markomalley

Wordwolf, Let me ask you a question: Why do you bother? Seems like beating one's head against a wall. So just curious...

WTH, I appreciate your response, but have one question for you: What's your point? You quoted a post I made. You then went through this condescending, pedagogical diatribe and never once showed me where I was wrong. So, where was I wrong? Oh, and, please don't quote that homilist as a source for your proof. Please show me from the Biblical text, not from the work ABOUT the Bible written by a homilist. Thanks. Have a nice evening.

Here are a couple of good threads on the subject: TWI 3 & 4 TWI-1 was a godly organization - nothing bad happened until TWI - 2 and the Martindale regime twi3: RFR in control The Seven Deadly Sins of TWI (1,2,3) I think there are some other good ones there but I can't find them right now...

Roy, There's a little problem with your question. Which calendar should we be using when considering the question... The Gregorian Calendar, upon which we base our current reckoning of time, was not implemented until 1582. The Julian Calendar was in use at that time...so if we were to remain consistent, the day 6-6-2006 (Julian) would be 6-19-2006 (Gregorian), by our reckoning. Of course, we could be talking about the Old Roman Calendar...in which case 6-6-2006 (Roman) would have happened on 11 June 1253 (Gregorian) or 4 June 1253 (Julian -- since that was the calendar scheme in effect at that time). Having said that, we could be talking the Hebrew Calendar...in which case, if my calculations are correct, 6-6-2006 (Hebrew) would have been approx. 5 Aug 1754BC (Gregorian). And, on the other hand, if we're talking the Islamic Calendar, then 6-6-2006 (Hijri) won't happen until 5-4-2568 (Gregorian). So which calendar do you choose to use to calculate such an auspicious date? Personally, I think it would be wise to consider the above before wasting any time on figuring the significance of a date one way or another...

Well, I won't be preachy here... Just curious, who raised the subject of living together (vice marriage) when it came up? You or he?

Danny, That's the crux of the issue: The Patristic Fathers asserted that Marcion had deliberately shortened "the Gospel of Luke"; the Marcionites countered by asserting that the Catholic tradition had added to it. The Marcionites also reject the other three Gospel accounts and the letters of Peter, James, John, Jude, and the Apocolypse of John in their NT Canon, as well. I am not enough of a Biblical Scholar to be familiar sufficiently with the ancient texts to engage in an intelligent discussion of this particular subject. I, frankly, do not have the time to make myself sufficiently familiar with the subject enough to do so either. I have taken a look at the development of the New Testament Canon from the study of the Patristic writings to be satisfied with the validity of the canon...at least for my purposes. As one who is largely an autodidact on matters theological, there's only so far that I can go...at least efficiently. And, to be honest with you, I have neither the drive nor the financial independence needed to allow me to pursue a course of study that would make me competent to discuss the subject. Without that level of knowledge, we'll be limited to discussing this author's work versus that author's work (secondary sources) rather than discussing the material itself (primary sources). And that means we'll essentially be acting as chelas for competing gurus. We can see how intellectually sound that is from examining the posts made by certain people (who will remain nameless for their obviousness) on this thread, itself. I hate to sound so anti-intellectual, but there are limits on my time and so I must devote that limited time to what is most profitable to my soul. The scriptures are not supposed to be the be-all and end-all. Their purpose is to reveal Christ to us so that we can conform ourselves to Him. I worship Christ, not the scriptures that reveal Him. So I will concentrate the bulk of my study time to those areas that will help reveal Him more completely to me and that will help me in the process of conformance. I am familiar to a degree with the 'Q' theory and have briefly purused some of the other 'Acts' literature, but haven't devoted adequate time to their study to competantly discuss them. And without spending the time necessary (of which I really don't have), I am not competent to engage in that particular discussion. It's not that I'll take your word for it, I just don't have the time to engage intelligently one way or the other. So I'll leave it go for now...until I have the time to get adequately spun up on the subject to engage in an intelligent discussion...

