Well, I agree, but i have to read bible to refute that? be more specific please ! I'd go with a non biblical response ... my first breath was good ... I didn't know it was available ... I'm feeling argumentative :)
It came along at a time when I wanted to believe that the bible was THE Word of God, was getting inconsistant and contadictory messages from my church and others that I investigated, and wanted to "make a difference".
So, whether PFAL was right or wrong or somewhere in between, I was fertile ground for the message.
By the time the class was filmed, Wierwille had been teaching it live for 15 years or so. He had plenty of time to work out the kinks, and perfect his approach. Without reference (at this time) to PFAL's "accuracy", Wierwille did a great job of convincing folks that:
The churches weren't doing the job of teaching the bible by demonstrating how several widely accepted doctrines didn't line up with (his interpretation of) the bible
The bible could be understood by anyone by simply utilizing certain "keys"
HE was the best one around to tell you what it really meant
By setting that groundwork, Wierwille, for good or evil, established himself as THE authority on the bible
The first verse quoted in piffle was John 10:10, "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly."
I then recall a discussion of how unbelievers lived often more "abundantly" than believers. But, according to this verse, that it was God's will for believers to live more abundantly in all categories of life, mentally, financially, physically, etc.
The first verse quoted in piffle was John 10:10, "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly."...
Do I remember the beginning "accurately?"
The first thing vp does is to add a word ... vp says, he didn't just say an abundant life, he says "more than abundant"
well, no, he says "more abundant"... so if it was minus 10 abundant, then minus 9 abundant would be more abundant ... lesson one is .. vp's class is not about logic, just accept and submit .. if it is wrong, he will tell you...
4. No moderator alerts. If you find this thread upsets you or makes you uncomfortable in any way, please exit immediately, and join in on any number of our other doctrinal discussions in this forum. All other discussions will follow our usual forum rules.
Modaustin --- are all the mods going on vacation, or what?
The film was only supposed to be an introduction to the books. The books WERE edited and tweaked over the years.
Related to this “written over the spoken” is rhino’s previous topic of “more than abundant” versus “abundant.” One of the reasons Dr constantly urged that we master the WRITTEN materials from the class is because we had mastered the SPOKEN part TOO well and it was preventing us from graduating to the more accurate and more full written aspect of the class.
This issue of Dr’s handling of “abundant” in those opening moments of the class show some of why graduating to the written was so important, and that it still awaits our action.
Here are corresponding sentences, first in the film class and then in the book on this issue of abundance.
***
film: And here I was reading from the Word of God one day Jesus said he came that we might have life and have it more than abundant.
book: Then one time I was especially alerted when I read from the Word of God that Jesus said He had come to give us life more abundant.
***
film: So I began to ask myself the question, "Why is it, if Jesus Christ came that men and women might have life more abundant, why is it that the Christian believers do not manifest an abundant life?"
book: Thus I earnestly began to pursue the question, “If Jesus Christ came that men and women might have a more abundant life, why is it that the Christian believers do not manifest even an abundant life?”
***
film: Then I noticed furthermore that that verse said he didn't just come to give an abundant life. He came that we might have life and have it more than abundant!
book: sentence deleted
***
film: You know I believe most people would be thankful wouldn't they, most Christian believers, if they even manifested an abundant life. But that's not what the Word says. The Word says that Jesus Christ came that we might have life not abundantly, but have a life which is more than abundant. More than abundant!
book: I believe most people would be thankful if they even lived an abundant life; but The Word says Jesus Christ came that we might have life not just abundant, but more abundant.
***
film: But if he told the truth, if he meant what he said and said what he meant when he declared that he came that we might have life and have it more than abundantly, ladies and gentlemen, somewhere, someplace, somehow, surely there must be keys, there must be signposts that will guide us into the understanding and the receiving of this life which is more than abundant.
book: if Jesus told the truth, if He meant what He said and said what He meant in this declaration, then surely there must be keys, signposts, to guide us to the understanding and the receiving of this life which is more than abundant.
***
Notice that the book gradually converges up to the film’s level of abundance. The film class is like an introduction to the greater abundance that is available today in book form. The film class ushered us into the 5-senses understanding while the books usher in the greater spiritual understanding.
There’s no question that the abundance we have now is much greater than the abundance Jesus was referring to in John 10:10. The abundance of the mystery was still to come when Jesus spoke those words.
I distinctly remember hearing a SNS tape from a year or two after he filmed the class where Dr complains that many of his students were getting the idea that he was teaching an abundance that was a “carload of money.”
In other teachings Dr points to the manifestations as the real abundance.
