subject, but you might also learn a thing or two.
-You might consider a remedial course in English and/or writing. You certainly have the pieces and bits, but your written communication is often unclear and filled with syntax problems that further muddy the meaning.
Evan,
You might take your own advice.
I am not dealing with easy topics to explain...
Genetics and physics? If you had any decorum you would know that and understand why I struggle with the topics... (With no help from your boastful mind)
When it comes to intelligent "responses" to what I have written I have you here childishly insulting my tie (figuratively)...
A preschooler can do that. So I must wonder if you and your ilk can actually learn (no matter how many "libraries" you attend).
Also I have been writing for the last three days straight. Am I allowed a typo or grammatical error every once in a while? I didn't know such self important people would be scrutinizing my choice words.
With over 6000 replies on another site representing only half of my replies over the last 8 years, I think I am standing in an alright place.
You imply that I have never been in a library... How conceited you seem...
Do you not think that others can see right through your fake facade? I hope belittling me improves your self image... (it needs improvement)
You have cast God in your own image, may I suggest you keep your self made God to yourself...
Also your buddy with the fiddle Dan attacked me and gave no real substance as to why other than as Larry indicated in so many words, Dan was elevating himself at my expense.
Now is that the way to win friends and influence people?
I suggest if you want to influence people you could start by taking your foot out of your mouth...
Now I will re-read this 20 times, God forbid if I should make a typo or grammatical error and reveal that fact that I am also human.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
23
45
50
Popular Days
Jul 25
48
Jul 27
32
Jul 22
22
Jul 24
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 34 posts
Shifra 23 posts
Larry N Moore 45 posts
DrWearWord 50 posts
Popular Days
Jul 25 2007
48 posts
Jul 27 2007
32 posts
Jul 22 2007
22 posts
Jul 24 2007
16 posts
Shifra
Whew!
Thanks for making me think so much! But maybe thinking is not such a good thing, because it might lead to knowledge, which is apparently a bad thing. Good grief.
DrWW, it is almost comical that you would think I am prideful. TWI knocked the pride right out of me, and I am just now starting to get a little bit of it back. Pride is really good stuff, an honor to God who made us. The Bible says pride comes before a fall, but it also comes after a fall ... slowly ... when you start to get back up on your feet, and then gradually gradually you look back and see what pushed you down. Without pride, I would still be cleaning toilets for the Way Ministry.
Now tell me THIS is not prideful:
"To imply the Bible (i.e. Paul's revelations) is not needed to know God's wisdom is inane".
You said that.
This makes it very clear that you totally reject any other belief system outside of Christianity. This is religious pride, which is absolute exclusivism, the basis for "mark and avoid" mentality. Exclusivism, while preached by Paul, is the OPPOSITE of the teachings of Christ. Exclusivism is why the first word in TWI was "The"; it says right there in its name, that it is THE way, implying there is no other way.
At the risk of sounding prideful again, I want to share with you that I am a midwife, and have delivered hundreds of little humans, whose parents represent many different belief systems. You will not convince me that those who were non-Christian families do not know about God's wisdom. Every mother I have ever attended - Islamics, Pagans, Jews, Crees and Sioux and Crow Indians - turned to God for help with birthing. These families have deepened my own beliefs in the power of God and how INCLUSIVE His love is.
I respect your freedom to choose your view of holy things. Clearly your view will not accept any doubts about Paul. Quite honestly, I'm still checking it out, open to your input for sure, but not likely to buy all of it. It gets hard to hear each other when the words get personal. I apologize for any apparent sarcasm.
So let me say it this way: I really do think I - and anyone who has read the gospels - would understand that God looks on the spirit. Heck, we learned that back in David's story, so you see Paul wasn't so clever in coming up with this concept. It wasn't such a stunning new idea.
And then there's the argument about Paul's insights into the "Great Mystery". Aw come on, DrWW, haven't you seen the movie, "the Secret"? It's an overly simplistic presentation of exactly what TWI taught about the "Great Mystery".
