| Author | Comment | L Anemone
(10/5/00 11:26:22 am)
| fabricated references
Rafael,
My statement was not uncalled for at all. It is true that nothing has been posted for awhile. This is what I meant by I don't see you adding anything that you should be annoyed at me.
I also mentioned and agreed with staying within the context of this particular thread and it should have been left at that. So, you did what you told me not to do and you added yet another comment. So, please who is being immature here. Plus, I am very new here at this site and was only responding to Twosum.
I apologize for any inconvenience, if that is the case.
So, Rafael, If you have anything else you want to comment about, please take it to the sidebar.
Anemone
| JBarrax
(10/6/00 2:00:57 am)
| Re: Previous usage
Well since "nothing has been posted for a while", let's get back to PFAL.
In the beginning of Chapter Fourteen, which corresponds to the latter part of session four I believe, we find this little gem of wisdom.
" In the first usage of a word, expression or idea, the explanation is usually complete enough to carry through in all other references in the Bible. If God ever changed the usage of a word or expression, he always explained it."
I've been testing this principle and I believe it to be valid. As you know, the passage VP selected to demonstrate this in the class is the one in II Corinthians 12 about Paul's thorn in the flesh. One of the things VP took issue with is the idea that Paul's thorn was illness sent by God to keep him humble. He interpreted the word "infirmities" as weakness or humility, not illness. I checked the Biblical usage of the word infirmities and found its usage is a good illustration of this principle at work.
The word "infirmities" is the Greek word astheneia which is first used in Matthew 8:17, a reference to a prophecy of Isaiah. Here the word seems to clearly carry the meaning of physical illness from which Jesus Christ delivered us with his stripes. So the first usage conveys physical maladies. The second use, in Luke 5:15 carries the same meaning.
But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities.
The third, although coupled with spiritual illness follows in the footsteps of the first two.
Luke 8:2
And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
This verse doesn't say Mary was healed of infirmities caused by evil spirits, but by evil spirits and in
infirmities. So far, there is no variation in the basic meaning of the Biblical usage of this word. The fourth, fifth, and sixth continue with this usage meaning physical illness or disease ( although the cause may be spiritual, as in the case of the woman with the spirit of infirmity who could not stand up straight).
Luke 13:11
And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.
12 And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.
John 5:5
And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.
John 11:4
When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness [astheneia] is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
Acts 28:9
So when this was done, others also, which had diseases [astheneia] in the island, came, and were healed:
Each of the first seven uses of the word astheneia means physical malady or illness. Then in Romans 6:19 we read the following:
I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
Here we have a clear difference in the Biblical usage of the word. It's obvious the word infirmity here does not mean illness. The infirmity of the flesh Paul was talking about was the sinfulness of their past lives in the world. Since this is
clearly communicated by the context, this bears out the truth of the principle VP was talking about. The change in the usage is clearly explained in the context of the first variation in usage.
This is a very important research principle that perhaps should have been more fully explained. The following
teachings on faith and pneuma rest on this principle. Likewise VP's failure to point out the variant usages of pros, allos, heteros, and enteuthen undermine his arguments about the interpretation of John 1:1, and the number of others crucified with Christ. When there are variant usages of a word in the Bible, it is dishonest to define the word by only one usage and present only that one that fits your theology. We have already seen this error a number of times in PFAL. However, being aware of the principle allows us to check the Biblical usage of words and decide which one fits in a certain verse and context.
There are four other occurrences of the word astheneia between Romans 6:19 and II Corinthians 12:5, but none of them introduces a clear new usage or meaning. (Romans 8:26, I Cor. 2:3, I Cor. 15:43, and II Cor. 11:30) So we arrive at II Cor. 12:5 with two possible interpretations of "infirmity"; illness or weakness. I believe the one that fits better in the context is weakness.
If you want to try this on a real tough one, go to Revelation 20:8 and ask yourself what's "Gog and
Magog?"
And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
This phrase is only used one other time in the Bible, but the words Gog and Magog are used
separately in eleven other verses. The first three occurances convey the meaning of specific people in the lineage of Noah's descendants (Genesis 10:2, I Chronicles 1:5 & 5:4). Then in Ezekiel the meaning changes and becomes a literal or figurative reference to a group of people (38:2, 3, 14, 16, 18, 39:1, 6, & 11). This second meaning is what is carried on in Revelation 20:8.
Neat eh? This is one of the valuable things taught in PFAL.
__________________________________________________________________
Now, I hate to bring this up for fear of being called a nitpicker, but in fairness to those who have left TWI to embrace a relationship with Jesus Christ, I feel I must point out that this is one of the many places where VP actually changed the Scripture concerning Christ to fit his theology. On page 200 we read this:
II Corinthians 12:8-10:
For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
And he [God] said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.
Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
D o you see it? VP added the word "God" in brackets when he quoted verse nine. But Paul is not talking about God. He say for this thing he "besought the Lord". He is actually talking here about praying to Jesus Christ. The "he" of verse nine is the Lord whose power is at work in verse 10. CONTEXT!
I think I can understand why VP did this, but it's still not kosher. TWI taught that we are to pray to God, and not Jesus. I for one agree, although I know there are many here who don't. I don't know of any scripture that says we're to pray to Jesus, although we are told repeatedly to pray to God in Jesus' name. How then should we interpret II Corinthians 12:8-10?
I believe the apostles had a relationship with Christ that the rest of the Church does not have. So I think Paul could beseech or pray to the Lord Himself and get an answer, but I don't think that means WE can do that. This is one reason Paul wrote of judging or forgiving believers in Christ's stead (II Cor. 2:10, I Cor. 4:19-21). Dr.
Wierwille didn't want to promote people following Paul's example in this regard and so he inserted the word "God" in verse nine to make it appear as if Paul was beseeching the Father and not the Lord. We'll see this repeated later in the book.
_________________________________________________________________
I think the principle VP taught here about the importance of the previous usages of a word is an important one and I think he rightly divided the Word of Truth about what Paul's thorn in the flesh was. However, as I mentioned earlier and demonstrated with I Corinthians 11:10 and Revelation 9:3-11, All Scripture does not interpret itself. There are plenty of scriptures for which you can look at the verse, the context and the previous usage and still not find an answer. What does it mean when the Bible says "for this reason ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels"? Are the locust of Revelation physical or spiritual? Where in the Bible does it tell us what it means to heap coals of fire on someone's head? Why was the improperly dressed wedding guest of Matthew 22:13 thrown into outer darkness? The answers to some of these questions may be found; but not in the Bible. Therefore the Bible does not interpret itself. Most of the Bible is easily interpreted, but some of it is difficult and some of it is impenetrable.
