WhiteDove

LOL Raf I have no idea! Guess I read your post as I was typing maybe. Anyway that was his explanation for why all nine were used , he says that there are other records but I don't remember him teaching any other ones to illistrate his point ever it was always this one. I seem to remember All nine all the time as Chas did,so I wonder what was the reason for working so hard to get them all in one record here anyway.

Raf from the class he says regarding this The reason he could say to him in the name of Jesus of Nazareth,rise up and walk,he had to have had Discerning of Spirits to find out whether this was due ,to the way he was born,whether it was due to devil spirits. That was eliminated,so he had to have word of Knowledge to know the score, Word of Wisdom,then,to know what to do about it. Then he had to have Believing, the manifestation of Believing, to carry it out. He had to believe. Here's a man born this way.God shows him,he can be delivered.

Chas not sure which Mike you were addressing but I have a set of tapes for the class the transcript someone gave me for a copy of the Acts Corps notes. You can buy the transcript from the Belieze folks.

Well that's what I thought too Chas Even in the Acts record it looks like a strech his premise for SIT and Interpretation & Prophesy is quote "Because Peter and john were on their way to the temple they must have started the day,hour of prayer. They must have spoken in tongues,they were in a believers meeting with the rest of the apostles,and the other disiples,they must have interpreted and prophesied." A pretty weak case for those manifestations I'd think Maybe they were maybe not.

Dang Chas I'm not sure he seems to go back n forth on this at the session end he says All you do is walk the word,people. One - one record in the Word of God - they're all like this,but I've taken the time to teach you one,to show you that all nine manifestations are in that one, sir. All nine manifestations are involved in delivering a person of a migraine headache,for instance,or even a toothache or anything else. You got to have 'em all baby. That's why Christ is all in all of you,because he is there and nothing is missing.

Looks like Chas and I were posting at the same time but she is right the transcript I have is from the 79 class tape. I'd have to check an older syllabus to see if it shows up there as well. But thats what the segment CD and transcript recorded.

Mike segment 34 of the Advanced Class is titled All Nine all Of The Tme.It covers the record in Acts 3: Silver and gold have I none.......... That is the record he used to show that all nine manifestations were in use during this healing. In the opening from the transcript he states "In every situation where you minister,people,all-basically all nine manifestations have to be in operation within you,to minister effectually and to bring deliverance to God's people. I read through the transcript quickly but it looks like he was saying there you need to have a knowledge of all nine and how to use them within you so that you would be ready for any situation. A lot on hit and miss ministering.

I often do Belle. I have most of the books he used bought some of them in the Way Bookstore by the way. Then again there is the parts that were not plagiarized that are still none the less true, in which case I refer to the source PFAL or VP Wierwille. If PFAL proponents were to really evaluate the class and the things that they hold to - and I don't mean just looking up the scriptures that are used in the class and reading the "assigned TWI reading materials" - they would come to very different conclusions than what they currently believe. Not that we would all come to the same conclusion, but at least PFAL would have been taken out of the picture Not Really Belle I was evaluating and re-evaluating material for years, while you were in and supporting Craig in his teachings. I left because I could not see biblical basis for many of the teachings. It was a conscious choice due to dishonest doctrine that I left for . Not because I was forced out or hung around supporting a crazy man, until I was $*@! on long enough to where I left because I was PO'd ,not due to biblical error.

I should note at this point that I have said the same thing a gazillion times....... None the less nothing wrong with giving credit to a source where you learned from either. Someone else we know did that and it gets pointed out on a regular basis here.

I thought the same thing. Apparently it was truthful enough for you to accept it and find some use for it. (which was My point) The fact that you use it to defend your position must mean that you accept it as logical otherwise why use it? I guess there is some truth when it benefits our point of view.....

Didn't say one should ,but the truth is it is a done deal for most of us we have years of info already referenced. So why waste that which is true. I see no point to that . That does not mean you have to forgo critical examination or that you should but if after the test it still remains to be true and useful no point in not using it now is there . If I am hanging a picture and determined from all the objects in front of me that what I suspected was a hammer is in fact a hammer I would not throw it away. I'd use it as such and hang my picture. PS even if the guy who made it at the factory was a thief.