This will be a bit long (sorry everybody), but I wanted to make sure the context was complete. From Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 3, Chap 13 & 14: 3. But that Paul acceded to [the request of] those who summoned him to the apostles, on account of the question [which had been raised], and went up to them, with Barnabas, to Jerusalem, not without reason, but that the liberty of the Gentiles might be confirmed by them, he does himself say, in the Epistle to the Galatians: "Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking also Titus. But I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles." And again he says, "For an hour we did give place to subjection, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." If, then, any one shall, from the Acts of the Apostles, carefully scrutinize the time concerning which it is written that he went up to Jerusalem on account of the forementioned question, he will find those years mentioned by Paul coinciding with it. Thus the statement of Paul harmonizes with, and is, as it were, identical with, the testimony of Luke regarding the apostles. Chap 14: 1. But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself. For he says that when Barnabas, and John who was called Mark, had parted company from Paul, and sailed to Cyprus, "we came to Troas;" and when Paul had beheld in a dream a man of Macedonia, saying, "Come into Macedonia, Paul, and help us," "immediately," he says, "we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, understanding that the Lord had called us to preach the Gospel unto them. Therefore, sailing from Troas, we directed our ship's course towards Samothracia." And then he carefully indicates all the rest of their journey as far as Philippi, and how they delivered their first address: "for, sitting down," he says, "we spake unto the women who had assembled;" and certain believed, even a great many. And again does he say, "But we sailed from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came to Troas, where we abode seven days." And all the remaining [details] of his course with Paul he recounts, indicating with all diligence both places, and cities, and number of days, until they went up to Jerusalem; and what befell Paul there, how he was sent to Rome in bonds; the name of the centurion who took him in charge; and the signs of the ships, and how they made shipwreck; and the island upon which they escaped, and how they received kindness there, Paul healing the chief man of that island; and how they sailed from thence to Puteoli, and from that arrived at Rome; and for what period they sojourned at Rome. As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, because all these [particulars] proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth. That he was not merely a follower, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, but especially of Paul, Paul has himself declared also in the Epistles, saying: "Demas hath forsaken me, ... and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me." From this he shows that he was always attached to and inseparable from him. And again he says, in the Epistle to the Colossians: "Luke, the beloved physician, greets you." But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him "the beloved," and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel, learned nothing different from him (Paul), as has been pointed out from his words, how can these men, who were never attached to Paul, boast that they have learned hidden and unspeakable mysteries? 2. But that Paul taught with simplicity what he knew, not only to those who were [employed] with him, but to those that heard him, he does himself make manifest. For when the bishops and presbyters who came from Ephesus and the other cities adjoining had assembled in Miletus, since he was himself hastening to Jerusalem to observe Pentecost, after testifying many things to them, and declaring what must happen to him at Jerusalem, he added: "I know that ye shall see my face no more. Therefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed, therefore, both to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost has placed you as bishops, to rule the Church of the Lord, which He has acquired for Himself through His own blood." Then, referring to the evil teachers who should arise, he said: "I know that after my departure shall grievous wolves come to you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." "I have not shunned," he says, "to declare unto you all the counsel of God." Thus did the apostles simply, and without respect of persons, deliver to all what they had themselves learned from the Lord. Thus also does Luke, without respect of persons, deliver to us what he had learned from them, as he has himself testified, saying, "Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word." 3. Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not know the truth, he will, [by so acting,] manifestly reject that Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple. For through him we have become acquainted with very many and important parts of the Gospel; for instance, the generation of John, the history of Zacharias, the coming of the angel to Mary, the exclamation of Elisabeth, the descent of the angels to the shepherds, the words spoken by them, the testimony of Anna and of Simeon with regard to Christ, and that twelve years of age He was left behind at Jerusalem; also the baptism of John, the number of the Lord's years when He was baptized, and that this occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. And in His office of teacher this is what He has said to the rich: "Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation;" and "Woe unto you that are full, for ye shall hunger; and ye who laugh now, for ye shall weep;" and, "Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you: for so did your fathers to the false prophets." All things of the following kind we have known through Luke alone (and numerous actions of the Lord we have learned through him, which also all [the Evangelists] notice): the multitude of fishes which Peter's companions enclosed, when at the Lord's command they cast the nets; the woman who had suffered for eighteen years, and was healed on the Sabbath-day; the man who had the dropsy, whom the Lord made whole on the Sabbath, and how He did defend Himself for having performed an act of healing on that day; how He taught His disciples not to aspire to the uppermost rooms; how we should invite the poor and feeble, who cannot recompense us; the man who knocked during the night to obtain loaves, and did obtain them, because of the urgency of his importunity; how, when [our Lord] was sitting at meat with a Pharisee, a woman that was a sinner kissed His feet, and anointed them with ointment, with what the Lord said to Simon on her behalf concerning the two debtors; also about the parable of that rich man who stored up the goods which had accrued to him, to whom it was also said, "In this night they shall demand thy soul from thee; whose then shall those things be which thou hast prepared?" and similar to this, that of the rich man, who was clothed in purple and who fared sumptuously, and the indigent Lazarus; also the answer which He gave to His disciples when they said, "Increase our faith;" also His conversation with Zaccheus the publican; also about the Pharisee and the publican, who were praying in the temple at the same time; also the ten lepers, whom He cleansed in the way simultaneously; also how He ordered the lame and the blind to be gathered to the wedding from the lanes and streets; also the parable of the judge who feared not God, whom the widow's importunity led to avenge her cause; and about the fig-tree in the vineyard which produced no fruit. There are also many other particulars to be found mentioned by Luke alone, which are made use of by both Marcion and Valentinus. And besides all these, [he records] what [Christ] said to His disciples in the way, after the resurrection, and how they recognised Him in the breaking of bread. 4. It follows then, as of course, that these men must either receive the rest of his narrative, or else reject these parts also. For no persons of common sense can permit them to receive some things recounted by Luke as being true, and to set others aside, as if he had not known the truth. And if indeed Marcion's followers reject these, they will then possess no Gospel; for, curtailing that according to Luke, as I have said already, they boast in having the Gospel [in what remains]. But the followers of Valentinus must give up their utterly vain talk; for they have taken from that [Gospel] many occasions for their own speculations, to put an evil interpretation upon what he has well said. If, on the other hand, they feel compelled to receive the remaining portions also, then, by studying the perfect Gospel, and the doctrine of the apostles, they will find it necessary to repent, that they may be saved from the danger [to which they are exposed]. So he does have a good point: if one will accept the Gospel According to St. Luke, then why in the world would one not accept the second part of that writing: the Acts of the Apostles...