Therefore I say again the "no private interpretation" mantra is not only backward; taken from twisting the meaning of II Peter 1:20, but was also a convenient device subtilly used to discourage us from questioning what was taught. It's fine to encourage people to think what the Word says. But if you then misrepresent and distort what the Word says, those people's thinking will also be distorted and, ultimately, manipulated.
The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! Matthew 6:22 & 23
Peace
Jerry
edited by: JBarrax at: 10/6/00 2:00:57 am
|
L Anemone
(10/6/00 10:29:21 am)
| Re: Previous usage
Jerry
II Corinthians 12:8-10:
For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
And he [God] said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.
Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
There are only two places that I know of where Paul had encountered Jesus Christ...Acts 9:3-6 and in Acts 23:11, which was in a dream. If there are more, then please let me know. The Word of God does not show Paul having a regular conversation with Jesus Christ from time to time, nor does it ever showed he "prayed to" or beseeched him that one should come to this conclusion.
Previous to II Corinthians 12:8-10, in II Corinthians 9:8, Paul states; "And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things may abound to every good work."
Paul already knows that "God is able to make all grace...always having all sufficiency in all things..." So then why would he beseech Jesus when he already knew God was his sufficiency in all things. Did he believe Jesus Christ and God were the same? I don't think so. It really doesn't make any sense in how you are approaching these scriptures.
The question is why do you "assume" that Lord in verse 8 means "Jesus Christ?" The Greek word is for Lord in this verse is "kurios"...this is used both of Jesus Christ and God. Bullinger states: "In the Gospels kurios "usually"...not all the time...signifies God, while in the Epistles it "generally" ....not all the time...refers to Christ. This leaves us to determine the meaning of "Lord" within the context and the remote verses. If it were a habit of Paul to pray and talk to Jesus Christ on a regular basis I could see how perhaps Lord could mean Jesus Christ in this verse. However, there is no indication whatsoever that he did this.
Both encounters with Jesus Christ after his resurrection was done not by Paul beseeching him, but because God decided to do it because of His foreknowledge in knowing Paul's heart and what would come about because of his stand and walk for God. In Acts 23:11, it says Jesus Christ appeared to him "in a vision," at the time Paul was undergoing heavy persecution. Paul had nothing to do with it...makes no mention of him beseeching Jesus Christ at all. So, why would he do it here in verse 8?? Your reason for "thinking" that "he" is Jesus Christ is the problem here because then you are saying he beseeched or prayed to Jesus Christ to help him. Really, this makes no sense and doesn't logically fit with God's Word.
You said:
"Do you see it? VP added the word "God" in brackets when he quoted verse nine. But Paul is not talking about God. He say for this thing he "besought the Lord". He is actually talking here about praying to Jesus Christ. The "he" of verse nine is the Lord whose power is at work in verse 10. CONTEXT! "
Well, I think you have not concluded anything in this sharing at all. You say you think Paul is praying to
Jesus Christ and the whole word of God contradicts that one! Paul is saying he "besought the Lord"...meaning God because he knew God's grace sufficed and God reminded him of that truth. This fits. To say Paul, knowing the difference between God and Jesus Christ and that Christ's power...which is power from above..God's spirit in him....on that day just decided to call on Jesus Christ instead of God. Verse 10...CONTEXT...is God's power at work in Christ in Paul. That's the true context. Talk about private interpretation!!! God's Word certainly did not come by anyone's private interpretation but from God Himself as holy men of God spoke. VPW was right on when he said we are not to privately interpret, that which was not given in private interpretation in the first place.
I don't know which is worse..."your theory" on Enoch or "your thinking" on Paul prayed to Jesus Christ... and probably will be the only one who did. This is biblical research?!
I believe the apostles had a relationship with Christ that the rest of the Church does not have. So I think Paul could beseech or pray to the Lord Himself and get an answer, but I don't think that means WE can do that. This is one reason Paul wrote of judging or forgiving believers in Christ's stead (II Cor. 2:10, I Cor. 4:19-21).
Did not Paul have a relationship with God?...and a solid one at that. Did he think Jesus Christ could give him the answer and not God? Did he also think that Jesus Christ could do a better job? II Cor. 2:10 and I Cor. 4:19-21 no way support that Paul prayed to Jesus Christ. Talk about taking things out of context!
You said:
"Dr. Wierwille didn't want to promote people following Paul's example in this regard and so he inserted the word "God" in verse nine to make it appear as if Paul was beseeching the Father and not the Lord. We'll see this repeated later in the book."
Repeated later in the book...we shall see, Jerry
I didn't know you were God, Jerry. I guess you were inside VPW's head and heart and know all...I don't think so.
PS: When you look hard enough to find fault, you start seeing things that aren't really there. When we go to God's Word with preconceived thoughts that someone is already wrong, we will not be honest in our research, and all we will basically, bottom line have is just "another opinion."
To find a false loophole in his teachings by using Paul's close relationship to Jesus Christ squeezing in that he prayed to Jesus and leaving God out of the picture goes beyond the Word of God itself.
Anemone
| Mandii
(10/6/00 11:51:24 am)
| Re: Jesus Christ
2 Corinthians12:9
But he said unto me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my <u>power</u> is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that
Christ's power may rest on me.
1. When VP added "God" in parenthesis in his book, he was misleading people about whom Paul was actually speaking to and being spoken from.
2. The Lord said my power is made perfect, and Paul, right in the same verse declares it is Christ's power that rests on him. The scripture right there shows who he was speaking to, Jesus. And it was Jesus who spoke back to him.
3. If we want to claim that this was something special dispensation granted only to apostles, then we have to examine those doctrines that we learned and believed applied to us as well as the apostles, raising the dead, casting out spirits, healing the sick and so forth. What is designated for apostles only is
designated for apostles only and it isn't pick and choose or whatever fits better with our theology.
4. If we think that visions and such went out the door with the apostles, then why not the rest of the signs, miracles and wonders that they were the FIRST to perform.
5. If we think that Jesus comes only in times of extreme tribulation, then he is certainly busy with the rest of the world because people are being martryed
everyday. Moses just told me about a family, I think in North Korea(?) where the children were hung and the adults were ran over by steam rollers because they would not recant their faith.
6. The Lord did not deny Paul's request for help, even though he came boldy before the throne for help because of unbelief but rather on the sole discretion of the Lord to solve the problem in a manner that the Lord saw fit. This is an important item that VP left out of the class while he took us all over the bible to prove that the thorns were people. He totally ignored the fact that no matter how many times Paul could have said and believed that the thorn was gone would NOT have removed the thorn since it was not the Lord's will to do it that way.
