T-Bone

No - I think you misunderstood my points. To reiterate what I said, there are a number of ways that scholars theorize on what God-inspired means. I mentioned only 2 of those theories - the plenary verbal = every word is inspired = includes historical, scientific, and cultural worldviews references = perfect because the source (God) is perfect. I stated that is also PFAL’s view of the Bible - and Mike's view of PFAL too. In THAT regard the Bible and PFAL are on the SAME PLANE…. ....what I am confused about is you saying that your opening post does not require any particular definition of God-breathed/theopneustos/given by inspiration of God - It simply does not matter how one defines those terms. Huh?!?! I’m sorry but that makes no sense. BECAUSE your post reveals something you ASSUME about the essential nature of God-breathed - that there is no such thing - as you expressed thusly: "Mike and I do have something in common in this regard: we both believe PFAL and the Bible belong on the same plane when it comes to divine inspiration. But where Mike wants to elevate PFAL to the place where Christians revere or respect the Bible, I contend they are equally NOT inspired by anything supernatural." Basically you rule out the supernatural. So then - duh -yeah what you just said is there is nothing in existence that is God-breathed because God does not exist! So why even have the word "God" in your statement? Why not say both The Bible and PFAL are inspired by little pink unicorns? I do agree with you on Mike's view - to use the terms of my previous post Mike wants to elevate PFAL to the place where Christians view the class as inerrant and infallible. Maybe you missed where I mentioned other theories to define God-breathed -like limited inspiration - and that’s how I view the Bible. If I may - to rephrase what you said by saying: Depending on how you define God-breathed will determine how to classify a book, a class, whatever. The definition DOES MATTER. How do you define the shape of a circle? Is a square a circle? No Is an egg a circle? No - it’s more like an oval - elliptical. Is the sun a circle? Yes Is the pupil of your eye a circle? Yes If we define God-breathed as perfect - without error - then I believe the Bible and PFAL are NOT God-breathed. If we define God-breathed as limited inspiration (a divine/human combo) then I believe the Bible is God-breathed BUT PFAL is not because plagiarizing and emulsifying the works of others (even if some PARTS of those works were God-inspired) is counterfeiting the God-inspired process. like making counterfeit money - it could LOOK genuine in every way - except it was not legitimately made - from a government’s treasury department “ printing press” - or to apply the metaphor to how PFAL was made, it was not God-inspired . In my statements I'm assuming that God as a supernatural being - a higher power DOES EXIST and is capable of inspiring human beings. Please let me know if you understand what I'm saying - I'm not arguing for the existence of God. I thought we were going to discuss what is God-breathed. Don't tell me this is an atheist's trap camouflaged as a theological question...fine...if that's all this is then you win - cuz if God doesn't exist then nothing is God-inspired...congrats

Just wanted to parse some tangents I see Regarding this starter post – I just wanted to point out – I believe there’s an assumption in the statement that one views God-breathed as being perfect in every way – no contradictions, no errors. In that regard I would have to agree, and I would reject both PFAL and the Scriptures as being God-breathed… and for those reasons I'm out However as I expressed in my previous post on February 18th I lean toward another popular theory of God-inspired - the limited inspiration theory which holds that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writers, but not necessarily the words they chose. God guided the thoughts of the writers, but he gave them freedom to express those thoughts in their own style. Having that freedom along with the limitations of drawing upon the fund of knowledge thus far (knowledge and skills derived from family and cultural background) this theory will influence how one interprets and applies Scripture…which in a very very broad sense refers to all who view the Bible as the sacred text accepted by the church as the standard that governs Christian belief and conduct. I’m trying not to quibble over nuances – but your use of the term “accuracy” might be a deal breaker for me – as far as terms we can agree upon. In theology - - and for that matter in understanding other religious or scared texts - - there are two theological terms that are often used to explain the nature of the Bible - - inerrancy and infallibility. They are used to point out how the Bible is different from all other books that have ever been written. Many use these terms interchangeably. Infallibility means incapable of making a mistake, while inerrancy means the absence of any error. These concepts arose when the issue of the divine inspiration of the Bible was being addressed. Questions arose such as: In what sense, or to what degree, is the Bible the divinely inspired Word of God? How does