I’ve heard Dr teach with Bible verses (Timothy I think) that if we were healthy and had food, clothing, and shelter we ought to be extremely thankful, so these items constitute some of our physical abundance.
He also taught that it’s needs, not greeds, that we can look to God for.
It’s this kind of thing that I was trying to show “A simple guy” on doojable’s thread. We can’t just launch into big theories from one passage of PFAL, we need to collect ALL the places where the same topic comes up.
Dr taught us to do this collecting of ALL occurrences of a topic in our KJVs before we start jelling our thoughts, and the same key applies to rightly dividing PFAL.
Yes, that was “Masters of the Word – Mastering PFAL” and when it was pruned out last year it was the longest thread in GSC history... I think.
These PFAL threads always stir up a lot of thought, because it’s where the real heart of the ministry was.
***
Oakspear,
This same idea you brought up here of Dr asserting that he had the ultimate say on Biblical research (stemming from the 1942 promise to him) was previously brought up by you on doojables “Ok, once and for all” thread, and I then commented on in my lengthy post on that same thread, in the green font text in the middle, and I thought I’d reproduce it here.
The reason I’m doing this is because later on this thread I want to bring up many of the “Thus saith the lord” statements Dr spoke and printed. These statements fit into a context, a certain atmosphere you and I sampled in those early days, where Dr was constantly claiming by the attitude he maintained, that, being God’s appointed spokesman, he was the ultimate authority on Biblical research.
Here’s how I put it in doojables’s thread discussing with her your similar comments there.
Some of us were there, in the good old days, when Dr’s many verbal claims and hints of being God’s spokesman were still in the air.
Dr’s authority to teach us what God taught him (his “thus saith the lord” attitude) was in the air EVERYWHERE in those earlier 70’s. It’s just that nobody ever flashed on the idea that, in addition to the God-given ability to speak by revelation to us, Dr could also write by revelation exactly what God wanted us to read. The reason we never flashed on it is Dr kept us too busy moving the Word and he wanted to keep the idea of his writing of revelation RELATIVELY under wraps. I’ll explain some other time what I mean by “relatively” here.
(And all those concerned with plagiarism can note that my use of “write” here is complex and includes not only original and divinely dictated revelation, but the discussion type of revelation I’ve reported here, as well as the doojabble-recognized type of revelation as “from whom” he should learn, even if it’s exact text.)
On this same thread of yours, doojable, Oakspear wrote: “Vic Wierwille clearly believed that his interpretation of the bible was superior to anyone else's. __ He also believed that if the existing texts did not support what he taught, then the text was a forgery, or that there was another text out there that supported his position.”
Oakspear also wrote: “...his word was still elevated above anything that was written in the bible.”
Here, I assume Oakspear, when he uses the phrase “the bible,” again means the commonly accepted ancient texts and modern versions of said Bible, not the originals.
Oak goes on with: “Although Wierwille was careful to always elevate the written 'Word', in practice, no text, no verse was as elevated as his own opinion. So, in a sense, Wierwille did believe that his doctrine was superior to the bible in any of it's translations or versions. So, of course he wanted us to ‘master’, not only the bible, but his spin on the bible, PFAL, and all of his other books.”
I think Oak, with his advantage of having seen the earlier days, and with his advantage of being a more detached observer as a self-proclaimed atheist, is able to see that Dr claimed to be THE authority, and I’ll add “because he was appointed such by God.”
**********
Now, on this same thread we see Raf, who was a relative late comer, after Dr’s death, never having known Dr or his ministry (only Craig’s) arguing the opposite of Oakspear.
Just the opposite of the “air” I described above that enveloped Oakspear and all us OLGs, Raf was surrounded by fallen corrupted TWI leaders (and later by similar Geer and CES leaders) who had all long rejected Dr’s authority, and were busying themselves with re-inventing the wheel God and Dr had already perfected.
Raf wasn’t exposed to the same atmosphere of absolute respect for Dr that Oak had and I and other OLGs (Older Leader-type Grads) had experienced. The written “thus saith the lord statements” of Dr’s sailed right past Raf when he got in, as they continue to do to this day. But those of us who knew Dr’s attitude of “Thus saith” can see them plain as day if we’re not spiritually suffocated in churchianity tradition or something else.
Later, when I post a string of “Thus saith the lord” statements of Dr’s it will be understood why I’m doing this if these things are kept in mind.
I distinctly remember hearing a SNS tape from a year or two after he filmed the class where Dr complains that many of his students were getting the idea that he was teaching an abundance that was a “carload of money.”
In other teachings Dr points to the manifestations as the real abundance.