Mandii | L Anemone
(10/7/00 9:06:32 am)
| Re: Previous Usage
Mandii
My response to what you said are in quotes.
2 Corinthians12:9
But he said unto me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my <u>power</u> is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that
Christ's power may rest on me.
1. When VP added "God" in parenthesis in his book, he was misleading people about whom Paul was actually speaking to and being spoken from.
"Was he?" "Are you that certain?!" Did you thoroughly study it throughout?"
2. The Lord said my power is made perfect, and Paul, right in the same verse declares it is Christ's power that rests on him. The scripture right there shows who he was speaking to, Jesus. And it was Jesus who spoke back to him.
"I don't think that you have really shown anything to substantiate the fact that the Lord means beyond a shadow of doubt "Jesus Christ?"
3. If we want to claim that this was something special dispensation granted only to apostles, then we have to examine those doctrines that we learned and believed applied to us as well as the apostles, raising the dead, casting out spirits, healing the sick and so forth. What is designated for apostles only is
designated for apostles only and it isn't pick and choose or whatever fits better with our theology.
"Mandii, Who is claiming that it was a "special dispensation?"
4. If we think that visions and such went out the door with the apostles, then why not the rest of the signs, miracles and wonders that they were the FIRST to perform.
"Who said "visions" went out the door?"
5. If we think that Jesus comes only in times of extreme tribulation, then he is certainly busy with the rest of the world because people are being martryed
everyday. Moses just told me about a family, I think in North Korea(?) where the children were hung and the adults were ran over by steam rollers because they would not recant their faith.
"What ever happened to "God."?? Do you believe they are the same? I really don't know you."
6. The Lord did not deny Paul's request for help, even though he came boldly before the throne for help because of unbelief but rather on the sole discretion of the Lord to solve the problem in a manner that the Lord saw fit. This is an important item that VP left out of the class while he took us all over the bible to prove that the thorns were people. He totally ignored the fact that no matter how many times Paul could have said and believed that the thorn was gone would NOT have removed the thorn since it was not the Lord's will to do it that way.
"I notice you don't once mention God but keep using The Lord???" "Do you mean God or Jesus Christ??"
"Who said the Lord denied Paul anything??...God showed Him the third heaven and earth! One of the reasons God did this was to encourage and to help Paul in the midst of all his trials and tribulations!"
"It seems like, to me, Mandii, that perhaps you have left out quite a bit!"
"God, (not Jesus), showed Paul the third heaven and earth because of the
afflictions he had to endure."
"We just can't take this particular verse and say loosely with the tongue, that Paul was talking and praying to Jesus Christ.! We need to read the remote chapters and verses. I suggest you read Chapters 10 & 11 and also the entire chapter of 12."
Again, there is not one account that shows Paul, or anyone else for that matter praying to Jesus Christ.
As far as I can see, Paul preached Christ and prayed and talked to God while maintaining his fellowship the Heavenly Father.
Anemone
PS: I really do see your heart...a lot of fire and spunk too!
| Mandii
(10/7/00 1:03:04 pm)
| Re: Previous Usage
Well,
Anemone, I'm happy that you provided me with an honest rebuttal.
When I suggested such things as dispensations, I was not saying anyone suggested it or suggested it as concrete evidence to back up their theology.
What I WAS doing was providing and posting a reply and addressing the maybes I saw in previous posts and also applying a technique I learned in college that had to do with writing term papers that had to take a subject and debate it.
Instead of just saying I believe this and this is why, I also had to go out of my way to answer any questions or objections in my paper before they were even asked.
It makes the paper and the researcher of the topic more well-rounded in their presentation.
I use that type of presentation in posting serious posts and also in my study of the Word of God. Therefore, I will accept no doctrine as totally true until it can be answered --within reason.
Ok, keep complimenting me like that, and I might get conceited but I do thank you for your sweet words.
OH, I kept putting the Lord there, because that is what the Word says, and although I believe it was Christ he was praying to, I was being nice to those who don't believe it was Christ and nice to those who are considering it. You caught me being postal correct. Excuse me for any confusion, but in dealing with that section of scripture, I do believe Paul was praying and hearing from the Lord Jesus Christ.
As for no proof or documentation that anyone prayed to Jesus, let me point out something that Cynic brought up on another post in a different forum.
Stephen, when being killed, said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
Mandii Edited by: Mandii
at: 10/7/00 1:03:04 pm
| JBarrax
(10/8/00 2:36:16 am)
| Re: Paul & Jesus
L Anemone:
Regarding II Corinthians 12 and Paul's beseeching of Jesus to remove the "thorn in the flesh", you said, "...There are only two places that I know of where Paul had encountered Jesus Christ...Acts 9:3-6 and in Acts 23:11, which was in a dream. If there are more, then please let me know." "
Who said the appearance of Jesus in Acts 23:11 was in a dream? Nor was it a vision, as you asserted later in your post.
And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
Just because Jesus stood by Paul at night doesn't mean Paul was dreaming. There is nothing in the context to support such a statement. Speaking of context, you mentioned II Corinthians 9:8. Although it is true that that verse says God is able to make all grace abound, it is not...prudent to ignore the immediate context of chapter 12 and go all the way back to chapter 8 to change 'Lord' to 'God'. That kind of tactic was common in TWI teachings regarding Jesus Christ and God, but it's not honest biblical research.
You do however, raise two important questions. 1)What does the word "Lord" in the New Testament mean? and 2) Why would Paul pray to Jesus Christ when everything we read in the scripture [including Paul's epistles] tells us to pray to God?
1) Who is the Lord of this age?
The pivotal verse regarding the usage of the word "Lord" is Acts 2:36.
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
When Jesus Christ was taken up into heaven, God gave him his title and position as Lord. So when we read of the Lord in the epistles, it is almost always a reference to Jesus Christ. Most of the references to God as Lord in the epistles are quotations from the Old Testament such as II Corinthians 6:17 & 18. Ephesians, for example uses the word kurios 28 times and not one of those is a reference to God. The word is used twice of earthly masters, and all of the other 26 references are of the Lord Jesus Christ. References to God as kurios in the epistles are the exception, not the rule.
2) Why did Paul pray to Jesus despite writing to the Church that we are to pray to God?
Briefly, I think Paul prayed to Jesus because:
1) Paul having received the revelation of the gospel of the mystery from Jesus Christ, had a right to ask for help in carrying out the ministry of that gospel. That's what II Corinthians 12 is talking about.
2) Apostles have a relationship with Jesus Christ that the entire Church doesn't share.
This second point I feel I need to explain, partially because it relates to VP's statements in PFAL that the Word takes the place of the absent Christ in our lives.