it differ from all other books? The Word Infallible Means Trustworthy. When referring to Scripture, the term infallible is usually used to mean reliable and trustworthy. It refers to something that is without any type of defect whatsoever. Those who trust its infallible teachings will never be lead astray. The term, “inerrancy” is more recent. While some Christians use inerrancy and infallible interchangeably, they are normally used in slightly different ways. Inerrancy contends that the Bible does not have any errors of fact or any statements that are contradictory. Inerrancy is more concerned with the details of Scripture. From: What Is the Difference Between the Inerrancy of Scripture and the Infallibility of Scripture? by Don Stewart Personally, I believe the Bible is infallible – authoritative and trustworthy on spiritual matters, but it is NOT inerrant – it DOES HAVE historical, geographical, worldview, and scientific errors…I guess if we could reframe the question to ask how many groups accept the Bible as infallible – that would be casting a wide net – you’d probably snag most if not all groups – since the Bible is the common denominator- being considered their sacred…authoritative and trustworthy . If we ask how many groups believe the Bible is inerrant – you’ll definitely cull out some groups – I for one do NOT believe the Bible is inerrant. “Then throw in all the other world religions, that at least partially claim the bible as their authority , and the number keeps escalating”…yes – because you’ve changed the criteria – from talking about accuracy to authority in other words infallibility. “What method or formula can a person use to determine which one, of thousands, has the true God-breathed truth? I am asking. What basis did you use to claim your religion was the accurate one over all the other world’s religions?” Well, you’re probably asking the wrong guy. But I’ll take a stab at it anyway – as long as I can figure out your terms. I’m assuming a God-breathed truth is a metaphysical truth. Not sure if that’s what you mean. I’m not an authority on God-breathed anything, but going back to what I said earlier about how I believe the Bible was inspired (limited inspiration theory) in my opinion is not just limited to the Bible or any other sacred texts of the world, Shakespeare and other classics, philosophers past and present, poems, music, the arts, etc. Since we’re talking about inspiration from a higher power – and as yet we have no technology that can detect the presence, activity and source of inspiration or even come up with a clear and concise definition of what it is – I would have to say there’s probably a lot of God-breathed truth ‘out there’ that’s been ‘happening’ since the beginning of humankind and perhaps even from agnostics and atheists. Heck, I even said on your other thread Religion demands acceptance of the unprovable I’m interested in some of Christopher Hitchens’ books (put 3 of them on my Amazon wish list) – because I love the clarity and rationality in the way he puts things…yeah I’m probably not your typical TWI-believer, ex-TWI-believer, recovering cult-survivor Christian …I don’t know what I am…maybe Christian agnostic – I believe the Bible is infallible, other religions, agnostics and atheists are all cool too and helps keep me grounded – nobody has the whole picture…Like I said I’m probably the wrong guy to ask that question. ~ ~ ~ ~ To follow up on your other statements: “It’s just that most everyone on GSC comes ftom a TWI background, and pick PFAL apart verse by verse. Do you also dive into all the other religions and point out their supposed errors in interpretation, so you justify your chosen way to worship god?” I disparage PFAL for several reasons: 1. PFAL promotes the plenary verbal inspiration theory – the Bible is inerrant – I believe it’s NOT! 2. PFAL fails to prove the Bible is inerrant – offers up dubious doctrines like 4 crucified, Scripture interprets itself, law of believing, Jesus’ cry of triumph on the cross. 3. PFAL teaches students how to fake speaking in tongues which wierwille claims is true worship. ~ ~ ~ ~ I do have a habit of exploring other religions using the same criteria I use to explore theology – I have enough self-confidence in my cognitive skills to recognize what I think is God-inspired truth and enjoy reading up on Confucianism, Taoism, and lately Zoroastrianism…no one is perfect – I accept the fact that there’s probably some errors in how I interpret the Bible or anything else – that’s why my cognitive skills are always under development to improve ‘accuracy’ whatever that is. As far as my chosen way to worship – I pray in my understanding – sometimes starting off reciting the Lord’s Prayer until something in it jumps out and bites me in the butt – something I’m worrying about or something I should be doing. Sometimes I get inspired by Psalms or Proverbs of a NT book and use a passage as a launching pad to commune with God…not sure how much of that qualifies as worship… I did a study on worship from Ecclesiastes 12 , Matthew 5, 6 & 7 , Mark 10 , Romans 12 , and select passages in Psalms and Proverbs and realize worship is about our attitude, our behavior and our service to others.