I’ve heard Dr teach with Bible verses (Timothy I think) that if we were healthy and had food, clothing, and shelter we ought to be extremely thankful, so these items constitute some of our physical abundance.
He also taught that it’s needs, not greeds, that we can look to God for.
It’s this kind of thing that I was trying to show “A simple guy” on doojable’s thread. We can’t just launch into big theories from one passage of PFAL, we need to collect ALL the places where the same topic comes up.
Dr taught us to do this collecting of ALL occurrences of a topic in our KJVs before we start jelling our thoughts, and the same key applies to rightly dividing PFAL.
So can you provide me his actual definition...you've given me three possibilities...but what did he define it as?
I seem to remember him teaching using the words "in all categories" in regards to that.
It's been 20 years since I've sat in a piffle class and about 15 years since I've cracked the book...so I want to make sure that I'm not misrepresenting something. And I figure if anybody has got the man's words memorized around here, it's going to be you.
Is this going to be the thread where Mike answers all the actual (not apparent) errors in PFAL? No? Then it's just as worthless and just as much a waste of energy as every other Mike (who's a vicious, misogynistic idolater) thread that's been here since 2002. Or 2001. Or whenever he started posting his idolatrous pigswill.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
89
149
306
85
Popular Days
Feb 10
62
Feb 20
61
Feb 11
46
Mar 2
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 89 posts
CM 149 posts
Mike 306 posts
Tom Strange 85 posts
Popular Days
Feb 10 2006
62 posts
Feb 20 2006
61 posts
Feb 11 2006
46 posts
Mar 2 2006
45 posts
Posted Images
rhino
gloves should be optional ... this sounds like a butch and sundance kid kinda fight ... first rule ... no rules ... LOL
But OK, you gotta stay in the ring ...
Let's see, how can I pick a fight?
"as I was moving ahead with the things of Gawd, as I thought they were the things of Gawd ..."
see, he is already admitting he was a screw up! what really were those things? his sexetary?
Is this what you had in mind modaustin?
Piffle is all about vpw covering for his weaknesses ...
OK, that might be a decent kick off
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
lol...Modaustin...
ok i'll take session 1
nope-not true
read bible....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Well, I agree, but i have to read bible to refute that? be more specific please ! I'd go with a non biblical response ... my first breath was good ... I didn't know it was available ... I'm feeling argumentative :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Looks spacious in here,
plenty of freeway access,
convenience stores nearby,
a church just down the block,
...and RED DRAPES ON THE WINDOWS!!!
I'll TAKE it!
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
What can I say about PFAL?
It came along at a time when I wanted to believe that the bible was THE Word of God, was getting inconsistant and contadictory messages from my church and others that I investigated, and wanted to "make a difference".
So, whether PFAL was right or wrong or somewhere in between, I was fertile ground for the message.
By the time the class was filmed, Wierwille had been teaching it live for 15 years or so. He had plenty of time to work out the kinks, and perfect his approach. Without reference (at this time) to PFAL's "accuracy", Wierwille did a great job of convincing folks that:
By setting that groundwork, Wierwille, for good or evil, established himself as THE authority on the bible
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
Yes, to Dr's claiming to be THE authority.
When Dr was alive and especially President, he exuded an attitude of "Thus saith the lord" nearly everywhere he went, AND we believed him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
OK, I'll bite.
Let's start off with the beginning.
The first verse quoted in piffle was John 10:10, "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly."
I then recall a discussion of how unbelievers lived often more "abundantly" than believers. But, according to this verse, that it was God's will for believers to live more abundantly in all categories of life, mentally, financially, physically, etc.
Do I remember the beginning "accurately?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
The first thing vp does is to add a word ... vp says, he didn't just say an abundant life, he says "more than abundant"
well, no, he says "more abundant"... so if it was minus 10 abundant, then minus 9 abundant would be more abundant ... lesson one is .. vp's class is not about logic, just accept and submit .. if it is wrong, he will tell you...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
rhino,
You're referring to the film class. All that was cleaned up in the book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Modaustin --- are all the mods going on vacation, or what?
This should be interesting!!
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
T'is ironic, that the books got edited -- yet the film never did.
(Even though they tried to.) <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A simple guy
Too funny.
The last thread went 20 pages, I wonder what this one will get up to.
I'm selling popcorn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
The film was only supposed to be an introduction to the books. The books WERE edited and tweaked over the years.
Related to this “written over the spoken” is rhino’s previous topic of “more than abundant” versus “abundant.” One of the reasons Dr constantly urged that we master the WRITTEN materials from the class is because we had mastered the SPOKEN part TOO well and it was preventing us from graduating to the more accurate and more full written aspect of the class.