In the aftermath of POP*, many have refuted this doctrine of the "absent Christ" and have moved toward a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Those who have usually cite scripture that recounts Paul's dealing with Jesus and similar statements from John. Although I believe Jesus visited and instructed Paul and the other Apostles, I don't think the Scripture indicates that this is the standard for all of the Church. In short, the Church of the Body of Christ has a
hierarchy, with Christ at the head, the gift ministries just below Him, appointed by Him to serve the church, and the rest of us following the example of his ministers and walking with the Father; and anticipating the day when we all will have face to face fellowship with our Lord. I think I've already posted the verses in support of the "absent Christ" doctrine in PFAL Review part one. What I want to cover here is the part about our relationship with the ministers Christ ordains and their authority in the Church. [And just in case there's ANY doubt, I do NOT include myself in this category.]
The Foundation of the Church
Ephesians 2:19 & 20
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
That ye may have fellowship with US.
I John 1:3
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Acts 2:42
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
We follow them, they follow Christ
I Corinthians 11:1
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Philippians 4:9
Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.
Delegated authority
II Corinthians 10:8-11
8 For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:
9 That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters.
10 For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.
11 Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present.
I Corinthians 4:18-21
18 Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.
19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.
20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?
I Thessalonians 4:11, II Thessalonians 3:4, 6-10
And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;
4 And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you.
6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
I Timothy 4:11 These things command and teach.
I Timothy 6:13-17
13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
I Timothy 1:18-20
18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;
19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Well I think that's enough scripture, don't you? The point is, the ministers Jesus Christ appoints have authority in the Church and they should have a relationship with their overseer the Chief Shepherd. Therefore, they can receive revelation from the Lord or request guidance or assistance from him in carrying out his will. I think that is why Paul wrote to the Church to pray to the Father, but besought the Lord about the thorn in the flesh that was interfering with his performance of the job for which Jesus Christ had appointed him.
Peace
Jerry
PS. Mandii, speaking of special dispensations granted to apostles, II Corinthians 12:12 does speak of "the signs of an apostle", referring to the miracles Paul did. Also, Acts 2:43 and 5:12 speak of the signs and wonders done by the earlier apostles. The healing of the man at the Temple Gate comes to mind, as well as the dramatic demise of Ananias and Sapphira before Peter, the apostles' miraculous releases from prison, and Peter raising Dorcas from the dead. Food for thought...
edited by: JBarrax at: 10/8/00 2:36:16 am
*Passing of a Patriarch. The
document presented by Rev. Chris Geer alleging misconduct on the part of the
Way International's Board of Trustees and their lack of respect and fidelity
to Dr. Wierwille. The publication of this document was the beginning of the
breakup and fall of the Way International.
| Ex10th
(10/8/00 3:53:30 am)
| Re: Paul & Jesus
So, Jerry, having read thru your latest post, my question is, does our relationship change at the point we become some hotshot in the body? I mean, if those with "gift ministries" in the body are the only ones who have the intimate relationship with Jesus as Lord, what did they do before they had those ministries? At what point would a regular believer notice the change? Or do you believe that a regular sinner receives a ministry at the moment of salvation before they've proven themselves faithful? What about I Tim. 2:5? Is Jesus only the mediator between God and those who have "gift ministries"? Are you saying that Jesus is the "absent Christ" for only part of the body?
What about the Lord speaking to Annanais? And the two guys on the road to Emmaus? and to Peter? (okay, he was an apostle, too, but it's clear that the Lord gave him a vision in Acts 10) What about Stephen? who saw the Lord standing at the right hand of God? and then prayed to him?
What if one of us regular Joe peon believers happened to have vision or a revelation or whatever of Jesus or from Jesus, would that automatically make us an apostle? In Acts, Annanais was just "a certain disciple". No mention of any thing else.
I really don't see where some believers have more of an "in" with the chief than others. Wouldn't he be a
respecter of persons if this was the case? Seems to me, that the greatness of Christianity relies in part on the whole idea of equal access to God our Creator, and His son, our Lord, no matter who we are or where we come from.
Are you saying that we as believers have to work our way into a relationship with Jesus himself? From what I understand about "ministries" in the body, one must first be found faithful, before that "ministry" becomes evident in the church.
What about the records in the gospels when the disciples were trying to blow off the children and Jesus reproved them and took time to address the children and who they were? He said that we must become as one of them. What is the lesson in that?
I personally think that your hierarchy theory is kinda dangerous, and might possibly be what got
a lot of us in the soup with the way to start with, because we bought into it. We thought VPW was the man who was appointed, and had some kind of special standing with God or Jesus or whoever.
The questions I'm asking here are only the tip of the iceberg. Just think this line of logic through. Oh my gosh, the things that can come up!
Perhaps, I've misread your post, and am just not getting it. But it seems to me that you are implying that God and Jesus check out who you are first before they allow you "in".
Just wondering,
Ex10th
PS What about the verse that says "Come to me all you who labor and are heavily burdened and I will give you rest". Jesus said that in the gospels. The gospels were written well after the church epistles, therefore, I have a hard time believing that they were written only to people who were mostly dead and gone. What's up with that?
PPS I am not trying to challenge you to put you on the defensive, I hope you know that. I really want to know what you think. The only reason I'm asking these questions, is because I respect what you have to say.
Edited by: Ex10th at: 10/8/00 3:53:30 am
| Ex10th
(10/8/00 4:10:41 am)
| Re: Paul & Jesus
Please forgive me, it's way too late at night, or early in the morning I should say, but your last post really got me going. I've tried to go to sleep, but all these verses keep running through my head. So, here goes.
What about the book of Hebrews? Hebrews 4:15 says: "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are-yet without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need."
Seems pretty clear that we are to ask the Lord Jesus for help when we need it.
| Twosum
(10/8/00 9:13:27 am)
| Re: Paul & Jesus
Ex10th:
The first thing I would like to say , is that I marked down on my calendar the day we had an agreement. When you explained to me that what I said about abundant sharing and that it lines up with your thinking as well
A day to remember !
I just read Jerry's latest post also and I would say that I agree with it in the 95 to 98 % range.
The Church is suppose to follow their leadership. Leadership is given to the Church for more than one reason. Being an example is one of them, and doctrine is the other. Those are the two basic reasons for leadership.
Everyone in the body of Christ can receive revelation. But , those who are IN Christ can receive the nine manifestations of the Spirit - "only". Those nine manifestations are designed by God to "help" those who have needs. The first three are for fellowship , and fellowship is a need for the members of the body of Christ. The other 6 are not specifically for "only" those members IN Christ. All revelation coming down from God while using these nine manifestations of the Spirit, come down from God "through" Christ. These nine manifestations are the "only" revelation that comes down from God to the body of Christ for the function of the body of Christ, which is also the Last Adam, which is the "mediator" between God and man.