My Lakota friend will tell you that the "Great Mystery" is also a Native tradition, so-named because it is something we don't understand, can't understand, and shouldn't even try to understand, because then it wouldn't be a mystery any more. Paul, however, claimed to understand it, and so did VPW.
Well, now I've said too much. I sure enjoy integrating all these posts into my ... um ... knowledge.
Edited by ShifraLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
What is this all about?
I CLEARLY laid out my definition of what gnosticism (from my stand point) meant...
Where did I get my definition? Not from wikipedia but long ago I studied it in the new advent Catholic encyclopedia. Several days of reading the various links...
The "Roman" Catholics (of which I am not one and never been one) trace gnosticism back to Buddha... I believe this...
The illustrious one and holiness based upon knowledge and life experience rather than holiness based upon the works of God?
You write a paragraph and dissect my method and you do not even address the substance of my post.
Hmmm...
Now in any of your two link is the connection to Buddha revealed?
Probably not.
I rest my case.
Don't believe everything you read on the net.
Much of it (regarding faith) is shallow and grossly uninformed.
Wikipedia also has the statue of liberty defined as pagan symbol too while it was made by devout Christian masons...
Figure that one out... I had to on my own with NO help from the wiki...
Nowhere in the net will you find an article revealing the Christian symbolism of the statur... Even the so called Christian sites on the net don't describe the statue as a Christian symbol.
They all point to early pagan America and do not even wonder what law tablets she is holding in her hand. What are the chains at her feet, Greek tyranny???
It is the law of liberty of the new testament... (You will not find this information in wikipedia or on any other website...)
My father was a 14th level grand Mason and my mother a worthy matron of the "eastern star" (which represents Christ Jesus) and I know first hand how "Christian" the Masons really can be. The Masons carry on the same tradition of protecting the faith (even if in only symbolism) as the Teutons did during the crusades.
Wikipedia is dumb when it comes to spiritual matters and I hold little hope that it will change soon.
Excerpt from wikipedia...
"the Statue of Liberty appears to draw inspiration from il Sancarlone or the Colossus of Rhodes."
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I am glad your "um ... knowledge" can be a new found form of selfish pride. You admonish human pride and the scriptures, Godly pride seems foreign to your reckoning.
1Corrinthians 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Comment: You can deny the wisdom of God for your own it is not my choice to make for you.
It was your choice that you scrubbed toilets and likewise your choice to now scrub the gutter seeking your own pound of flesh.
I might recommend in all meekness and my own humility that you stop blaming others and God for your own poor decisions in life. The way ministry did not hold you against you own will... I am well aware of this because I was there too.
These are harsh words spoken in love, I do care about you and your own delicate plight but should I kowtow to you at the expense of the truth? Is this what you want?
How could the mystery of "God in Christ in you" have been known before Christ?
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
hmmm, yes i see why you can not hear what i said.....
and i only touched on part of it, nothing about buddha
let's hear it if you want to share or a link or something
if you can't take the time to search the two sites i gave you
i know you don't want to know more
and i told you wiki only hit the surface
yet you want to fight
not me, i'll present what i can
you presented 1 definition and now wtf are you trying to do?
the substance of your post was Gnostic
it's not anymore.........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Again criticism on the surface but no content... Shall we get to the bare facts?
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
When I started this thread, I mentioned that the teachings of Paul are the basis of many (if not most) of the divisions among Christians, the long-standing bickerings and finger-pointing and accusations, which can all be summed up in one word: "condemnation".
Of course, Paul states that there is no condemnation for those who are Christians, and then he proceeds to condemn and cut off and legislate and "confound" the early church.
The condemnation in this thread just proves my point - about the divisiveness and about how sad it is that Christ-followers have become just plain hateful to each other.
Yes, DrWW, I did scrub toilets because I wanted to. And I was made homeless because I wanted to. And I lost my daughter because I wanted to. You are a sick man. Or are you a woman? Paul said there is no gender. Whatever you are, you are a Paulist, and you have beautifully validated much of my speculations in this thread.