This issue of Dr’s handling of “abundant” in those opening moments of the class show some of why graduating to the written was so important, and that it still awaits our action.
Here are corresponding sentences, first in the film class and then in the book on this issue of abundance.
***
film: And here I was reading from the Word of God one day Jesus said he came that we might have life and have it more than abundant.
book: Then one time I was especially alerted when I read from the Word of God that Jesus said He had come to give us life more abundant.
***
film: So I began to ask myself the question, "Why is it, if Jesus Christ came that men and women might have life more abundant, why is it that the Christian believers do not manifest an abundant life?"
book: Thus I earnestly began to pursue the question, “If Jesus Christ came that men and women might have a more abundant life, why is it that the Christian believers do not manifest even an abundant life?”
***
film: Then I noticed furthermore that that verse said he didn't just come to give an abundant life. He came that we might have life and have it more than abundant!
book: sentence deleted
***
film: You know I believe most people would be thankful wouldn't they, most Christian believers, if they even manifested an abundant life. But that's not what the Word says. The Word says that Jesus Christ came that we might have life not abundantly, but have a life which is more than abundant. More than abundant!
book: I believe most people would be thankful if they even lived an abundant life; but The Word says Jesus Christ came that we might have life not just abundant, but more abundant.
***
film: But if he told the truth, if he meant what he said and said what he meant when he declared that he came that we might have life and have it more than abundantly, ladies and gentlemen, somewhere, someplace, somehow, surely there must be keys, there must be signposts that will guide us into the understanding and the receiving of this life which is more than abundant.
book: if Jesus told the truth, if He meant what He said and said what He meant in this declaration, then surely there must be keys, signposts, to guide us to the understanding and the receiving of this life which is more than abundant.
***
Notice that the book gradually converges up to the film’s level of abundance. The film class is like an introduction to the greater abundance that is available today in book form. The film class ushered us into the 5-senses understanding while the books usher in the greater spiritual understanding.
There’s no question that the abundance we have now is much greater than the abundance Jesus was referring to in John 10:10. The abundance of the mystery was still to come when Jesus spoke those words.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
So, Mike, using VPW's words, what did he mean when he said "life more abundant" ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Mark,
I distinctly remember hearing a SNS tape from a year or two after he filmed the class where Dr complains that many of his students were getting the idea that he was teaching an abundance that was a “carload of money.”
In other teachings Dr points to the manifestations as the real abundance.
I’ve heard Dr teach with Bible verses (Timothy I think) that if we were healthy and had food, clothing, and shelter we ought to be extremely thankful, so these items constitute some of our physical abundance.
He also taught that it’s needs, not greeds, that we can look to God for.
It’s this kind of thing that I was trying to show “A simple guy” on doojable’s thread. We can’t just launch into big theories from one passage of PFAL, we need to collect ALL the places where the same topic comes up.
Dr taught us to do this collecting of ALL occurrences of a topic in our KJVs before we start jelling our thoughts, and the same key applies to rightly dividing PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
ASG --- sell some front row tickets, while you are at it!
One of Mike's threads about pfal went well over 100 pages, (closer to 200 I think,
I forget the exact number), and had more than 10,000 hits.
I think that one got deleted when Paw *pruned* the board here.
You'll hear a lot repeated here, that went on there.
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
Yes, that was “Masters of the Word – Mastering PFAL” and when it was pruned out last year it was the longest thread in GSC history... I think.
These PFAL threads always stir up a lot of thought, because it’s where the real heart of the ministry was.
***
Oakspear,
This same idea you brought up here of Dr asserting that he had the ultimate say on Biblical research (stemming from the 1942 promise to him) was previously brought up by you on doojables “Ok, once and for all” thread, and I then commented on in my lengthy post on that same thread, in the green font text in the middle, and I thought I’d reproduce it here.
The reason I’m doing this is because later on this thread I want to bring up many of the “Thus saith the lord” statements Dr spoke and printed. These statements fit into a context, a certain atmosphere you and I sampled in those early days, where Dr was constantly claiming by the attitude he maintained, that, being God’s appointed spokesman, he was the ultimate authority on Biblical research.
Here’s how I put it in doojables’s thread discussing with her your similar comments there.
Some of us were there, in the good old days, when Dr’s many verbal claims and hints of being God’s spokesman were still in the air.
Dr’s authority to teach us what God taught him (his “thus saith the lord” attitude) was in the air EVERYWHERE in those earlier 70’s. It’s just that nobody ever flashed on the idea that, in addition to the God-given ability to speak by revelation to us, Dr could also write by revelation exactly what God wanted us to read. The reason we never flashed on it is Dr kept us too busy moving the Word and he wanted to keep the idea of his writing of revelation RELATIVELY under wraps. I’ll explain some other time what I mean by “relatively” here.