You will notice that the Word of God says between God and man. The Revealed Mystery, is the Last Adam. We who are IN Christ are ambassadors for Christ to man. We also fellowship one with another. This mediation between God and man can "only" utilize these nine manifestations of the Spirit.
Now, not to minimize the abundance of revelation that one can receive by way of these nine manifestations. I want to emphasize that these nine manifestations are
sufficient to mediate between God and man, as well as fellowship within the body of Christ.
This is the body - Christ as the head and his wife, the body of Christ - the two becoming one.
This is the building - Christ as the chief corner stone and the apostles and prophets making up the foundation of truth.
This is the purpose of the building - to expound truth ! Not only by word of mouth, by by example as well. God "gives" from the building to the body apostles , prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers "FOR" - Ephesians 4:11 thru 15.
In other words, you would not even know there was a body of Christ if it were not for
apostles and prophets. See - Ephesians 3:1 thru 12. Paul a "minister" - an apostle and (prophet) "of" Jesus Christ = chief corner stone, by the "will of God" - "to" - "to" - "to" the saints = the Church = the body of Christ < Ephesians 1:1 = "FOR" - "FOR" - "FOR" the "perfecting of the saints" - "work of the ministry" - and "edifying and building up of the body of Christ < Ephesians 4:12. Why ? - Ephesians 4:14 - "That we be no more children tossed to and fro , and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive"
Wherefore Paul was made a minister. I "TWOsum" also have been made a
minister for this same purpose. I declare this unto you , because this is my calling of God , to be an apostle of Jesus Christ to the saints, for the edifying and building up of the body of Christ.
TWO
The body of Christ is the mediator between God and man, which is the Last Adam.
The building - is for the perfecting of the saints by example and by revealings unto the body of Christ for the edifying and building up of the body of Christ, work of the ministry, and perfecting of the saints. The building is 'not' to be a mediator between God and man. The body is the mediator between God and man.
Direction:
The body of Christ, to man, by way of "the man" Christ Jesus - the Revealed Mystery.
The building , to the body.
The building is where we get our Apostles and Prophets and where Christ is the chief corner stone.
UPON:
Christians have the gift of "holy spirit" upon in order to utilize the nine manifestations of the Spirit.
Ministers with gift ministries , have the "Spirit of God" upon them , in order to be servants for the Lord Jesus Christ "to" the body of Christ.
Any questions
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| Mandii
(10/8/00 10:33:52 am)
| Re: Paul & Jesus
Yes, Jerry, when I said about the apostles doing things, namely the signs of the apostles, it was to point out that TWI put us in place to carry on the signs of the apostles when no of us were apostles.
So what are you saying? Are you agreeing with me that the apostles were the ones to do the raising of the dead, healing the sick? Because that is what the Word of God shows.
VP scoffed at apostolic succession and had us to believe that we could manifest the very same power that the apostles did. We don't even have the ministry of reconciliation--if one was to truly read that, they would see that Paul is speaking of himself and he was asking a bunch of already saved believers to be reconciled to God. They needed to be changed from what they were previously doing and practicing.
But the signs of the apostles no where indicates that Jesus was for the apostles only.
Stephen saw him when he was dying and Stephen prayed to him and as Ex10th pointed out, so did Annanias. To say that the apostles stood in better standing or had a special dispensation in their relationship with the Lord Jesus is just to re-instate a high priest who stood between the people and God and Jesus made God accessible to all men.
Jesus is the head of His body, he can talk to whomever He wants.
Mandii | L Anemone
(10/8/00 3:08:18 pm)
| Previous Usage
Jerry,
First of all, the error was not done on purpose or tactically used to deviously throw God's people off!! I realized the error later on. It does not state weather it was by a dream or vision. A human error on my part, but not to be thought evil of.
Good lesson on Acts 17:11..eh?
It doesn't specify, how or by what means he stood by Paul.
However, it does not change the POINT made, which was that he only had two (that I know of) encounters with Jesus Christ which does not support the fact that he prayed to him (in light of your saying he had a close relationship with Jesus Christ).
The kind of tactic you falsely accuse Dr. VPW of doing, and now including me in the picture, is exactly the same kind of "tactics" you have been using all along. I hardly think that Chapter 9 (not Chapter 8 as you
stated) is going "all the way back" as you try to exaggerate. It was through God's grace (divine favor, gift of holy spirit). This is the "all Grace" which abounds...the always present love and power of God in all
situation...it was enough, lacked nothing and that he was fully equipped. This was the point I was making. God told him, "My...God's grace, divine favor, God in Christ in him was sufficient. It was God he was talking to.
However, it is very important and necessary to read the remote chapter and verses to understand what II Corinthians 12 is saying. To not do so, is to do the very thing you did and that is to take it out of CONTEXT.
Paul was "caught up"...by revelation, and GOD showed him the third heaven and paradise. I would say this indicates that Paul had a "very close and tight" relationship and fellowship with God. To say that he prayed to Jesus instead, leaves that idea opened for serious questioning.
In Chapter 11, Paul mentions his thorn in the flesh...people, false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ, in whom Satan was working to hinder Paul from preaching Christ. Paul suffered much and was under heavy persecution. For Paul to have seen the third heaven and paradise must have given him great strength to undergo the persecutions he was facing. (See II Corinthians, Chapter 11) The CONTEXT of chapter 11 tie in with the CONTEXT of Chapter 12.
II Corinthians 12:2:
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God
knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
God knoweth...Paul knew the revelation that was given to him was from God. He walked in Christ and was in fellowship with God. Paul knew God's position and he knew Christ's position. I don't think he was confused as to who he would pray to. He was already on talking terms with God in the first place. So, why would he start talking and praying to Jesus. Why go to the vice president when you can go directly to the President?
Paul knew the Old Testament scriptures concerning God and that God is supreme. He knew God delivered his people from heavy persecutions. He knew that it was God who was at work in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. Paul knew that is was God who worketh in him to both will and do of His good pleasure. He knew and taught that the power of God was in Christ and now is in us. Again, knowing this, why would he seek Jesus instead of God? He taught this stuff!
You said:
"Briefly, I think Paul prayed to Jesus because:
1) Paul having received the revelation of the gospel of the mystery from Jesus Christ, had a right to ask for help in carrying out the ministry of that gospel. That's what II Corinthians 12 is talking about.
2) Apostles have a relationship with Jesus Christ that the entire Church doesn't share."
Concerning 1) You say Paul received the knowledge of the Mystery from Jesus Christ. I think it would have been nice if you would have given the scripture reference for that statement. There is no scripture I can find that agrees with what you claim.
However, In Galatians 1:12, it states: "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
"Of" is the Genitive Case. However in order to understand the meaning of the word "of," one needs to study the context.
Below is an explanation of "Genitive Case," from Appendix 17 of the Bullinger's Companion Bible...
Of" is usually the sign of the Genitive Case, though it is used also to represent fourteen different Greek words, videlicet, from, around, away, under, beside, upon, over, in, into, down, through, towards, with, before. Where, however, it represents the Genitive Case of a noun, the Holy Spirit uses it in a variety if different senses, the recognition of which is necessary to an intelligent appreciation of the passage.
These several usages may be conveniently grouped in the following nine classes, it being borne in mind that sometimes a Genitive may belong to more than one class; and also, that a study of the context will prove the surest way of determining to which class a particular Genitive belongs, where, at first sight, it seems difficult to classify.
5. The Genitive Relation. This is, perhaps, the most interesting of all; and the manner of expressing the particular relation must be gathered from the context. Frequently the "of" is equivalent to "pertaining to". It may be objective, subjective, or both, e.g. 2Corinthians 5:14, "The love of Christ", which may be the love Christ bears to us (subjective); the love we bear to Christ (objective); or both may be true, and the truth. Genesis 2:9, "The tree of life" i.e. the tree which
preserved life. Isaiah 55:3. Acts 13:34, "The sure mercies of David" = pertaining, or made, to David. Matthew 6:28, "Lilies of the field" = which grow in the field. Romans 8:36, "Sheep of slaughter" = sheep destined for slaughter. Hebrews 11:26, "Reproach of Christ" = reproach for Christ's sake.
According to the context of the Book of Galatians, which corrects the doctrinal error, which crept into the Church due to the failure of adhering to the revelation given in Romans that deals with one's righteousness.
"revelation of Jesus Christ" could then only mean the revelation "pertaining" to Jesus Christ and not from Jesus Christ. The emphasis falls on the gospel of Grace...the good news...made available by what Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the cross. "Saved by Grace and not by works, lest any man should boast."
Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Concerning 2)...I do not understand how the disjointed chapters and verses, which you threw in, have any bearing on the Apostles having a special relationship with Jesus Christ that the rest of the Church can't have? The Apostles knew Jesus Christ when he was alive and made his appearances to them before he ascended into heaven. However, since the Day of Pentecost, all were born again of God's spirit and all received the same measure of faith.
In answer to your question, "well I think that's enough scripture, don't you?...YES, they are enough of the wrong scriptures which do not substantiate what you say concerning the Apostles "special" fellowship with Jesus Christ. Christ is "in" every born again believer...we are "in" Christ and have fellowship with our Heavenly Father, the one and only Supreme God, and Father of all.
So, none of what you have said supports in any way, shape or form that Paul "prayed" to Jesus Christ nor that the Apostles had or have a "special and unique" fellowship with Jesus Christ that no one else in the Church can have. There's definitely no scriptural backup for that one!
______________________________________________________
Regarding Stephen praying to Jesus Christ. It's important that we carefully note what is written.
Acts 7:54-60:
When "they" heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and "they" gnashed on him with their teeth.
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Then "they" cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
And cast him out of the city , and stoned him and the witnesses laid down their clothes at the young man's feet whose name was Saul.
And "they" stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit.
The Critical Greek and the Aramaic texts omit "God."
The Greek texts read, "And they stoned Stephen, invoking and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
They were mocking and ridiculing Stephen. Stephen never said Lord Jesus, receive my spirit... those who stoned him spoke those words. They heard Stephen say "Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." They hated Stephen with a passion and Stephen was enduring excruciating pain from the stones bashing against his body, smashing into his head. Then he kneeled and cried out with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.
Verse 60: "And he kneeled down and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
Jesus Christ prayed to God on the cross and asked God to forgive them for they know not what they do. Stephen, humbly does the same.
God's blessings...Anemone
| JBarrax
(10/8/00 3:30:33 pm)
| Re: Paul & Jesus Q & A
Ex10th; You said
So, Jerry, having read thru your latest post, my question is, does our relationship change at the point we become some hotshot in the body? I mean, if those with "gift ministries" in the body are the only ones who have the intimate relationship with Jesus as Lord, what did they do before they had those ministries? At what point would a regular believer notice the change?
First let me say that our experience in TWI is not representative of how ministers are supposed to function. That was addressed in POP. As Jesus taught, ministers are supposed to serve, not demand service. Their authority is given for edification as Paul stated in II Corinthians 10:8. But just as some TWI clergy turned service into oppression, men in the early Church did likewise. So much so that the Corinthians had a hard time recognizing the genuine leadership and apostolic authority of Paul.
II Corinthians 11:18-23
18 Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.
19 For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise.
20 For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.
21 I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly) I am bold also.
22 Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.
23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.
The counterfeit leaders in the early Church exalted themselves. But that does not mean that the genuine authority of the apostles and elders is to be despised. True ministers aren't "hotshots", they're loving servants who live to support God's people.
You asked when people are brought into this kind of intimate relationship with the Lord. Good question. I can't say from experience, but the Word does give some info on this. Paul separated himself when he was saved and was later separated by Jesus Christ as an apostle in a public ordination by elders.
Galatians 1:15-17
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Acts 13:1-3
Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
The word separated is aphorizo, which Bullinger defines as "to set off by bounds, to limit off". It is first used in Matthew 25:32 in the context of separating the sheep from the goats. Paul's first separation was self-imposed. We may infer that during his years apart, he was receiving instruction from the Lord, but the Word doesn't explicitly say so. Acts 13 tells us that God ordered him and
Barnabas to be separated for the work unto which He had called them. So in answer to your question about when a person's relationship with Jesus Christ changes, I would say it's at that time when he or she is ordained. This ordination is supposed to be performed by other ministers as was done with Paul and as was done with Timothy (I Timothy 4:14).
You asked:
What about the Lord speaking to Annanais? And the two guys on the road to Emmaus? and to Peter? (okay, he was an apostle, too, but it's clear that the Lord gave him a vision in Acts 10) What about Stephen? who saw the Lord standing at the right hand of God? and then prayed to him?
The Lord didn't speak to Ananias. Ananias received revelation from God in the form of a vision. Receiving a vision is not a sign of a special relationship with the Lord.
Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
"Your young men shall see visions. Ananias was such a man, "a certain disciple" as you pointed out. A vision is visual revelation. It is not the actual presence of that which seems to appear. Before I go further, let me qualify that. There are two different Greek words translated "vision"; horama and optasia. The word horama means an image of
something that's not physically there. It's first used in Matthew 17:9 of the vision of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration. Moses and Elijah are dead. Yet they were seen in a vision talking with Jesus. The next use of horama is in Acts 7:3 in Stephen's sermon. He says the burning bush was a vision. This explains why the burning bush was not consumed. The flame was a vision. Likewise Ananias' vision of the Lord was not the physical presence of Jesus Christ, but revelation from God. The same is true of Peter's vision of the animals being let down in a sheet. The most telling use of this word is in Acts 12:9, which says that when the angel freed Peter from prison, he thought it was a vision. So Peter didn't realize he was actually,
physically free until the whole thing was over.
Acts 12:9 And he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which was done by the angel; but thought he saw a vision.
Peter knew that a vision is not a true or actual event. He thought the angel was only a vision until he was physically outside the prison. There is a different word used of Jesus' appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus.
Acts 23:13-19
At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: [optasia]
This word optasia is first used in Luke 1:22 of the appearance of Gabriel to Zacharias to announce the birth of John the Baptist. It is also used in Luke 24:23 in reference to the angels who appeared to Mary and the other women and proclaimed to them that Jesus was risen. Its third use is in Acts 26:19 and the final
ocurence of optasia is right back where we started; II Corinthians 12!
12:1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
Is that cool or what? The visions and revelations of the Lord Paul refers to are personal visits from Jesus Christ. Jesus went to check on Paul and give him revelation straight from his mouth. It could well have been during one of these "visions" that Paul besought Jesus to get rid of the thorn in the flesh. Perhaps this beseeching was not a "prayer" after all. To beseech means to beg or plead. If someone is personally present with you and you plead with them for something, is that a prayer in the same sense as someone making supplication to God? Perhaps not. So maybe I shouldn't have said Paul prayed to Jesus. But he did ask Jesus personally for a big favor. And that brings us to the answer to another of your questions.
You said:
I really don't see where some believers have more of an "in" with the chief than others. Wouldn't he be a
respecter of persons if this was the case?
If being a minister was all cookies and cream, that might be so. But, as the context of II Corinthians indicates, it's a tough job. Paul was separated unto beatings, imprisonments, hunger, thirst, persecutions, imprisonments AND the care of all the churches! Ministers aren't picked for special treatment and a
luxurious position. And remember the Lord's response. "My grace is sufficient for thee." The visions and revelations from the Lord, the personal relationship Paul had with Christ was not a
privilege, but a NECESSITY! Jesus was simply giving Paul the support he needed to carry out the difficult task to which he'd been called.
Keep in mind also that ministers are held responsible for their service. The parable in Luke 12:46 indicates that they are also subject to more harsh
judgment than the rest of us. So it's not being a 'respecter of persons" imo, to appoint someone to do something that requires an
unqualified lifelong commitment to serve a bunch of people [who may or may not appreciate it] and then hold them accountable for how well they do it.
Finally, you asked:
What about the verse that says "Come to me all you who labor and are heavily burdened and I will give you rest".
Jesus is the way the truth and the life. No man comes unto the Father but by him. And we ALL start by confessing Jesus as our Lord, so there's no difference there between ministers and the church as a whole. Those who make that lordship a real day to day commitment may find themselves with more
responsibility than they expected. They may be invited to a personal relationship with their Lord, but they will probably need it in order to overcome their own personal weaknesses, protect the sheep form the adversary, and supply the "care of all the churches".
Peace
Jerry
| Twosum
(10/8/00 3:51:59 pm)
| Re: Previous Usage
Anemone:
You said > "." Concerning 1) You say Paul received the knowledge of the Mystery from Jesus Christ. I think it would have been nice if you would have given the scripture reference for that statement. There is no scripture I can find that agrees with what you claim.
However, In Galatians 1:12, it states: "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
"Of" is the Genitive Case. However in order to understand the meaning of the word "of," one needs to study the context.
Below is an explanation of "Genitive Case," from Appendix 17 of the Bullinger's Companion Bible...
Of" is usually the sign of the Genitive Case, though it is used also to represent fourteen different Greek words, videlicet, from, around, away, under, beside, upon, over, in, into, down, through, towards, with, before. Where, however, it represents the Genitive Case of a noun, the Holy Spirit uses it in a variety if different senses, the recognition of which is necessary to an intelligent appreciation of the passage.
These several usages may be conveniently grouped in the following nine classes, it being borne in mind that sometimes a Genitive may belong to more than one class; and also, that a study of the context will prove the surest way of determining to which class a particular Genitive belongs, where, at first sight, it seems difficult to classify.
5. The Genitive Relation. This is, perhaps, the most interesting of all; and the manner of expressing the particular relation must be gathered from the context. Frequently the "of" is equivalent to "pertaining to". It may be objective, subjective, or both, e.g. 2Corinthians 5:14, "The love of Christ", which may be the love Christ bears to us (subjective); the love we bear to Christ (objective); or both may be true, and the truth. Genesis 2:9, "The tree of life" i.e. the tree which
preserved life. Isaiah 55:3. Acts 13:34, "The sure mercies of David" = pertaining, or made, to David. Matthew 6:28, "Lilies of the field" = which grow in the field. Romans 8:36, "Sheep of slaughter" = sheep destined for slaughter. Hebrews 11:26, "Reproach of Christ" = reproach for Christ's sake.
According to the context of the Book of Galatians, which corrects the doctrinal error, which crept into the Church due to the failure of adhering to the revelation given in Romans that deals with one's righteousness.
"revelation of Jesus Christ" could then only mean the revelation "pertaining" to Jesus Christ and not from Jesus Christ. The emphasis falls on the gospel of Grace...the good news...made available by what Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the cross. "Saved by Grace and not by works, lest any man should boast." "
Anemone: Actually it means both "of" and "from" , but the word "of" is appropriate within the writing.
Ephesians 3:3 & 5 reveals this !
This verse is telling us that God by way of Revelation through his Son to Paul. It takes on the same mind picture that we would have seen in the gospels, when Jesus Christ was teaching his disciples. Paul is a "servant" of Jesus Christ by the will of God. This then becomes a dual
(TWO) service. In Ephesians 3:5 it tells us that this revealing about the Mystery, was revealed by "the Spirit", which means God, who is "the Spirit". But the chain of command is "never" broken.
