Was the Spirit of God Indwelling the Redeemed before Pentecost?

[Bob Carabbio]

A person does not need the indwelling to be reborn.

TOTALLY DISAGREE!!!! the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" is what renders a person "Reborn" / "Christian" / "Saved" / "Born again" / pick your euphemism.

John 20:22 reveals the point at which the Disciples became "born again" Luke 24:45 indicates the EFFECT OF THAT on the Disciples, and Acts 2:4 records the point at which the Holy Spirit "came upon" the Disciples (the church), externally clothing them with POWER.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"Man's Theology" has issues with all truth. So what? It is what it is. Deal with it. No need for the contentious attitude. Your continual scornful mocking is out of place. Just saying.

Your opinion is noted. put me on "IGNORE" - problem solved.

 

[Arial]

TOTALLY DISAGREE!!!! the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" is what renders a person "Reborn" / "Christian" / "Saved" / "Born again" / pick your euphemism.

John 20:22 reveals the point at which the Disciples became "born again" Luke 24:45 indicates the EFFECT OF THAT on the Disciples, and Acts 2:4 records the point at which the Holy Spirit "came upon" the Disciples (the church), externally clothing them with POWER.

John 3 tells of the rebirth. The rebirth and the indwelling are distinct. The rebirth changes the heart towards God. The indwelling takes the Christian life from there to its consummation. The fact that they are both done by the Holy Spirit does not make them the same thing.

 

[Arial]

So you're saying the NT is clear on the matter, but the OT is not?

Exactly. It may actually be there in what God was doing, but it is not defined or expressed as it it in the NT---and in the new covenant it is about believing in the crucified and risen Christ, specifically, and is how God brings people into that covenant.

 

[Eleanor]

The purpose, efficacy, effect, limits and application, of the laws (or Law) of God is not singular or simple. There are, in fact, multiple reasons for the Law cited in both Old and New and if we took all the many things said about the law there is no reason to think that list would be exhaustive. What you have observed is (mostly) correct but it is not complete. That which is incomplete is often also wrong wherever the incomplete is assumed complete .
For example,

• The law is good (when used lawfully).
• The law is spiritual.
• The law is applied to the converts to Christ, both Jewish and Gentile.
• The law is abrogated or annulled as a means of obtaining righteousness and justification.
• The law informs us of sin.
• The law is the means of accounting for sin.
• The law is one small portion of what may be and often is called the "Mosaic covenant" but that covenant is one small portion of a much larger covenant that runs through the entirety of scripture.

That partial list demonstrates the law is anything but "simply" to reveal sin. You've taken Hebrews 8:13 out of context. Go back and read the larger Hebrews 8 text and combine it with what Paul wrote about the law. Verse 13 certainly cannot be made to conflict with verse 10 . Re-read (because I am confident you have read them before ) Paul's commentaries on the law in Romans 3-8 and 10. NOTE that he specifies to conditions, two specific contexts, for his comments. The first is the law as a means by which someone might be justified (a legal term indicating a valid basis for standing before God) and righteousness.

Aside from those two specified application Paul often and repeatedly applies the laws of God to his audiences! So too do all the other NT writers.
The NT authors constantly referenced, cited, and quoted the OT laws and applied them to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ.

Examples would be helpful, that I may examine them in context.

But they never did so teaching the law makes a person righteous.
And we're getting far afield of the op. What's relevant about the law to the op is that the law is planted in the convert's heart by grace, through faith solely via the inner working of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the law put into our minds and written on our hearts is a form of indwelling. I will go even further to say the standard precedent established in the NT is that regeneration and indwelling are not normally two separate events and those exceptions found in the NT are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule.

1) And in the New Covenant, the law planted in the heart is the law of Christ, summed up in one rule: love of God and neighbor as self.
He who loves has fulfilled the law (Ro 13:8).
We are now under Christ's law (1 Co 9:21, Gal 6:2, Mt 22:37-40, Ro 13:8-10).

2) Righteousness has always been by faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:1-4).
The laws were given as a rule of life in the OT simply to reveal sin's
nature--spiritual defilement, transgression,
consequences--uncleanness, death, and
remedy--cleansing, blood sacrifice,
in its patterning of the office and atoning work of Christ.

The atoning work of Christ has now made the law obsolete, along with the covenant on which it was based (Heb 8:13).
In its place, we have the sacrifice of Christ as our remedy for sin, and the law of Christ (love) as our rule of life.
That is the New Covenant order replacing the Old Covenant order of rule keeping.

 

[Eleanor]

Eleanor said:
It is simply the terms of the old covenant contract with man, and is all that is relevant to that contract. It was given simply to reveal sin (Ro 3:20), nothing more and nothing less, which is why it was made obsolete with that covenant (Heb 8:13) and summed up in one rule in the New Covenant by the Holy Spirit; i.e., love of God and neighbor as self (Ro 13:8-10, 1 Co 9:20, Mt 22:37-40).
Being rather (and, yes, extremely, I suppose) partial to @Eleanor, I could be wrong, but I am thinking you are mistaking her argument here. She uses "simply" only in context of the point she is trying to make. She does not mean that "the purpose, efficacy, effect, limits and application, of the laws (or Law) of God is [not] singular or simple."
But, yes, the fact that it is not simple is to some degree relevant to her argument.

Always my authorized spokesman. . .

 

[Josheb]

To me, loss of existence would be mercy, which you presented as the ultimate punishment, worse than suffering forever.

Okay.

Explain how endless, torturous existence is less merciful than a protracted period of torture eventually ending in the knowing cessation of existence is more merciful. In other words, explain how life is less merciful than death because that is what the two boil down to: no matter how torturous that life might be the person is still alive and alive knowing they'll never die. While it is true the one living a torturous life knowing there will be an eventual end to the suffering might possibly be thought first to be a valued end of suffering it comes at an enormous cost that can never be undone. How is life less merciful than death?

I know.

It turns the matter on its proverbial head, doesn't it.

To me...

Don't make it about yourself!

Make it about scripture. Do you believe death will one day be destroyed?

1 Corinthians 15:26 NAS
The last enemy that will be abolished is death.

1 Corinthians 15:26 KJV
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Revelation 20:14
Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.


When you physically die and are resurrected immortally to eternal life do you expect to find death walking around among the immortal eternal? Is death destroyed or not?

 

[Josheb]

Agreed. If you have the time, read post #165 in answer to @Arial #157 (I don't know how to link to 165 directly until someone quotes it.)

https://christcentered.community.fo...eemed-before-pentecost.1291/page-8#post-51141

I'll pass. There are multiple points of disagreement I have with that post so will avoid doing so but if there is one or two specific points, you'd like to discuss then post them.

To link to a POST hold you cursor over the "share" icon at the top right of any post (the three little circles in a triangular form) and put your cursor in the text box. Do noe click on the share icon. Doing that will take you to that posts. Hold the cursor over the icon without clicking and the url to the post will come up in a text box. Just click in there and don't try to highlight it. A simple click alone should highlight the entire link. Then, once highlighted, just Ctrl-C for copy and there you go! That link can be attached to any text using the chain-link icon in the editing tools above every post.
.

 

[Josheb]

Eleanor said:
It is simply the terms of the old covenant contract with man, and is all that is relevant to that contract. It was given simply to reveal sin (Ro 3:20), nothing more and nothing less, which is why it was made obsolete with that covenant (Heb 8:13) and summed up in one rule in the New Covenant by the Holy Spirit; i.e., love of God and neighbor as self (Ro 13:8-10, 1 Co 9:20, Mt 22:37-40).

Being rather (and, yes, extremely, I suppose) partial to @Eleanor, I could be wrong, but I am thinking you are mistaking her argument here. She uses "simply" only in context of the point she is trying to make. She does not mean that "the purpose, efficacy, effect, limits and application, of the laws (or Law) of God is [not] singular or simple."

But, yes, the fact that it is not simple is to some degree relevant to her argument.

If that is true then I stand corrected but 1) I'd like her to clarify that and 2) my points still stand: the law was used to justify, the law/Law exists for many reasons/purposes, the former is incorrect while the latter is necessary and correct, and it is all relevant to the op because the law planted in the mind and heart of the convert is a form of indwelling.

The matter of the law is a curious means of considering pre-Pentecost indwelling. The written Law was certainly externally existent from the time of Moses onward. Romans 2 tells us the laws of God have always been known and not just by the Jew to whom the written Law. Both Romans 5 and a host of precedents in the OT prior to Sinai imply some laws of God were known long before written down (how did Abel know how to provide a worthy offering?). Those aspects are universal in some way. That universal condition stands in stark contrast to the likes of Enoch, Abraham, Daivd, Elijah and others who clearly have a much better, different, more substantive and "integrated" understanding of the law that helped them at various times in their lives (even if only episodically) go far beyond the otherwise merely flesh obedience common (also universal) to the Jew to whom the Law had been given. I haven't done an actual count, but I would venture to say the record of scripture will testify to some explicit mention of the Spirit working in most of those individuals (I can think of a few possible examples of silence, like Rahab).

 

[Josheb]

Examples would be helpful, that I may examine them in context.

One obvious example would be the Law prohibiting the muzzling of an ox while it threshes grain.

Deuteronomy 25:4
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the grain.

That law is cited several times in the NT but, curiously, none of the examples have anything specifically to do with oxen or grain threshing.

1 Corinthians 9:9-10
For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned?

1 Timothy 5:18
For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

An Old Testament Law from the Mosaic code was cited and applied to Christians, both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ. Every time the term "bondservant" is mentioned that is a direct reference to the Law of Moses in which working off debts was required (owning other people as slaves outright was forbidden in the Law; indentured service and the jubilee cycle were the standard). We in modern times have enormously changed the practice but in the NT the "Lord's supper" was couched in Jesus' Passover meal which, again, is explicitly a matter of the Mosaic Law. There's an entirely different meaning and importance to that meal once fulfilled by Christ but that does not change the fact that Law and all its meaning and significance was applied to Christians, both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ.

However, never were any of those laws asserted as the means of obtaining righteousness or justification. Those can be obtained only through Christ by grace through faith and the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

 

[Josheb]

The atoning work of Christ has now made the law obsolete, along with the covenant on which it was based (Heb 8:13). In its place, we have the sacrifice of Christ as our remedy for sin, and the law of Christ (love) as our rule of life. That is the New Covenant order replacing the Old Covenant order of rule keeping.

You can repost that as many times as you like but my reply will still be the same: you are neglecting the context specified by the text itself. You are proof-texting and proof-texting is always and everywhere bad practice. This is objectively observable in the examples I previously provided: The Hebrews 8 text ALSO explicitly states the law will be planted in mind and heart (how then can it be annulled, or why plant it if its annulled?) and the Romans narratives explicitly state the specific conditions of obtaining righteousness and justification.




You are proof-texting and proof-texting is always and everywhere bad practice. This is objectively observable in the examples I previously provided: The Hebrews 8 text ALSO explicitly states the law will be planted in mind and heart (how then can it be annulled, or why plant it if its annulled?) and the Romans narratives explicitly state the specific conditions of obtaining righteousness and justification.

You are proof-texting and proof-texting is always and everywhere bad practice. This is objectively observable in the examples I previously provided: The Hebrews 8 text ALSO explicitly states the law will be planted in mind and heart (how then can it be annulled, or why plant it if its annulled?) and the Romans narratives explicitly state the specific conditions of obtaining righteousness and justification.

You are proof-texting and proof-texting is always and everywhere bad practice. This is objectively observable in the examples I previously provided: The Hebrews 8 text ALSO explicitly states the law will be planted in mind and heart (how then can it be annulled, or why plant it if its annulled?) and the Romans narratives explicitly state the specific conditions of obtaining righteousness and justification.

You are proof-texting and proof-texting is always and everywhere bad practice. This is objectively observable in the examples I previously provided: The Hebrews 8 text ALSO explicitly states the law will be planted in mind and heart (how then can it be annulled, or why plant it if its annulled?) and the Romans narratives explicitly state the specific conditions of obtaining righteousness and justification.

Please do not repeat what you previously posted. Move the conversation forward. You post was addressed and addressed with scripture AND you were asked to verify it for yourself. Your response is first to commendably ask for examples of the Law's use (does that request indicate a lack of knowledge?) which has now been provided and, second, to not so commendably post argumentum ad nauseam. I read the original post and I understand English well. I do not need or want meaningless repetition, especially after the matter has been addressed. If you get your Bible out and look at Hebrews 8 you will see that what I posts is what scripture actually states. I do not care what the highest, noblest, most appointed teachers might say because if they teach anything other than what scripture plainly states they are wrong. LOOK IT UP! If you read Romans 3-8 and chapter 10 you will also see exactly what I posted: Paul limits his narrative. He limits the conditions of his commentary to two and only to contexts: 1) righteousness and 2) justification. LOOK IT UP!

Because if you do look it up AND you do verify what I posted then you won't have to repeat yourself and I won't have to do so, either.

Stop proof-texting.






Scripture does say the law was annulled, BUT it says that in specified contexts and never states the law is always and everywhere annulled for all time and all purposes everywhere all at once. Such an interpretation not only ignores the specified context it directly contradicts the examples provided by the NT authors themselves. Such an interpretation makes Paul, Peter, James, and John (and whoever wrote Hebrews) contradict themselves!

The atoning work of Christ has now made the law obsolete, along with the covenant on which it was based (Heb 8:13). In its place, we have the sacrifice of Christ as our remedy for sin, and the law of Christ (love) as our rule of life. That is the New Covenant order replacing the Old Covenant order of rule keeping.

Relevance to the op?

 

[Eleanor]

Okay.

Explain how endless, torturous existence is less merciful than a protracted period of torture eventually ending in the knowing cessation of existence is more merciful.

Didn't include a protracted period of torture in my choice.

In other words, explain how life is less merciful than death because that is what the two boil down to: no matter how torturous that life might be the person is still alive and alive knowing they'll never die. While it is true the one living a torturous life knowing there will be an eventual end to the suffering might possibly be thought first to be a valued end of suffering it comes at an enormous cost that can never be undone. How is life less merciful than death?
I know.
It turns the matter on its proverbial head, doesn't it.
Don't make it about yourself!

Torture that would be applicable to me is necessarily about myself.

Make it about scripture. Do you believe death will one day be destroyed?

Physical death is destroyed in the resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:26 NAS
The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
1 Corinthians 15:26 KJV
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
Revelation 20:14
Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
When you physically die and are resurrected immortally to eternal life do you expect to find death walking around among the immortal eternal?
Is death destroyed or not?

You are the one who presented speaking my existence out of existence, which I definitely would prefer over suffering.

 

[Eleanor]

One obvious example would be the Law prohibiting the muzzling of an ox while it threshes grain.

Deuteronomy 25:4
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the grain.

That law is cited several times in the NT but, curiously, none of the examples have anything specifically to do with oxen or grain threshing.

1 Corinthians 9:9-10
For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned?

1 Timothy 5:18
For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

An Old Testament Law from the Mosaic code was cited and applied to Christians, both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ. Every time the term "bondservant" is mentioned that is a direct reference to the Law of Moses in which working off debts was required (owning other people as slaves outright was forbidden in the Law; indentured service and the jubilee cycle were the standard). We in modern times have enormously changed the practice but in the NT the "Lord's supper" was couched in Jesus' Passover meal which, again, is explicitly a matter of the Mosaic Law. There's an entirely different meaning and importance to that meal once fulfilled by Christ but that does not change the fact that Law and all its meaning and significance was applied to Christians, both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ.

However, never were any of those laws asserted as the means of obtaining righteousness or justification. Those can be obtained only through Christ by grace through faith and the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

 

[Josheb]

Didn't include a protracted period of torture in my choice.

Um.... ok.

Matthew 13:41-42
The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will weed out of His kingdom every cause of sin and all who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I do not believe I have read anyone describe chaff tossed into a furnace, trash rotting in the local dump, or people thrown into a fiery lake as a pleasurable experience.

 

[Eleanor]

One obvious example would be the Law prohibiting the muzzling of an ox while it threshes grain.
Deuteronomy 25:4
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the grain.
That law is cited several times in the NT but, curiously, none of the examples have anything specifically to do with oxen or grain threshing.
1 Corinthians 9:9-10
For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned?
1 Timothy 5:18
For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

So Dt 25:4 is stated twice for one figurative application.

An Old Testament Law from the Mosaic code was cited and applied to Christians, both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ. Every time the term "bondservant" is mentioned that is a direct reference to the Law of Moses in which working off debts was required (owning other people as slaves outright was forbidden in the Law; indentured service and the jubilee cycle were the standard).

Where it is not an OT law to be observed in the NT.

We in modern times have enormously changed the practice but in the NT the "Lord's supper" was couched in Jesus' Passover meal which, again, is explicitly a matter of the Mosaic Law. There's an entirely different meaning and importance to that meal once fulfilled by Christ but that does not change the fact that Law and all its meaning and significance was applied to Christians, both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ.

There was no OT law regarding the Lord's Supper which is to be observed in the NT.

However, never were any of those laws asserted as the means of obtaining righteousness or justification. Those can be obtained only through Christ by grace through faith and the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

So "Paul often and repeatedly applying the laws of God to his audiences, as do all the other NT writers," is not about their audiences' obeying the Decalogue, but about the OT regulations serving as figures fulfilled in the NT.

And being fulfilled therein, those OT regulations are completed and no longer in force.

 

[Josheb]

Torture that would be applicable to me is necessarily about myself.

I see.

To me that would be mercy, rather than suffering for an eternity.

It's a non-suffering, non-torturous merciful judgment .

Physical death is destroyed in the resurrection.

Not relevant. The death I am asking about is...

Revelation 20:14-15
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

In the end both the place where go the dead and death itself are tossed into the fiery lake. It happens after the resurrection. Death is destroyed. Death is annulled. Death is thrown into a fiery lake so destructive even death is dead. Your death ended at the resurrection, but there is another death coming for most.

So, I ask you again:

When you physically die and are resurrected immortally to eternal life do you expect to find death walking around among the immortal eternal? Is death destroyed or not?

You are the one who presented speaking my existence out of existence, which I definitely would prefer over suffering.

LOL!

Never said any such thing . Go back and re-read the posts, starting Post 131 (that's where this digression began). See whether or not I ever said YOUR existence was ever going to be eradicated. When you do not find me saying that do two things: 1) Tell me you were wrong (or misread the posts) and make it right by 2) Gathering a correct understanding of what I actually posted and furthering the discussion op-relevantly.

I was asked a question and I answered it. I'd like the courtesy of parity, or reciprocation.

When you physically die and are resurrected immortally to eternal life do you expect to find death walking around among the immortal eternal? Is death destroyed or not?

 

[Eleanor]

You can repost that as many times as you like but my reply will still be the same: you are neglecting the context specified by the text itself. You are proof-texting and proof-texting is always and everywhere bad practice. This is objectively observable in the examples I previously provided: The Hebrews 8 text ALSO explicitly states the law will be planted in mind and heart (how then can it be annulled, or why plant it if its annulled?)

And in the New Covenant, the law planted in the heart is the law of Christ, summed up in one rule: love of God and neighbor as self.
He who loves has fulfilled the law (Ro 13:8).
We are now under Christ's law (1 Co 9:21, Gal 6:2, Mt 22:37-40, Ro 13:8-10).

and the Romans narratives explicitly state the specific conditions of obtaining righteousness and justification.

Justification is by faith, and righteousness is by dying to sin and obedience to the law of Christ; i.e., love of God and neighbor as self.

Please do not repeat what you previously posted. Move the conversation forward. You post was addressed and addressed with scripture AND you were asked to verify it for yourself. Your response is first to commendably ask for examples of the Law's use (does that request indicate a lack of knowledge?) which has now been provided and, second, to not so commendably post argumentum ad nauseam. I read the original post and I understand English well. I do not need or want meaningless repetition, especially after the matter has been addressed. If you get your Bible out and look at Hebrews 8 you will see that what I posts is what scripture actually states. I do not care what the highest, noblest, most appointed teachers might say because if they teach anything other than what scripture plainly states they are wrong. LOOK IT UP! If you read Romans 3-8 and chapter 10 you will also see exactly what I posted: Paul limits his narrative. He limits the conditions of his commentary to two and only to contexts: 1) righteousness and 2) justification. LOOK IT UP!

It seems I misunderstood your use of the law in the NT. Yours is not about their audiences' obeying the Decalogue, but about the OT regulations serving as figures fulfilled in the NT.

Because if you do look it up AND you do verify what I posted then you won't have to repeat yourself and I won't have to do so, either.
Stop proof-texting.
Scripture does say the law was annulled, BUT it says that in specified contexts

In what contexts is the law annulled, and in what context is it not?
It was never given as a means of justification, for justification/righteousness has always been by faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:1-3).

and never states the law is always and everywhere annulled for all time and all purposes everywhere all at once. Such an interpretation not only ignores the specified context it directly contradicts the examples provided by the NT authors themselves. Such an interpretation makes Paul, Peter, James, and John (and whoever wrote Hebrews) contradict themselves!
Relevance to the op?

"The atoning work of Christ has now made the law obsolete, along with the covenant on which it was based (Heb 8:13). In its place, we have the sacrifice of Christ as our remedy for sin, and the law of Christ (love) as our rule of life. That is the New Covenant order replacing the Old Covenant order of rule keeping."
My statement above was in light of my misunderstanding that you were referring to OT law-keeping in the NT.

 

[Eleanor]

I see.
It's a non-suffering, non-torturous merciful judgment .
Not relevant. The death I am asking about is...
Revelation 20:14-15
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
In the end both the place where go the dead and death itself are tossed into the fiery lake. It happens after the resurrection. Death is destroyed. Death is annulled. Death is thrown into a fiery lake so destructive even death is dead. Your death ended at the resurrection, but there is another death coming for most.

So, I ask you again:
When you physically die and are resurrected immortally to eternal life do you expect to find death walking around among the immortal eternal?
Is death destroyed or not?

What doth the Scripture say?

Eleanor said:
You are the one who presented speaking my existence out of existence, which I definitely would prefer over suffering.

LOL!

Never said any such thing .

From your post #136:
"I would further say that, temporally speaking, all judgments are also acts of mercy because God could simply speak a sinner's existence out of existence and do so with such effect that all memory in others of the sinner's existence is also eradicated."

Go back and re-read the posts, starting Post 131 (that's where this digression began). See whether or not I ever said YOUR existence was ever going to be eradicated. When you do not find me saying that do two things: 1) Tell me you were wrong (or misread the posts) and make it right by 2) Gathering
a correct understanding of what I actually posted and furthering the discussion op-relevantly.

Keeping in mind I misunderstood your use of law in the NT to mean OT law-keeping.

I was asked a question and I answered it. I'd like the courtesy of parity, or reciprocation.

When you physically die and are resurrected immortally to eternal life do you expect to find death walking around among the immortal eternal?
Is death destroyed or not?

What doth the Scriptures say?

 

[makesends]

Your opinion is noted. put me on "IGNORE" - problem solved.

One fellow who considers me his best friend --his "brother", even-- is such a person as you are. I speak with him all the time. I'll talk to you too, until I don't want to, but I will call it as I see it.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

One fellow who considers me his best friend --his "brother", even-- is such a person as you are. I speak with him all the time. I'll talk to you too, until I don't want to, but I will call it as I see it.

Fine by me. We've all got our "Styles".