And of course I could quote Irenaeus of Lyons but that kind of argument is far to escoteric....

It seems to me that narcissism is the ultimate end of the theology they taught (and apparently believed). If you take a fresh look at the Word-Faith movement started by Kenyon, with its idolatry of self, and take it to the ridiculous, you end up with the theology promoted by TWI. It's simply a faulty theology based on the self rather than on God (IIRC, we were given that ridiculous 'Christians Should Be Prosperous' book as part of the piffle class...and IIRC, didn't the piffle class itself start up with wierwolf bemoaning the lack of material abundance of Christians, using John 10:10 to justify a position that Christ came to give us abundance in temporal things?) The point is that, while hearing the degree of the abuse is sickening and shocking, the fact that there was abuse (but omg not to that degree) is understandable if you look at the theology behind the organization. At least IMHO.

Danny, First, let's talk about 'eyewitness accounts.' There is little or no way that Luke was an 'eyewitness.' Luke was, from all accounts, a Gentile from the city of Antioch in what is now Turkey. According to Eusebius (Church History Book III Chap 4): Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete. But Luke, who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession, and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned from them. One of these books is the Gospel, which he testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eye witnesses and ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed accurately from the first. The other book is the Acts of the Apostles which he composed not from the accounts of others, but from what he had seen himself. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, "according to my Gospel." Although Luke's non-eyewitness status is easily verifiable, there is no support for the assertion that Matthew or Mark were actually there at the scene, either. The only ones verifiably present were the women and John. Secondly, the crucifixion happened at 9 AM, according to biblical accounts. The eclipse that turned the sky dark happened at noon. That's a three hour window. A lot can happen in three hours. Suppose this: suppose that both people crucified with Jesus initially started off mocking him and this continued for a while. One of them continued to mock him, but the other, witnessing Jesus' reactions to the crucifixion changed his tune and realized exactly what Jesus was. We have two time hacks that we're dealing with here: 9 AM and noon. We can't definitively say, because there are no other time hacks to break these accounts down. One other thing to bear in mind, though, verbiage used for the abuse: Matthew: saved others, cannot save self. Get down from the cross. Let God save him! Mark: Get down from the cross. Let God save him. John: no words of abuse mentioned Luke: If you are the son of God, save yourself and us Note the difference there. (Of course, in Matthew and Mark, the words came from the chief priests, scribes, elders -- with the others crucified spewing the same out, while in Luke, the words came from the others crucified with Jesus) -- why couldn't it be harmonized to say that the accounts in Matthew and Mark happened early on after 9 AM and the account in Luke happened later on, but before noon? Just something to consider there, Danny... And, by the way, I agree with your statement completely that there could have been more than two crucified with him...there could have been 10 or 20 crucified with him for all I know. I just don't see Biblical evidence that contradicts the tradition of two.