Dual - Philippians 1:2
Dual - Colossians 1:1
Dual - I Thessalonians 1:1 within a double - double
Dual - I Corinthians 1:1
Dual - II Corinthians 1:1
Dual - Galatians 1:1
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| chastened
(10/8/00 8:35:52 pm)
| Twosum
Twosum, you wrote in an earlier post:
'Wherefore Paul was made a minister. I "TWOsum" also have been made a
minister for this same purpose. I declare this unto you , because this is my calling of God , to be an apostle of Jesus Christ to the saints, for the edifying and building up of the body of Christ."
Are you saying you are an apostle, or did I read that incorrectly?
I apologize for this distraction, but I really wanted to know .
chastened
| L Anemone
(10/8/00 11:41:18 pm)
| Previous Usage
Twosum,
I'm not sure what you are saying in regard to Galatians 1:12. Are you saying revelation "pertaining" to Jesus Christ is incorrect?
Thank you,
Anemone
| Twosum
(10/9/00 12:41:26 am)
| Re: Previous Usage
Anemone:
The Revelation of Galatians 1:12 is true, but it carries two meanings, using the word "of". It means "of" and "from" = For God.
The Revelation "of" Jesus Christ , is not about while he was here on earth. It is about what God did 'after' he ascended up into heaven. = Hence the Revealed Mystery - Ephesians 1:17 thru 23 and many other verses of scripture.
Does this help ?
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| L Anemone
(10/10/00 3:45:44 pm)
| Previous Usage
Jerry,
Where and how did you come up with when a person is ordained to be an Apostle or whatever that his or her relationship with Jesus Christ changes?? You mean they get to see Jesus too?....Chapter and verse on that one please...and I mean chapter and verse.
The situation with Paul was an isolated one and for very good reasons. How God deals with those who are ordained and honestly utilize their gift ministry is totally God's business.
Anemone
PS: Ephesians 5:17, " Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord [God] is.
Edited by: L Anemone at: 10/10/00 3:45:44 pm
| L Anemone
(10/10/00 12:14:27 pm)
| Re: Previous Usage
Hi Jerry,
You keep reiterating II Peter 1:20. I would also like to reiterate my viewpoint on the subject matter once again.
All Scripture is God breathed. It came by holy men who were moved by the spirit. God is the source. Because God is the source, it did not come by one's private interpretation. True...I agree. So, if it is of no private interpretation, then no one should privately interpret that Word or make it say something other than what God said. Now IMO, VPW was not a stupid man. I really think he understood the "source" of God's Word has the emphasis there and rightfully so.
To put it in a nutshell, he was simply saying. This is God's Word...what He is saying about Himself, His Will and so forth...so don't mess with it!
So how you managed to turn it into some devious plot on VPW's part, is beyond me.
This is not taking anything out of context. It's agreeing that God is the source of His Word and we should respect that by allowing His Word to speak for itself...which is what he meant when he said God's Word interprets itself. He didn't mean it's all explained to our understanding and we don't need to work it. He meant God's own explanation of His Word is in God's Words...we just need to understand what that is.
Also, much of God's Word interprets itself right where it is.
Example: For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
A further example: Someone comes along, and takes that verse and says "yeah but you still need to obey the law or you won't have everlasting life." What did he just do? He or she took the God-breathed Word that came of no private interpretation and privately, personally, opinionated it interpreted it to mean something entirely different to what the Word is actually saying. Now, the Word of God, which IS of no private interpretation was privately interpreted.
So, isn't that what the chapter is saying. Isn't that also what the Apostles were saying?..."hey folks the Word we are giving you didn't come from us dudes, our own private interpretation, but it came from God..He's the source...He's the originator of His own Word...it came by holy men of God...it's a sure thing."
This is so simple to my mind. Why are you and others drawing an evil face on him? He just wanted us to understand the importance of allowing God's Word to speak for itself. So now he's a devil in disguise??...I think not.
If the Word does not interpret itself right where it is than there is no interpretation. Oh my God!!...what a horrible nightmare! See...look at it....look at what he just said!! He's just a fraud, a fake!
What did he mean? Did he explain it?
He said on pg. 146, "After eliminating private interpretation (understanding that The Word came by holy men of God), two alternatives ( a choice between two). 1) either there is no interpretation (explanation) possible or 2) The Word must interpret itself.
Now, here is what he said: "If there is no interpretation possible, then we might as well forget the whole project of understanding The Word. BUT this is not the case. There is another answer - The Word interprets (explains) itself."
Oh no...someone please call 911...he should be arrested for making such a statement.
Well if he left it like that, I can understand the questions one would have...but the demeaning remarks made, that I can't understand.
But, he does not leave it like that. He explains "how" it interprets itself.
1) it interprets itself in the verse where it is written; or 2) it interprets itself in its context; or 3) the interpretation can be found by its previous usage in the Word.
Don't worry, I'm not going to go thru the whole chapter. He goes on in detail to explain and give examples of how the Word interprets itself.
Honestly, I don't see the dilemma. I thought it was a wonderful teaching. Still do. I learned a lot from that session of the class and it has helped me in my studies concerning God's Word.
The thing I see here is that the very keys he taught us on biblical research is being used against him now and slapping him in the face. I wonder if he were here if anyone would literally do that...no difference in my eyes.
Jerry, in regard to II Corinthians 12:8, I tried putting Jesus Christ there, and prayer or no prayer, it still falls out of place because of the contexts which includes II Corinthians, chapter 11. Also, Jesus Christ always went to Paul...and it was on God's behalf and timing. Here, in this verse, saying that Paul was deliberately looking to Jesus instead of looking to God for answers causes a bit of a problem for me in my understanding of the Word. Well, still working on that one. Perhaps this is why Dr. VPW put God in brackets at that time. I don't know...I wasn't there and I don't judge. I guess I will have to hold that in abeyance for awhile.
Anemone
Edited by: L Anemone at: 10/10/00 12:14:27 pm
| extwi
(10/10/00 10:39:48 am)
| Horizontal lines
To all on this thread,
Please do not insert a long series of dashes ---------- etc., underscores ____________ , or a long series of non-breaking characters (e.g. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) into posts as this causes a horizontal scroll bar to appear at the bottom of the thread thus forcing people to not only scroll down the thread, but additionally to scroll sideways as well.
Jerry Barrax and some others (thank you folks :) ) on this thread are using the HTML tag (HR) (when you insert this tag, replace the round brackets with angle brackets < > )and this puts in place a properly proportioned horizontal line that does not force the thread to extend sideways.
Using dashes or other methods of making lines (---------) may look the same, but it is not.
Please opt for the (HR) tag instead when you want to divide up your post.
example of the (HR) tag:
Many thanks,
Ex-TwiEdited by: extwi
at: 10/10/00 10:39:48 am
|
|