Paul said a little wine is good for us. I think we both need a little wine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Whether gnostics have some hertiage that traces back to Buddah is somewhat irrelevant. Almost all religions have borrowed and swapped from each other. Christianity has its roots in Judaism and has borrowed much from paganism. Native American religions, Judaism, Christianity, also have much in common. Even Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have a lot of common ground.
It seems like you close yourself off to an awful lot. That is sad and I can't help but wonder why.
Joseph Campbell has some great writings on comparative religions. I somehow suspect you wouldn't be overly interested in reading his works though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
The only condemnation in this thread that I detect thus far is "people" condemning the apostle Paul...
My point is that I simply don't agree... Is that ok?
I reserve making such a sweeping judgment of the work as to simply declare it null and void because the task that is necessary to understanding it is too difficult to easily perceive.
Paul had a difficult task and he gave us the most honest and forthright part of himself.
Your argument is the subservience of the wife to the husband then why should the husband be subservient to God? It is marriage and as I said he also said that there was "neither male nor female"... 2000 years later and the world still has a battle of the sexes going on. You really can't call him sexist when he declares there is neither male nor female... Had they only listened...
He spoke of "cultural norms", lust and hate and his own "thorn in the flesh". Theses are certainly not easy subjects to handle. Cut him some slack, especially if you expect others to do the same for you.
I tend to think that the writings of Paul are so mystical that they may take a few (or many) more years before the world really begins to understand them in a collective consciousness.
I know I spend almost every day thinking the same thoughts that rolled over in his mind so if that makes me an imitator of him I don't know how more of an impression he could have left on the world. Namely my world that is.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
My point was to not just disagree and post links, whole books...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I hope the collective consciousness is moving toward inclusiveness, respect and appreciation of other's beliefs, not the type of exclusion seen in some forms of religion(Like TWI).
I don't see people rushing to Paul or to divisiveness, especially the young people I know. But then I don't hang out in that crowd.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
What exactly am I saying?
I am relegated in this post to constantly trying to justify the sanctity of the scriptures rather than simply accepting the word and trying to understand it's various interpretations and meaning.
I never doubt the integrity of any verse of scripture. I do not doubt that they are written by holy men as they were moved by the holy spirit.
I just think that holy men (and women) were moved by the spirit in varying degrees.
I am sure there are many mysteries in the word that may never be revealed.
But the mystery of Christ in us... NOW we know this mystery.
Some may scoff at it but some hold it dear to their hearts.
For faith does not require rocket science but simply meekness.
We cannot hold God accountable for the actions of people including ourselves. God is only trying to help us.
Paul teaches us that charity comes before knowledge.
For knowledge is what led to caste systems and divided the common people with the priestly orders and "medicine men".
I do know this stuff and I could become "advanced" and write in a critical fashion quite fast if need be.
Yet you imply that Paul divided people but it is quite the contrary.
If a human desires faith they will find the spirit if they desire fear they will find death. This is quite a new concept considering the spirit was first written "upon" stone and now written "within" the heart.
This new testament is a work of God not man/woman, it requires faith not genius.
With this written on tablets then only a few people would have known how to read and write and been able to glean the message from the words. Thus with the old testament God was divided by a wall of partition from the common person.
Christ broke down that wall spiritually and Paul broke down that wall in word. For Christ Jesus promised before the ascension that the world would receive gifts but he did not specify in what form these gifts would take.
He spoke of a new law but the idea of how this new law would work was completely unknown. Known possibly only by Christ Jesus and God. If not only by God.
Paul in taking the spirit and using it as the gift in his writing liberated the world. THIS WAS RADICAL. THIS IS WHY PEOPLE BECAME CHRISTIANS. Not because Paul revealed nothing new...
It gave a person who cannot read and write freedom from spiritual scrutiny.
For before Christ those without "the law" in their minds were considered dogs.
Now God became the judge of this aspect. So for someone to be calling Paul zealous for the law simply is completely errant.
It was the spiritual reality/law within the believer (revealed by Paul) that was the fulfillment of the wall of partition being broken down in the Gospels.
This completely obliterated the caste system that people (unbelieving believers) like Cr@ig Martind&le try to re-institute...