WW, You'll have to state your questions/ objections more succinctly if you'd like me to fully address them...I'm afraid that my brain isn't working that well this late at night. I'll try with what I can comprehend: 1) Allos vs. Heteros -- Allos refers specifically to quantity w/o regard one way or another to quality. Heteros refers to a qualitative distinction. Number is not an issue here at all. 2) Cruciform churches. A traditional layout for Catholic church buildings is a cruciform shape. The symbology is obvious. In a cruciform church, the altar is at the junction of the arm and tree of the cross. If crosses are located at each of the apexes, I would submit that there are, in fact, five crosses (because there is always a crucifix on the altar. In which case, I would submit the symbology again points to the five wounds of Christ. Just like the easter candle: there is always five pieces of incense placed in the candle -- the symbology there is representative of the wounds. Bullinger, not being Catholic, would probably not understand that symbology and the connections... If there are other issues you'd like me to address, please list them. Or if you (or somebody else) would like me to address this issue as a whole, you might wish to consider putting the appropriate extract from piffle as the opening post of a fresh thread and I am confident that we, as a group, can completely deconstruct it and locate each and every error. I am not in a position to specifically deconstruct the Wierwille text, as I simply don't have it available to deconstruct and so am forced to rely upon a constantly dimming memory of that book. In general, the contortions that Bulllinger went through (that were picked up by Wierwille and taught through piffle) were the result of bibliolatry blinding him to the actual simple truth of the situation. They try to place four people on crosses with Jesus when no single gospel account identifies four crucified with him. Just think about it for a second and back away and let common sense apply for a second: if you were describing the scene on Calvary you'd do one of two things: just mention Jesus alone and not mention any superfluous details (like the others crucified with him) or you'd describe the whole scene. If there were four crucified with him, why would somebody mention two of the people and NOT mention the other two? What author in his right mind would do that? It makes no sense, particularly when one realizes that each of those gospel accounts were written and initially distributed as stand-alone documents. Common sense should apply here, shouldn't it? Listen, ww, if you'd like me to do a line-by-line of those crucified with Christ, I can do so. And, with what I have available to me right now, I can address the idea that there is no evidence presented in scripture that there were any more than two crucified with Christ. If you would like me to do a refutation of the contents of piffle on this issue, somebody will need to post the applicable contents of piffle. And, again, if there are specific questions or concerns, I'd be happy to answer, but I need to request that you more clearly ask them (sorry, but I don't want to misinterpret something you said). Thanks.

Strip mining is an ugly, ugly business. I have seen whole mountains brought down in order to get a rich vein of coal. It has destroyed thousands of acres of some of the most beautiful land in the country. Of course, David, you should be as familiar with any of us with strip mining living up there in Northern MN...you have the Iron pits out there in the range...

Trouble is, they can't restore the land. Not just that they don't want to...they can't. Coal is located in veins that lie between rock strata...when they strip mine, they destroy the rock strata above the coal vein. No matter what kind of cosmetic work they do, the geology of the area is permanently destroyed. I've you've ever driven on a highway that goes through cut in a mountain, you can visibly see that...the different layers of rock... What happens with a restoration, they put down a layer of sealing clay to prevent seepage into any ground water that may lie below the gash. They then pile layers of rubble that were removed. They then cover it with topsoil and plant above it. While it may look somewhat attractive, it isn't the same as what was there before. The environment is permanently destroyed...no matter how it looks...

actually, if you take a look at my notes above, you'll find out that the word 'heis' is used in both Matthew and Mark and that 'hos' is used in the singular in Luke. You can check for yourself at www.zhubert.com (really nice interface btw)

By the way, there is another alternative: strip mining. But I don't know too many folks that like that option...

You know, now that you mention it, I think you're right...wasn't the punctuation thing from the "today you will be with me in paradise" issue? Another thing to show a misquote...but that's for later. Thanks for the nice words. (Of course, we will be informed by some that the modern pics are just foregeries )

As somebody who has spent time in a coal mine (Eastern KY vs W. Va), I can tell you that it is an inherently dangerous occupation. Keeping good air flow through the mine is critical, not only to protect from carbon monoxide, but also to keep explosive gasses under control, as well. They have vent shafts drilled in the mountain and constantly are working to keep the air moving in a mine. The most dangerous time in a mine is for several minutes after they blast a shelf of coal loose. A huge amount of coal dust is suspended in the air as the result of the blast. This suspended dust is explosive in of itself (ever heard of a grain elevator exploding -- it's the same phenomenon -- a single spark of electricity can cause the suspended dust to ignite). Coupled with the fact that methane gas is often present with coal, it can be a very, very hazardous situation. There are detectors that are present to detect excessive levels of methane and if the levels rise to a certain level, additional ventilation is put in place. If they continue to rise, the mine is evacuated until such time as they can get the levels under control. There are also detectors for carbon monoxide gas, as well. Same thing happens. Having said that, the most dangerous time is right after a blast...because there is literally NOTHING that can be done until the dust is cleared out of the air. A remarkably small spark (a nail in a boot hitting another piece of metal, disconnecting the electrical wires from the detonator, a short in the wires that lead to the fuze, anything) can cause a HUGE explosion. If something like this happens, a portion of the ceiling could cave in, which would interrupt the air flow through the mine. Then, the hazardous gasses could build up...and those hazardous gasses could build up. There are normally a minimum of two shafts sunk for any mine. This allows for that air flow through the mine. But, as has been pointed out, it is a very, very hazardous job and some of the hazards are inherent to the job. Really the only way to make it at all safe is to evacuate the mine completely when they do a blast. That would reduce the efficiency of the mine to practically a standstill. They normally do at least one to two blasts per shift. Depending upon the size of the mine. If they had to evacuate the crew from the mine every time they did a blast, it would cut at least 50% of the efficiency from a mine. That experience: my uncle owned a mine for a few years. I spent a summer with him earning money while I was in high school. My parents could have killed him when they found out what he had me doing to earn the money.

This is a nauseating thread. Thank you ladies for letting the rest of us see this... Hard to believe that when I first started lurking on WD I thought the problem was only with the forehead boy. Threads like this really reveal so much how the sickness goes to the whole core of the organization... So when do you think an apologist is going to come and attempt to blast you for spreading rumors (I see one of them lurking on this thread...)

Well, I don't see the discrepancy. It seems to me that it was a non-issue that Wierwille could use to exalt his position and make himself appear to have gotten his patented knowledge that hadn't been revealed since the first century...the crux of the PFALoter's belief system. This has probably been done several times before, so bear with me here: Let's see if I understand it correctly, Wierwille does the following in the piffle class: He calls into question early in the piffle class a teaching pretty well universally accepted One that is pretty well universally accepted by Christianity One that has a very identifiable icon associated with it An icon that has been seen and identified with the event by almost the entire population of the US [*]He then proceeds to rip apart that teaching He uses an English translation that is almost (now) 500 years old to do so. The effects of the use of that translation are: The language is archaic, not familiar to modern English speakers, and is subject to misapplication The translation is known to have several serious errors in it Those errors and archaic usages are pointed out, where convenient, but the pointing out of them allows for Wierwille's interpretation to be inserted as he chooses [*]He selectively refers back to the Greek terms used by the authors He confuses the students by pointing out the difference between two greek words that are often rendered as the same english word in that archaic translation of the Bible Confusing, because only one of those terms is used in that context and not the other Confusing, because he doesn't refer back to the proper antecedent for the word that is used [*]He doesn't, on the other hand, refer back to a greek word that was at the core of the apparent temporal anomaly that caused the 'apparent contradiction' that he was trying to 'solve.' [*]He also mentions the difference between two english words used to describe those who were crucified with Christ Note that he doesn't go back to the greek there, either. He just gives the 'translation' In giving this 'translation,' he doesn't bother to mention that the words are different parts of speech (one was a noun -- an object; one was an adjective -- a word used to describe an object) [*]He calls into question the use of punctuation and points out, correctly, that punctuation was not present in the original manuscripts. He does this to show that the numbers may have been rendered incorrectly in the translation. But he doesn't refer the students back to the original greek here, either, where the numbers are clearly identified He doesn't mention that in two gospel accounts, a numeral is translated as both 'one' and 'another' He doesn't mention in the third gospel account that the preposition used was clearly used in the singular number [*]The vast majority of the students of the piffle class are simply not Greek scholars. Those who may have taken some classes as the result of being enrolled in a religious high school or college (and who might have been exposed to some greek or some of the little tidbits that were thrown out) would likely have an incomplete knowledge or one that was fogged by time. Thus bringing up the little tidbits (uncial versus cursive, punctuation in the manuscripts, heteros versus allos, etc.) would tend to impress the listener All to bring up a sense of gravitas to the speaker [*]The probable effects: A pretty well universal, but trivial, teaching is called into question. This establishes the gravitas of the speaker to the fairly uncritical student The student is also left with the thought, "what else was I taught incorrectly?" [*]The uncritical student is then going to pay a little more heed to subsequent lessons of the teacher, rendering them more vulnerable. Sorry for the length of this, btw, but I have only a little more to say. I remember when I went through the piffle class that, during a break, the class coordinator passed around a copy of Bullinger's Companion Bible and showed us Appendix 164 with that now very familiar grainy picture: Now, let me quote a couple of accounts the locals have about the 5 crosses: five Crosses, located at the locality "Ar Pemp Croaz", at the crossroads road of Kerfons. This monument is composed of a large cross (XVème or XVIème century), alongside of four smaller crosses (of the Average Age). One sees, in the vicinity, of the traces of the Roman way which went from Carhaix in Yaudet. These crosses have apparently were gathered on only one support, probably about 1728 Google translated page: here. Original (in french) here. The monument of the five crosses is composed of a large cross (XV 2nd or XVI 2nd century), surrounded of four smaller and older. Oldest of all, which is also most massive, is a pattée cross of X 2nd century and comprises reasons carved on its reverse. It also comprises the date, "1728", it is probably the year when they were joined together on the same support according to the local tradition, this monument would have been high in commemoration of a combat during which the inhabitants would have overcome the English. Actually, a vice-chancellor gathered these crosses at the beginning of the XX 2nd century to save them destruction. Google translation here. Original (in french) here. Keeping in mind that Brittany is a very Catholic area of France, and looking at the color pictures, which explanation seems more feasible? One other thing, the five crosses that are made on an altar when it is consecrated are symbolic of the five wounds of Christ...no more... Sorry for the length of the post, folks... on edit, to fix the bottom pic so it wouldn't screw up the whole page

TGN, Thanks for your very kind words. Interesting concept, "full canopy, classic style..." I say intersting concept because it's truer than what you'll ever know. One good thing I learned from my involvement with Der Weg and as the result of being snookered by the piffle class is that I very rarely take any man's word for anything any more. If it doesn't make sense, I check into it...and verify that it is correct. I don't care if the question under consideration is a theological question (BOTH Catholic or otherwise), a political question (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise), a management problem at work, a technological question, or whatever. I simply don't take it on faith anymore. As a result, even though I come off as a dyed-in-the-wool, bead counting, statue-praying, candle-lighting Catholic, you'd be shocked at the disdain I hold for the majority of the US Bishops as people and the disgust I feel when I see many Catholic parishes (I travel a lot so I have visited a lot of different parishes when I'm on the road). What binds me to the Catholic Church is literally a theological binding -- it isn't a 'people-based' issue at all. So when you say, 'full canopy, classic-style' and then say with a deep appreciation for who's gone on before me, you nailed it...100% Cathy, I'm surprised, humbled, and honored by your words. Don't put me up on a pedastal though. I've been wrong before and am likely to be wrong again. JJ, a lot of times people get really polarized on this board and try to convince others of the rightness of their belief systems not by expounding the correctness of their beliefs but by deconstructing the others' beliefs. That's OK, in of itself, because, as you say, it's a 'discussion forum.' But around here, unfortunately, it often changes from a deconstruction of a person's belief system into a demolition of the person who has that belief system that needs deconstructing (in the opinion of the person wielding the wrecking ball). I see the value of David's statement as a reminder to all that we still live in a pluralistic society and we shouldn't destroy each other as a result of our differences in religious dogma. Maybe that's not what he intended, but that's what I got out of it.

Very wise statement. Newtonian physics or Relativistic (i.e., Einsteinian) Physics? By the way, did you know that about 5 years ago they found that c was not a necessarily a constant? (according to Einstein's Theory of Specific Relativity, c was defined as 3 * 10**8 --sorry, don't feel like doing the html for a superscript) On edit, to make it clear that I was just funnin' George and not trying to continue the argument.

So Raf, what you're telling me is that there is an apparent chronological discrepency in these verses: matt 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. matt 27:36 And sitting down they watched him there; matt 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. matt 27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. mark 15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. mark 15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. mark 15:27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. luke 23:32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death. luke 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. and so you're saying that the time discrepency is that mark and luke say that the two were crucified with him and that matthew says that they were crucified later? Is that the crux of the matter? Maybe this will help: The word rendered "then" (apparently the source of the problem) in Matthew is the greek word "tote" -- that word simply means "at that time" That is true according to Strong, Moulton, and Liddell & Scott. So that is indicative of the fact that the thieves were there at the same time as Jesus, nothing more. How about the quantities: In matthew 27:38 -- both 'one' and 'another' are the greek word heis. Which means the numeral one (1). Same thing in Mark 15. Luke, on the other hand, renders the word 'hos' as both "one" and "the other" in verse 33. (Hos means "this") -- both usages of the word 'hos' are in the accusative, singular, masculine. So what about heteros and allos? Well, the only relevant place in any of these three accounts where either word is used is in Luke 23:32. The word used is 'heteros.' But folks, use your common sense. And there were two other (of different quality) mischievious [remember my earlier post: malefactor is actually the adjective kakourgos (meaning doing ill, mischievous, knavish)]. led with him...If the word 'allos' was used, it would have implied that Jesus was kakourgos! The NASB and the RSV have a far better rendering of this verse than the KJV (imo): (NASB) Two others also, who were criminals, were being led away to be put to death with Him. (RSV) Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. Am I missing something here? Because I don't see any hard evidence that there was mention of any more than two others crucified with Christ! Is this another example of Wierwille twisting something...

Hey since the configuration of those crucified with Christ is mentioned here, I have a question for you biblical scholars. VPW said that there was had to have been two separate sets of folks there with Christ at the crucifixion. One set were a couple of malefactors. One set were a couple of robbers/theives/whatever. Why is it that the word rendered 'malefactor' in the kjv (Luke 23:33) is an adjective kakourgos (meaning doing ill, mischievous, knavish). It has a masculine gender and is in the plural. Anyway, so far as I can tell, there is no noun that this adjective modifies. Now the word rendered 'thief' in the kjv Mark 15:27 and Mat 27:38 account is the word lestes (meaning robber, bandit, revolutionary, or rebel). It's a masculine noun written in the plural. So anyway, I'm not sure where this alleged 'apparent discrepency' was that was used as an excuse to teach the unique 4-crucified with Christ theory. After all, the adjective 'doing ill' or 'mischevious' would be apt descriptions that would fit a person that could be labeled a 'robber,' 'bandit,' 'revolutionary,' or 'rebel,' couldn't it? So where's the problem again?

George, I have actually seen people, when presented with objective reality, refuse to change their opinions. Most recently, I've seen a lot of that in the political arena. On both wings. I've seen it in other arenas, as well. However, if using the word skeptic disturbs you, nominate a substitute and I'll try to use it in the future. The bottom line of that message that I tried to communicate was that if a person was truly disinclined to believe, it wouldn't matter the nature or the quality of the evidence presented, that person simply will not believe. (There...is that said in an inoffensive enough fashion?) Now if you want to call that person a skeptic, an agnostic, a weak atheist, a strong atheist, a nontheist, an antitheist, or whichever, I'll be more than happy to use whichever term gets the message across. I do agree with you, though, that a person does need to have a cautious/skeptical view when presented some information and determining whether or not to accept or reject that information. However, a person's prejudices (and we all have prejudices) may alter the level of proof required so that no amount information that is counter to those prejudices will ever be accepted. I'm honest enough with myself to say that I am predisposed to believing in a spiritual entity larger than myself and that information counter to that paradigm will be much more strictly judged than information that affirms that paradigm. That's not to say that I am going to be highly skeptical of so-called prophets (see the latest Pat Robertson thread) or "mary-in-a-grilled-cheese" phenomena. Believe me when I tell you that I laugh just as hard as the strongest atheist when I see foolishness along those lines. That's why I had no problems with leaving TWI in 1989 when I decided that it had just gotten too weird. However, I know and acknowledge my paradigm. What's your paradigm?

There is a little bit of a difference, Oldies. A more appropriate analogue would be if Mike is practicing idolatry because he believes PFAL to be God-Breathed, then all peoples who believe other bible exegetes' writings are God-Breathed are practicing idolatry. Now that's not to say that there is not a situation with bibliolatry in Christianity or any other religion, but bibliolatry is not Mike's problem. IMHO.