I don't think it is to hard to understand whether or not the moral character of someone speaking/teaching a mathematical equation changes the result of the equation. A sub-moronic idiot should be able to figure that out. Ok so you got that point,we are in agreement. I ask the question instead, could the moral character, purpose or motivation of someone interpretating and teaching the scriptures affect the way he or she interprets and teaches the scriptures? Yes it could, then again it does not mean it had to or it did. Sure it's possible and if it altered the truth then it would no longer be such. Of course if you plagiarize other peoples work as is, then it would still remain truthful (if it was to begin with that is) PFAL contained some work that is acceptable as true in the Christian belief system. It has some that is not. That which is is still true regardless of the person speakings lifestyle,faults,morals. Could a person motivated by greed, power, lust, possibly misuse the scriptures for personal gain? Could scripture be selectively and intentionally "wrongly divided" in order bring about certain self-serving effects? Is the "truth" of a verse or section of scripture still "truth" if is it presented out of context and misapplied? Yes, Yes, No Now what if we know for a fact from the first hand accounts of many eye-witnesses that someone who was greedy, abusive, power hungry and so forth, wrote many books that expound the scriptures and lay out what are presented as spiritual truths and laws? I'll accept your point here for the sake of argument ,but those are judgments that may change with each persons evaluation . It does not mean that they are true, I might think of you as being one way someone else another doesn't make either true. Wouldn't folks be wise to critically examine those books and the proposed spiritual truths and laws taught within them? Yes What about credibility? Would it be totally unreasonable to cast that author's works aside and use other more credible sources references. No, but it does not mean you have to either. You could choose to use that which is usable. That which is True is still True. In regards to credibility, what if I want to witness Christ to folks and I keep using that author as my main source of reference. How do I answer when someone does an Internet search and sees all the things out there about the author. How does that affect my own credibility? Do I really want to keep fighting that battle? Answer with the truth, That would be each persons choice, I don't mind because I think that the benefit sometimes out ways the alternative. Naw, I guess we just want to argue about whether or not the Word of God is still the Word of God on the lips of Charlie Manson...... or if 1+1 is still = 2 if said by a bank robber. Why on earth would someone want to learn the word of God from Charlie Manson anyway? Or Wierwille for that matter ......... knowing what we know. You can pick and choose anyone you wish to place in there Goey , the point as I'm sure a bright man like you understood is that it is still truth ,it does not change because a type of person says it. Hey wanna go to a hot bible teaching tonight? Yeah the guy teaching will probably try to screw your wife or your daughter and get you to donate your farm. But hey, that doesn't change the Word that he teaches, its still the Word no matter who teaches it. BTW, did I tell you about the snow on the gas pumps? .......... Like I said I learn things all the time from people, books and other media that I don't micro-analyze their life to see if they have any moral faults. I assume they do like all of us. Why heck Goey if I let that stop me I wouldn't have read any of your posts, the things you say that are true and useful don't change on your moral standard either . People are people we do not always act the way we should. Kool- Aid, Kool-Aid ..... tastes great ! Wish I had some......Can't wait ! Here, Have a glass !

I don't believe I said that at all JB I said only Truth is Truth and morals of the speaker does not change it. I did not absolve the immoral behavior you made a large leap to that conclusion a wrong one! People can claim anything they want to, it's a free world. If it is true is another issue. NOT one in the same! That said things that are true do not somehow become untrue based on who says them .That is ludicrous!! Do you really want us to believe that you accept the idea that a truth has the ability to discern what type of person is speaking and then changes accordingly to that .. Pleeeeze....... I'll say it again 1+1=2 that's truth if a priest or Charlie Manson says it -it is still true. This is not a hard concept to grasp.

Thanks Oak I did miss your point and we are in agreement .

Tom I think you misunderstood me, I did not say stirring the pot or arguing the other side. I said keeping the record straight or honest. We are in agreement pretty much with the exception of the morals issue which people did argue both here and on other threads it is a common perception. From this thread Tom if I was interested in a class I probably would at this point anyway do BG Leonards

David you got it just fine! that was my only beef Tom we have so many pages because as David noted people assume I said or stand for things that I did not say or stand for. Dealing with those accusations then takes up space. My point has been consistent since page 6. I take issue with the premise that someone's morals somehow morphs the truth contained in a class into untruth.

Chill down Mr. Loafing Just keeping score here on the different meetings see you were confused also, she did not get it on good authority she saw it on camera. Had she got it on authority she would have been in the And some that heard about it but were not there that saw a gun catagory. As it is we now have a third catagory it seems. I did not think the switchboard was in the auditorium but it could have been possible it had moved there and had a one way glass or something. As it turned out it did not. So now the score two people who were there saw no gun. And some that heard about it but were not there that saw a gun. One person that was not in the auditorium but saw it on camera. Radar I did know about the radios just could not figure out how the SB got to the auditorium thanks for clearing that up. Someone told me years ago that Chris carried a gun when he drove the coach for VP so it would not surprise me that he had one . Interesting that he laid it out in sight.

Thanks WW for the update . I thought she said she was working at her job at the switchboard locked in a office. I did not know the switchboard was in the auditorium.

Keeping the record honest Tom I do reject the opinion that someone's morals somehow morphs the truth contained in a class into untruth.

Dang if ya didn't learn something in your time in the way Belle.

So is the score two people who were there saw no gun? And some that heard about it but were not there that saw a gun? This is interesting! When do we get to the part when he said Click Click GO ahead make my day......Trustees

I just may Belle Your assessment is wrong it is not settled. there are other proofs of intent........ If he utalized others work then it would be their words not his.

Whatever CoolWaters I guess you have no answer for what I posted. It appears that they did speak truth at least in that case.

Well Thomas like I said I read and hear stuff all the time I don't stop and micro- analyze each persons life as if I could anyway or would want to. And I'm sure they would put that on the dust jacket. Yeah right How do we really know what moral decay is in someone's life hidden . Does truth change if we find out later on their life is different? Truth is Truth it has no dependency to imperfect man's morals. And we have not even discussed who makes the morals? and how they have changed over time and cultures. If we based truth on everyone's idea of moral right we be in one hell of a mess not to mention changing with the wind every day. I can determine at least to the best of my ability if what they say is truth and useful or not. If it is it's a keeper if not it gets the file 13. Not to me. It's pretty simple how . I suppose it depends on what day you want to make a point it changes from day to day you know It is plagiarized truth taught by other men on one thread, and all about VP's deception on another. If he quoted from others work then it seems pretty simple how one could assemble a class without his moral input.

QUOTE(WhiteDove @ Mar 24 2006, 08:33 AM) Jesus never said the Scribes never spoke the truth he addressed their choice of what they did with it. Not one in the same. WD...puhleeze! Exactly Cool he did not say they did not speak or know the truth,in fact it is obvious they did by the fact that they tithed he just pointed out a few things they "might have wanted to try" in addition to what they had done. (and not to leave the other undone. ) Matthew 23:23 - Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Luke 11:42 - But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.