(And all those concerned with plagiarism can note that my use of “write” here is complex and includes not only original and divinely dictated revelation, but the discussion type of revelation I’ve reported here, as well as the doojabble-recognized type of revelation as “from whom” he should learn, even if it’s exact text.)
On this same thread of yours, doojable, Oakspear wrote: “Vic Wierwille clearly believed that his interpretation of the bible was superior to anyone else's. __ He also believed that if the existing texts did not support what he taught, then the text was a forgery, or that there was another text out there that supported his position.”
Oakspear also wrote: “...his word was still elevated above anything that was written in the bible.”
Here, I assume Oakspear, when he uses the phrase “the bible,” again means the commonly accepted ancient texts and modern versions of said Bible, not the originals.
Oak goes on with: “Although Wierwille was careful to always elevate the written 'Word', in practice, no text, no verse was as elevated as his own opinion. So, in a sense, Wierwille did believe that his doctrine was superior to the bible in any of it's translations or versions. So, of course he wanted us to ‘master’, not only the bible, but his spin on the bible, PFAL, and all of his other books.”
I think Oak, with his advantage of having seen the earlier days, and with his advantage of being a more detached observer as a self-proclaimed atheist, is able to see that Dr claimed to be THE authority, and I’ll add “because he was appointed such by God.”
**********
Now, on this same thread we see Raf, who was a relative late comer, after Dr’s death, never having known Dr or his ministry (only Craig’s) arguing the opposite of Oakspear.
Just the opposite of the “air” I described above that enveloped Oakspear and all us OLGs, Raf was surrounded by fallen corrupted TWI leaders (and later by similar Geer and CES leaders) who had all long rejected Dr’s authority, and were busying themselves with re-inventing the wheel God and Dr had already perfected.
Raf wasn’t exposed to the same atmosphere of absolute respect for Dr that Oak had and I and other OLGs (Older Leader-type Grads) had experienced. The written “thus saith the lord statements” of Dr’s sailed right past Raf when he got in, as they continue to do to this day. But those of us who knew Dr’s attitude of “Thus saith” can see them plain as day if we’re not spiritually suffocated in churchianity tradition or something else.
Later, when I post a string of “Thus saith the lord” statements of Dr’s it will be understood why I’m doing this if these things are kept in mind.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
So can you provide me his actual definition...you've given me three possibilities...but what did he define it as?
I seem to remember him teaching using the words "in all categories" in regards to that.
It's been 20 years since I've sat in a piffle class and about 15 years since I've cracked the book...so I want to make sure that I'm not misrepresenting something. And I figure if anybody has got the man's words memorized around here, it's going to be you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Mark,
Yes, all three categories, is what I remember too.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mike -- I ain't a gonna quibble about words here, even though you want to.
Let me get this straight (once again) ---
the film class means NOTHING, while the books are EVERYTHING? Hmmmmmm?
The SAME DOCTRINE was taught in both.
The film was what was offered to prospective *inductees*, not the books.
The magazine was an *offshoot* production.
The films, the books, the way rags ALL promoted docvic and his teachings.
There was not ONE that was *GOD-BREATHED*, and to laud one over the others is ludicrous.
Docvic was promoting himself, what *ministry* he thought he had, and made a pile of dough
(from folks like you and I) as a result.
Now you might look for *hidden words* in the way rag, but to me ----
it is a magazine, with some articles, nothing else.
Docvic had a *machine* rocking and rolling, and he used all *available*
resources to keep that sucker bringing in the cash.
So he had a *last lost teaching*. Big deal.
So what if it was on tape, and in print, and all us OLG's *missed* it???
To me --- it one last desparate attempt by the MAN to continue a *ministry*
(as a legacy to himself), after he was gone.
His *last lost teaching* (either in print, or on tape) was a feeble cry for recognition
AND NOT THE COMMAND OF THE LORD!
(did someone say the gloves were off?? )
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
One would think with all the "PFAL mastery" threads that have been started - who really has time to get around to episode 6: RETURN OF THE JEDI PFAL?
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Is this going to be the thread where Mike answers all the actual (not apparent) errors in PFAL? No? Then it's just as worthless and just as much a waste of energy as every other Mike (who's a vicious, misogynistic idolater) thread that's been here since 2002. Or 2001. Or whenever he started posting his idolatrous pigswill.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Interesting, Raf. I would hope so ---------------------------
(but I'm not holding my breath.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites