I'll just tear my shirt into strips, tie them together, and throw you a line_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
;)
Don't be surprised if the answer coming back will be: [To put it in words of P.D.S.T.R.O.] "NO!, screamed the blind man now's not my time, NO! screamed the blind man I just can't unwind. NO! screamed the blind man I'm not's where that's at. I'm over and I'm under and I'm just not like that."
(From: The Blind Man. I realize this P.D.S.T.R.O. song may be a bit dated for some of you. But then, some things never change.)
And it wasn't an analogy. I tried to keep it true to fact. It was just a third-person, abbreviated (highly abbreviated), paraphrase of both of Paul's letters to the Corinthians, stylized to try and hide it's identity at the beginning.
Paul didn`t witness to the ladies promising them deliverance and all the answers to life and Godliness and turn around and tell them that God wanted them to service him sexually. Paul didn`t have his acolyte drug the young women and then rape them. Paul didn`t throw the non compliant from the ministry when they refused. Paul did not destroy lives and tear families assunder at a whim.
Paul was not an alcoholic adultering lying piece of scum, that used the scriptures and the name of God to steal that which was not his after the new birth :(
To attempt to draw a parallell between his life and walk and that of a man of the flesh piece of crap like wierwille who has no inheritance in the kingdom of heaven....is deeply offensive, and damned near blashphemy in my book.
I really WISH that you would stop turning THIS thread ON forgivness into a vic/pfal is great promo.
He was scum, his doctrine of COURSE supported his scumminess, and his doctrine is NOW being used to attempt to require forgivness and silence the reports of his scumminess.
Did I mention that I thought the man was scum???
:(
If the reports of his fruit can be successfully silenced, eliminated from examination, then we have nothing left but opinions and impressions aquired while under the influence of a man of the flesh.
Maybe that is why, in his last HQ teaching, Dr said that he would not put himself in the shoes of the Apostle Paul (or something like that).
My adaptation (I like that word. Thanks.) was not intended to portray Dr at all.
What I was showing is how Paul and God thought about that one guy who messed up, and how it got recorded in Corinthians. They separated the man from the sin.
This separate treatment takes spiritual maturity, and Paul was guided, at first, to have both man and sin thrown out. The baby Christians at Corinth couldn't make that distinction in their minds yet. They hadn't risen to that level of understanding yet. It was after they worked on the first letter that they were ready to accept the man and distinguish him from the sin.
Chapter three is also about this advanced-level separation or distinction.
May I suggest to those people who thought my story was about VPW that you go back and read it again?
It was not an analogy and it was not intended to portray Dr at all.
When I was writing it, in order to come up with the stylizations to hide the century in which it took place, I held in my mind an image of Donny Fugit while I was typing.
Not only that, according to Rascalian Doctrine (from a past posting) "people who do the things that wierwille did have NO inheritance in the kingdom of God ... shrug". Well, Paul murdered. That is a lot worse and much more damaging than young sex, so why whitewash that? "read it ... there is no room to wiggle."
The relatives of Uriah must have had a tough time forgiving David.
The relatives of the believers Paul killed must have had a tough time forgiving Paul.
How did they do it?
***
I’ve had a tough time forgiving too. I mentioned that earlier.
There were people and doctrines (TVTs) that hurt me and/or loved ones.
So I’ve had to drive myself to deal with it in the best ways,
and try hard to avoid the not-so-best ways.
I Cor. 3 helped me forgive, putting it together with other scriptures.
***
Let’s look at the first verse.
(KJV) I Corinthians 3:1,2
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual,
but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:
for hitherto ye were not able to bear it,
neither yet now are ye able.
There are two things going on here: some warm terms of endearment and some reproof.
Let’s color the endearment portions red for warm, and the reproof portions blue for cold.
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual,
but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:
for hitherto ye were not able to bear it,
neither yet now are ye able.
See what I mean?
***
Next verses, 3 and 4:
For ye are yet carnal:
for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions,
are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos;
are ye not carnal?
Brrrrrrrr! I’m getting empathy chills. Around THESE parts, those are food fightin’ words! If I were at that truck stop in Corinth reading those two lines on Paul’s letter I’d ask for a refill. Any questions why I put all that blue? Ok, let’s continue. I just had to warm my hands on the sides of my cup.
Verse 5:
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos,
but ministers by whom ye believed,
even as the Lord gave to every man?
Ahhhhh! Warm.
Verses 6 and 7:
I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth;
but God that giveth the increase.
So, the Corinthians were having their favorites as to which leader was more cool. Paul tells them that coolness is nothing, it’s spiritual stuff that’s important. He was urging them to WANT to grow up to a greater way of looking at things. They were looking at the flesh level, the 5 senses level.