So we are here ultimately all pulling toward freedom of the soul but you do not have to hate Paul to find freedom from tyranny. We just need to recognize that this freedom we seek is in these words if you look close enough.
Little babies sometimes grow up to be the next crack dealers and serial killers (advanced class again), It is a fact of life.
It is not whether if you are a Buddhist or an American Indian or a whatever, if you do not recognize the holy spirit and equality in others and that it is the gift of God (endowed by the creator), then you are not living up to the level of your spiritual potential as a citizen of this earth.
It is not a matter of my opinion or that of Paul for once you understand this you can never unknow it and it will always be the truth that you perceive when you see your "brother" or "sister" in Christ Jesus.
For we do not imitate Christ because we have Christ genuinely within us already we simply put the love and faith of Christ on in the mind. Peter and the disciples tried to imitate Christ before the holy spirit came (just as some of you think you can do without the revelations to Paul) and it did not work they fell short of the mark. It was only until the spirit came that they lost their fear and became bold in the mind concerning the spirit. (We do imitate Paul though but we do not have Paul genuinely within us except in word from God) Yet it is not primarily the mind of Christ that saves us but the spirit of Christ is our salvation. For it is the spirit of Christ that is the image of God. For if we imitated Christ we would all die in the flesh prematurely. But we instead live imitating Paul and the Christians after the day of Pentecost with the mind of Christ (will of God/law of liberty). So it is a mixed bag... Takes a bit of spiritual discernment. This is where the law of liberty helps sort things out and solidifies our standing and state. For we already died with Christ so we now live in the spirit, yea, the logic even goes deeper. Paul hashes it all out but the translation makes things a bit hard to conceptualize. Ultimately we bear the image of God, as if we are equal to God in the state of quantum (or zero).
The only hope was spiritual redemption, for the flesh would never have been able to reach perfection without it. Only the perfect flesh of the passover lamb Jesus Christ could atone for our sins. The walk of the spirit in Christ could open the door for us to likewise walk in the spirit.
It is the writhing of Paul that details this SPIRITUAL perfection and no matter how much Paul or whoever the writers were that seemingly retract this freedom with scriptures about "deeds" and "occasions of the flesh" we are still free spiritually and nothing can ever change that. This very thought came straight from the apostle Paul. Jesus Christ never once taught of the perfect spirit within people other than his own (from God). In fact many of the spirits that Jesus cast out of people were far from perfect. Even John the baptist was unworthy to tie Jesus' shoes and John was "born with spirit from the womb" but Jesus was the "son of God" So without Paul's teachings we would have no more "holy" spirit WITHIN... and the "same" measure of faith, but we would have a caste system where some know and some don't, and the reason why some don't is because they can read and write rather than equality in the form of spiritual perfection. God would prefer to create the spirit in a barbarian than to create the fully educated mind of Einstein or some other great thinker. For it is the spirit that teaches the mind God's wisdom not the soul.
You accuse Wierwille of enslaving people with law but it was Wierwille that taught me that I was free spiritually in Christ Jesus. (The exact opposite of what you claim) I do not doubt that Wierwille may himself have been troubled just as Paul was troubled by his own life and the the law of liberty and the constant wrestling over the flesh and the spirit. WE ALL WRESTLE IN THIS SAME WAY. For we all have a legalistic nature that we need to cast away for preferably the perception and standards of the holy spirit. Jesus told us he was "the way" but Paul revealed the way, through the spirit of Christ within.
Have you have ever considered what life would be like without the "gift of the holy spirit"...
For without this gift it would be only the smart people that mattered.
Christ would have died on the cross like countless other Jews and everyone would have forgotten about it...
Gnosticism, just another self worshiping caste system... Only the spirit can teach us the way of God's perfect holiness.
I am not advocating faith without works... Just that the "works" were done by God.
For what works can a dead man do to please God?
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I find it a bit ironic that you can't see that you're doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing. Can't say I'm sorry for "raining on your parade." Next time think about bringing an umbrella. Good grief!