Some of the Corinthians grooved better with Paul, and some grooved better with Apollos, but that grooviness was superficial. It FELT good to them, but it was mental/emotional and only, on the soul level and not spiritual.
Paul is teaching them of the spiritual perspective where grooviness is nothing.
Paul is teaching that God gets the glory for all the good works that both he and Apollos had done for them.
Verse 8a:
Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one:
“One” in purpose.
Paul and Apollos were one in purpose, united, like-minded in their helping the Corinthians and operating in the Body of Christ. Like their individual grooviness, their individual contributions were only significant on the 5 senses level. Spiritually they were one in the Body of Christ and it didn’t matter who did what.
HOWEVER, and here’s where there’s a mistranslation, but it’s not the crucial controversial one. It’s a relatively simple one.
Verse 8b reads in the KJV:
...and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
The word “and” can and should be rendered “but.” The next half verse is in contrast to the first half.
Verse 8 a and b:
Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one:
but every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
That reward part looked warming.
Do you see the contrast there requiring “but” instead of “and” ? I wanted to rush this through so we could get to more warm verses.
Verses 9-11:
For we are labourers together with God:
ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
According to the grace of God which is given unto me,
as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation,
and another buildeth thereon.
But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ.
Wow. I need a rest. Let’s see what we have here. The warm areas tell me I have something to be thankful for. I received pneuma hagion so it has benefits that the warm portions remind me of. This helps me handle the carnal accusations at the beginning. Paul is saying that after teaching pneuma hagion to them, there was still more to advance towards. He was leading them and teaching them. He used himself and Apollos, another interesting character in the Body who they knew personally.
Here is what we’ve covered so far:
(KJV) I Corinthians 3:
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual,
but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:
for hitherto ye were not able to bear it,
neither yet now are ye able.
For ye are yet carnal:
for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions,
are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos;
are ye not carnal?
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos,
but ministers by whom ye believed,
even as the Lord gave to every man?
I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth;
but God that giveth the increase.
Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one:
but every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
For we are labourers together with God:
ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
According to the grace of God which is given unto me,
as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation,
and another buildeth thereon.
But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
WD-- I wasn't clear, my bad. I wasn't thinking about mike when I posted that(I can't read his posts, drive me too nuts)-- I was thinking about the handful of posters who mentioned Rascal, whose posts seem to get them all crazed.
I'm not irritated with you Bramble, just with posters who lead others on saying that they have
something to share but then don't. Blessings to you dear.
Don't be surprised if the answer coming back will be: [To put it in words of P.D.S.T.R.O.] "NO!, screamed the blind man now's not my time, NO! screamed the blind man I just can't unwind. NO! screamed the blind man I'm not's where that's at. I'm over and I'm under and I'm just not like that."
(From: The Blind Man. I realize this P.D.S.T.R.O. song may be a bit dated for some of you. But then, some things never change.)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
128
169
106
102
Popular Days
Feb 19
54
Feb 26
50
Feb 22
47
Feb 25
40
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 128 posts
Mike 169 posts
Ham 106 posts
waysider 102 posts
Popular Days
Feb 19 2008
54 posts
Feb 26 2008
50 posts
Feb 22 2008
47 posts
Feb 25 2008
40 posts
Posted Images
waysider
Don't quit your day job, Mike.
The analogy is weak.
The parallels are even weaker.
Sorry, Dude.
It would be cruel on my part to lead you to believe otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ok, then I quit.
No I Cor.3:17 exposition.
You ruined it for all the others! <_<
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Don't be surprised if the answer coming back will be: [To put it in words of P.D.S.T.R.O.] "NO!, screamed the blind man now's not my time, NO! screamed the blind man I just can't unwind. NO! screamed the blind man I'm not's where that's at. I'm over and I'm under and I'm just not like that."
(From: The Blind Man. I realize this P.D.S.T.R.O. song may be a bit dated for some of you. But then, some things never change.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hey there What the Hey!
Long time no see.
I'm glad to notice you posting here again.
Please don't yank Exy's chain like that, though.
Somehow she and I have gotten along here pretty well, and we were just playing back there.
****
And I was just playing about quitting and being angry too.
I had to go to the bathroom, but wanted to post SOME kind of response.
So, where were we?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I wanted to add that comparing The Apostle Paul to a WOW ambassador PFAL salesman is just plain laughable
Note to my fellow posters:
-----------------------------------
So sorry I spoiled the big I Cor. 3: 17 climax.
I guess we'll never find out the true meaning now.
Perhaps someone will stumble on it again 2,000 years from now. and preserve it in "class form" for all posterity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think it went the other way around.
Paul was the prototype WOW Ambassador. The program was based on him.
Comparing is ok; it's when equality is judged in the comparing that red flags might go up.
But EVEN THEN comparing and finding equality could be ok if the equality is something God instituted, which He did in some instances.
I compare myself with Jesus Christ all the time. I fall short of course, and then I try again, and compare again to see if I improved any.
Someday we will compare ourselves with Jesus Christ and the proper result will indicate that we are LIKE him.
***
But don't worry, you didn't spoil anything.
I was planning on stalling after... uh ...er ...planning on RESTING after posting all that stuff anyway.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, my day job is rained out.
And it wasn't an analogy. I tried to keep it true to fact. It was just a third-person, abbreviated (highly abbreviated), paraphrase of both of Paul's letters to the Corinthians, stylized to try and hide it's identity at the beginning.
There is NO analogy at all there.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
The adaptation is more of an illusion.
Paul didn`t witness to the ladies promising them deliverance and all the answers to life and Godliness and turn around and tell them that God wanted them to service him sexually. Paul didn`t have his acolyte drug the young women and then rape them. Paul didn`t throw the non compliant from the ministry when they refused. Paul did not destroy lives and tear families assunder at a whim.
Paul was not an alcoholic adultering lying piece of scum, that used the scriptures and the name of God to steal that which was not his after the new birth :(
To attempt to draw a parallell between his life and walk and that of a man of the flesh piece of crap like wierwille who has no inheritance in the kingdom of heaven....is deeply offensive, and damned near blashphemy in my book.
Waysider is right...it was just plain weak.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I really WISH that you would stop turning THIS thread ON forgivness into a vic/pfal is great promo.
He was scum, his doctrine of COURSE supported his scumminess, and his doctrine is NOW being used to attempt to require forgivness and silence the reports of his scumminess.
Did I mention that I thought the man was scum???
:(
If the reports of his fruit can be successfully silenced, eliminated from examination, then we have nothing left but opinions and impressions aquired while under the influence of a man of the flesh.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Maybe that is why, in his last HQ teaching, Dr said that he would not put himself in the shoes of the Apostle Paul (or something like that).
My adaptation (I like that word. Thanks.) was not intended to portray Dr at all.
What I was showing is how Paul and God thought about that one guy who messed up, and how it got recorded in Corinthians. They separated the man from the sin.
This separate treatment takes spiritual maturity, and Paul was guided, at first, to have both man and sin thrown out. The baby Christians at Corinth couldn't make that distinction in their minds yet. They hadn't risen to that level of understanding yet. It was after they worked on the first letter that they were ready to accept the man and distinguish him from the sin.
Chapter three is also about this advanced-level separation or distinction.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Galatians chapter 5 is ALL about separation and distinction...and it keeps it simple
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I agree.
The Galatians were pretty out of it, like the early Corinthians.
They had no choice but to go the blunt simple way.
They were not advanced enough to make the those kinds of calls I'm talking about.
Spiritual maturity allows us to see things from God's perspective.
From the human perspective Galatians is about the only safe way to proceed.
The Galatians approach would line up with the First Corinthian letter where Paul told themn to throw that bad guy out.
The Corinthians listened to the first letter and applied it.
They graduated to the advanced level and were told to take the guy back in and love him in the second letter.
I'm assuming these Epistles are well known to you. Are they?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
May I suggest to those people who thought my story was about VPW that you go back and read it again?
It was not an analogy and it was not intended to portray Dr at all.
When I was writing it, in order to come up with the stylizations to hide the century in which it took place, I held in my mind an image of Donny Fugit while I was typing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
He sure did. He murdered Christians in the name of God. I think that's a helluva lot worse than young sex.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
hugs, mike
but i have NO idea what what-the-hey meant anyway
--
dear don't,
you can use my name in vain anytime ha ha ha ha ha ha ha i love you
hope you have a really really great time at your reunion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Exy,
Thanks.
I got very paranoid for a few minutes after posting that.
I was worried how you'd take the phrase "yank her chain."
It seemed AFTER POSTING to carry an implication of prison or leash.
Yikes! That's NOT what I meant at all. It was just an expression.
Eventually I realized it was misplaced fear I had of that misinterpretation,
and that it wasn't you I should fear taking it that way.
Yeah, that was fun to see Don'tWorry. I was happy.
I knew him from Rye.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Errata Data
Toward the end of my Post #521 to Don’tWorry: “Robert Conrad” should read “Robert Conway."
Reference is to the 1937 film “Lost Horizon” starring Ronald Colman.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It was my impression that the poster was referring to (The Apostle) Paul.
(ie: Paul as he ministered to The Church, not Paul before he was entrusted with his calling.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Timing.
It's all in the timing. At least it to us.
The people in PAUL'S time may have not cared much about "before" or "after."
The relatives of the believers Paul killed must have had a tough time forgiving Paul.
With God there is no time.
It doesn't matter to Him which happens earlier and which happens later.
God in His foreknowledge knew* that Solomon would sin in his later life,
yet He gave him wisdom and riches in his early life.
God sees and does things different that us sometimes.
. ...scripture please (snap) (snap)
The relatives of Uriah must have had a tough time forgiving David,
and a tough time reading the collaterals David wrote AFTER the matter with Uriah.
* Grammar Oddity - "in His foreknowledge knew" or grammar error. You be the judge.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Not only that, according to Rascalian Doctrine (from a past posting) "people who do the things that wierwille did have NO inheritance in the kingdom of God ... shrug". Well, Paul murdered. That is a lot worse and much more damaging than young sex, so why whitewash that? "read it ... there is no room to wiggle."
Have a nice weekend, one and all. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The moon is made of green cheese.
(God knew in his foreknowledge I would post that.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The relatives of Uriah must have had a tough time forgiving David.
The relatives of the believers Paul killed must have had a tough time forgiving Paul.
How did they do it?
***
I’ve had a tough time forgiving too. I mentioned that earlier.
There were people and doctrines (TVTs) that hurt me and/or loved ones.
So I’ve had to drive myself to deal with it in the best ways,
and try hard to avoid the not-so-best ways.
I Cor. 3 helped me forgive, putting it together with other scriptures.
***
Let’s look at the first verse.
(KJV) I Corinthians 3:1,2
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual,
but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:
for hitherto ye were not able to bear it,
neither yet now are ye able.
There are two things going on here: some warm terms of endearment and some reproof.
Let’s color the endearment portions red for warm, and the reproof portions blue for cold.
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual,
but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:
for hitherto ye were not able to bear it,
neither yet now are ye able.
See what I mean?
***
Next verses, 3 and 4:
For ye are yet carnal:
for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions,
are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos;
are ye not carnal?
Brrrrrrrr! I’m getting empathy chills. Around THESE parts, those are food fightin’ words! If I were at that truck stop in Corinth reading those two lines on Paul’s letter I’d ask for a refill. Any questions why I put all that blue? Ok, let’s continue. I just had to warm my hands on the sides of my cup.
Verse 5:
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos,
but ministers by whom ye believed,
even as the Lord gave to every man?
Ahhhhh! Warm.
Verses 6 and 7:
I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth;
but God that giveth the increase.
So, the Corinthians were having their favorites as to which leader was more cool. Paul tells them that coolness is nothing, it’s spiritual stuff that’s important. He was urging them to WANT to grow up to a greater way of looking at things. They were looking at the flesh level, the 5 senses level.
Some of the Corinthians grooved better with Paul, and some grooved better with Apollos, but that grooviness was superficial. It FELT good to them, but it was mental/emotional and only, on the soul level and not spiritual.
Paul is teaching them of the spiritual perspective where grooviness is nothing.
Paul is teaching that God gets the glory for all the good works that both he and Apollos had done for them.
Verse 8a:
Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one:
“One” in purpose.
Paul and Apollos were one in purpose, united, like-minded in their helping the Corinthians and operating in the Body of Christ. Like their individual grooviness, their individual contributions were only significant on the 5 senses level. Spiritually they were one in the Body of Christ and it didn’t matter who did what.
HOWEVER, and here’s where there’s a mistranslation, but it’s not the crucial controversial one. It’s a relatively simple one.
Verse 8b reads in the KJV:
...and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
The word “and” can and should be rendered “but.” The next half verse is in contrast to the first half.
Verse 8 a and b:
Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one:
but every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
That reward part looked warming.
Do you see the contrast there requiring “but” instead of “and” ? I wanted to rush this through so we could get to more warm verses.
Verses 9-11:
For we are labourers together with God:
ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
According to the grace of God which is given unto me,
as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation,
and another buildeth thereon.
But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ.
Wow. I need a rest. Let’s see what we have here. The warm areas tell me I have something to be thankful for. I received pneuma hagion so it has benefits that the warm portions remind me of. This helps me handle the carnal accusations at the beginning. Paul is saying that after teaching pneuma hagion to them, there was still more to advance towards. He was leading them and teaching them. He used himself and Apollos, another interesting character in the Body who they knew personally.
Here is what we’ve covered so far:
(KJV) I Corinthians 3:
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual,
but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:
for hitherto ye were not able to bear it,
neither yet now are ye able.
For ye are yet carnal:
for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions,
are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos;
are ye not carnal?
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos,
but ministers by whom ye believed,
even as the Lord gave to every man?
I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth;
but God that giveth the increase.
Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one:
but every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
For we are labourers together with God:
ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
According to the grace of God which is given unto me,
as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation,
and another buildeth thereon.
But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
I'm not irritated with you Bramble, just with posters who lead others on saying that they have
something to share but then don't. Blessings to you dear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
WHO'DA...WHAT-A...???? PDSTRO????
Link 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.