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
'DrWearWord':
When I knew next to nothing about the subject of "Gnosticism" years ago, I erred like you in assuming that this "sound-bite" definition encapsulated and represented the beliefsof all those ancient movements deemed by orthodoxy under the umbrella category of "Gnostics". In certain cases it just as well been a synonym for
"heretics". But the idea of "salvation of works, not of grace"was not shared by all those regarded "gnostics" - they had their libertine-to-excess movements as well, from what might be gathered from Epiphanius and other "Church Fathers".
But I also think there may be some risk in projecting and imposing this "Lutheran" dichotomy of "works vs. grace" back into the early Christian movements and their writings.
It's oversimplistic, especially when contemplated further in light of
Hardly sounding like an edict supporting the modern libertine interpretations of "partying-till-one-pukes,no-strings-attached" brand of "salvation" sold
in various evangelistic circles. Before Luther, before Bullinger, before Wierwille, an early movement of Paulinists esteemed "The Gospel" and "The Apostle"
of their twofold canon; "The Gospel" comprising the sayings of Krestus were regarded utmost as"the new Law", the "new commandments" or "edicts" of the highest God
to be exercised and lived. For these Paulinists, the sayings in the Gospel were their new "torah", - no less the edicts of a "new God".
So, the "new testament". The "new man". The "new wine". All fragements of ancient ads used in the promotion of this new religion.
On the one hand, one will encounter intense rivalries among the adherents of the various "apostles". "Paul" attacks other apostles, assuming the superiority of his revelation over theirs; while on the other hand, polemical traces against Paul may be detected in material attributed to these other apostles.
Similarly, there existed rivalries between followers of John the Baptist and those of Jesus - their relationship was not universally viewed as amicably as the orthodox canon depicts.
Even long after Christianity emerged, there were still those which continued to pledge their faith and allegiance to John the Baptist against the figure of Jesus.
They didn't consider John merely a "forerunner" hailing Jesus as the Messiah - to the contrary, they viewed Jesus as a "Roman Christ" and an imposter, the supposed "holy spirit" as a spirit "thoroughly evil". These attitudes have been preserved and passed down to us through the the literature of the Mandeaens (a few still found today in modern Iraq).
I've hardly only "started". And I don't find it necessary to "break up" Paul - material attributed to him does a good job on its own. But if you need a primer
in this area, Albert Schweitzer's "Paul and his Interpreters" might be a good place to start. As Knock's "Marcion and the New Testament".
Or even any standard, critical introduction to the New Testament. Treat yourself to an afternoon at your local university library and have a look around.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Dan,
You are just fracturing the truth with pure rhetoric.
Either we are saved by the spirit and grace or not.
To "confess" and "believe" as suggested in Romans 10:9 + 10 has no mention of "works" in that verse... and thou shalt be saved.
The works are not our works but the works of God the deeds are not our deeds but the deeds of God "lest any man should boast".
Faith without the works within of God is empty. Love without the spirit of God is vanity.
Now I am sure you could find a hundred contradictions in what I just wrote and fill volumes in this library that I should go and spend some time in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
You just don't get it. Pure rhetoric? lol....
It's like a phd trying to get a 1st grader to 5th grade.
It does happen with some.
But this 1st grader just keeps getting mad.
Well...don't bother responding ww, I gotta go to WORK.
Can't waste time with an infidel....:)
But you probably will respond with more 1st grade stuff we already know.
And know it so well that it's getting done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
You are saying nothing NEW... I have documented my opinion with both scripture and sound logic and you are busy stroking yourself...
Time will tell who knows what when you get you head out of your butt (infidels my foot!) and write in a post, your lack of understanding and commitment to the word will stand out like a sore loser...
Your lack of patience and and doctrinal skill already stands out, and it ain't pretty...
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Well....????
How could one see Paul with so many great examples set before us of "believers"?
You see Shifra, just about the only good thing about all that time in twi,
was that I read a lot of bible.
There might have been a sliver of gold, but who could see it?
When so many were and are as exactly as you describe.
As here where ww can't even see what I said.
Even so the ears are blocked and eyes are blinded to many things.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
like i said before, i love this thread
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Let me break this down to see if I understand you correctly.
"You" (=me) are just fracturing [ = "to break, or the act and process of breaking"] the truth (reader, fill in the blank_____) with pure [ spotless, stainless]
rhetoric [art of oratory, of speaking or writing effectively, skill in the effective usage of speech].
Why, thank you.
Why would I want to do that?
Don't get me wrong, you might make an interesting subject, but I have quite a few projects in queue at the moment.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved All
God loves you my dear friend
I been reading a part of these replies off and on
but today I saw something I had to talk about
some one said Pail's written are not Gnostic but why ?
there nothing wrong with Gnostic
just another group of writtens that reach for truth
maybe Paul was a Gnostic and maybe Jesus Christ was a Gnostic
who cares
what I care about is the love they had that I see within their lives
to me Gnostic are just a sect of believers like Jew believers and Gentile believers
its the same God in all these books from what I see
hell some might call me Gnostic others might call me church of God and some may not know what to call me
does it matter the name not to me
what matters is that we search for truth with or without any one person's writtens
the goal can be reach with or without
books of the bible are just books no more no less
it about how we walk our personal life
whether talking to God and Christ one on one or letting others direct our paths
I do not believe Paul wanted us to be Paul-lites but this is me
I want me to a Roy-lite one of a kind and you be a _____-lite one of a kind
my truth makes me but my truth might not work for you
the word of God was wrote not to guide us each step but to point us to the road to travel on
it not a map for right and wrong but it a map to the road
once we have faith we no longer need a book to hear God because God talks to us
one on one like God did Jesus Christ, Moses, and all others
hope I did not step on two many toes but I just feel like written this
I love what Shifra is doing trying to see why she has problem with one set of writtens
is it all in her head will that for her to make up her mind about
we just can give reason for and against
but its a sharing she looking for not a pushing
I will stop here before I write all night
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Roy,
You may be a "Roy-lite", as you say. But I think of you and your writings as "ROY LIGHT". Keep shining, my friend !!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
WearWord, I take offense at your harshness with Dan, who has never had a harsh word for anybody, afaik. Now, you may wave a dismissive hand at what he says, and of course that's your privilege, but just be aware that what Danny says is backed up by a great deal more scholarship than you're exhibiting.
Since you seem interested in communicating your ideas with others online, may I make a couple of friendly suggestions?
-Visit your local library and expand the horizons of your chosen subjects of interest. It will not only give you the sweep of ideas on the given subject, but you might also learn a thing or two.
-You might consider a remedial course in English and/or writing. You certainly have the pieces and bits, but your written communication is often unclear and filled with syntax problems that further muddy the meaning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Methinks WW's use of the term rhetoric was probably applied with one of it's lesser known definitions -- insincere or grandiloquent language To say someone is being grandiloquence is not exactly paying the speaker or writer a compliment. Yet, I can see how someone (who has a lofty opinion of him/herself) would prefer the more complimentary definition. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Evan,
You might take your own advice.
I am not dealing with easy topics to explain...
Genetics and physics? If you had any decorum you would know that and understand why I struggle with the topics... (With no help from your boastful mind)
When it comes to intelligent "responses" to what I have written I have you here childishly insulting my tie (figuratively)...
A preschooler can do that. So I must wonder if you and your ilk can actually learn (no matter how many "libraries" you attend).
Also I have been writing for the last three days straight. Am I allowed a typo or grammatical error every once in a while? I didn't know such self important people would be scrutinizing my choice words.
With over 6000 replies on another site representing only half of my replies over the last 8 years, I think I am standing in an alright place.
You imply that I have never been in a library... How conceited you seem...
Do you not think that others can see right through your fake facade? I hope belittling me improves your self image... (it needs improvement)
You have cast God in your own image, may I suggest you keep your self made God to yourself...
Also your buddy with the fiddle Dan attacked me and gave no real substance as to why other than as Larry indicated in so many words, Dan was elevating himself at my expense.
Now is that the way to win friends and influence people?
I suggest if you want to influence people you could start by taking your foot out of your mouth...
Now I will re-read this 20 times, God forbid if I should make a typo or grammatical error and reveal that fact that I am also human.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.