Intriguing thoughts, Bolshevik! Gnosticism and the Trinity…I did some looking - found this: One of the common questions we receive as Gnostics is “Why do you espouse the doctrine of the Christian Trinity?” To answer this question, we have only to listen to the voices of the early Gnostics themselves. In the entire canon of Biblical scripture there are only a few vague references to a trinity in the letters of St Paul, yet the Gnostic scriptures of the Nag Hammadi collection are filled with trinitarian expressions of God. In the Gospel of Philip, we see written, “...the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” There is no place in the mainstream canon of the Bible where we can find so clear a reference to the Christian Trinity. In this way, we can state quite emphatically that we, as Gnostics, are trinitarians, yet we encompass far more than any dogma of the Church concerning this Trinity. Whereas the mainstream Church has spent nearly two thousand years developing a dogma of the Trinity, Gnostics have always approached the Trinity as an archetypal symbol and a mystery. As an archetype, the Trinity arises in every culture, in every place and time. Even in terms of physical processes, most every phenomenon can be described as a trinitarian expression—active, passive, and their connecting interaction; motion, inertia and rhythm; thesis, antithesis and a resolving and connecting principle. Many religions besides Christianity include a triune deity. The Goddess of modern Wiccans includes Maid, Mother and Crone. The Hindu pantheon includes the Creator (Brahma), the Destroyer (Shiva) and the Preserver (Vishnu). Religions that have a triad of gods often develop family relationships between the members of the triad. This is particularly the case in the Egyptian mysteries with Osiris (Father), Isis (Mother) and Horus (Son), as well as Ra (Father), Pharaoh (Son of Ra) and Ka (the connecting and transmitting Spirit). The Gnostic symbol of the Trinity incorporates these two trinitarian formulae from the Egyptian mysteries—Father, Son and Holy (Mother) Spirit. The Gospel of the Egyptians describes such an emanation of the Trinity: “Three powers came forth from him; they are the Father, the Mother, and the Son.” Here the Mother (Holy Spirit) is the second person of the Trinity, where she might also be identified with the Egyptian Ka. The Gospel of the Egyptians further describes the emanation of a triune series of ogdoads making a total of 24 powers, as described in the Book of Revelation. “And round about the throne were four and twenty seats; and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.” In the tradition of the Pharaonic succession in ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh is a divine king, an Anointed One, a Christos, through the connecting power of the Ka (Spirit) that unites the Father and the Son and passes on to the Pharoah the power and consciousness of the Sun God, Ra. The Pharaoh is called the Son of Ra after receiving the Ka (Hereditary Spirit) of the Father. Also, in the Mass, immediately before the minor elevation, this uniting principle of the Holy Spirit, the Ka, is again invoked. “To whom with Thee, O Mighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, be ascribed all honor and glory, throughout the aeons of aeons.” The mainstream Catholic tradition emphasizes the relationship between the Father and the Son, as an exclusive relationship between God and one man in history, called Jesus. Most of the controversy over the Trinity throughout the centuries has been over the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the other two persons of the Trinity and how that might influence the doctrine of both the humanity and the divinity of Jesus. The traditional Credo provides only one minimal reference to the Holy Spirit, as “the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son, Who together with the Father and the Son, is adored and glorified: Who spoke by the prophets.” The Eastern Orthodox differs in that the Father alone brings forth both the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Gospels record that Jesus would send the Holy Spirit to remain on earth to guide and care for us, yet, in Orthodox and Catholic liturgy, the Holy Spirit is never invoked alone and is not fully explained as to its relationship to all of humanity. From Gnostic Society’s website: Devotion to the Triune Deity See also: Sophia (Gnosticism) - Wikipedia Christian Gnostic Doctrine: The Valentinian Trinity and the origins of the Cosmos and the three Natures ~ ~ ~ ~ And drawing from my own profile notes on Gnosticism, I wanted to add that a good and concise picture of Gnosticism is offered in an article by Christopher Stead (British patristic scholar and Church of England clergyman who was the last Ely Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge. He is best known for his work on the philosophy of the Church Fathers) Gnosticism comprises a loosely associated group of teachers, teachings and sects which professed to offer ‘gnosis’ – saving knowledge or enlightenment that was expressed in various myths to explain the origin of the world, the human soul and the destiny of the soul. Everything originated from a transcendent spiritual power. But then corruption set in, and inferior powers emerged – resulting in the creation of the material world in which the human spirit is now imprisoned. Salvation is sought by cultivating the inner life while neglecting the body and social responsibilities that had nothing to do with the cult. The Gnostic movement emerged in the first and second centuries AD and was seen as a rival to orthodox Christianity, though in fact some Gnostic sects were more closely linked with Judaism or with Iranian religions like Zoroastrianism – and speaking of which - I’m starting to read up on Zoroastrianism – from what I understand it may have had some influence on Judaism, Christianity and Islam: It has a dualistic cosmology of good and evil within the framework of a monotheistic ontology and an eschatology which predicts the ultimate conquest of evil by good. Zoroastrianism exalts an uncreated and benevolent deity of wisdom known as Ahura Mazda (lit. 'Lord of Wisdom') as its supreme being. Historically, the unique features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism, messianism, belief in free will and judgement after death, conception of heaven, hell, angels, and demons, among other concepts, may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including the Abrahamic religions and Gnosticism, Northern Buddhism, and Greek philosophy. From Zoroastrianism - Wikipedia One philosopher of the 2nd century described Gnosticism as the first notable attempt to introduce existing elements of theoretical knowledge from various cultures. It was an amalgam of tendencies that were speculative and elaborate and partly based on the philosophical creed of Greeks and Romans finding a safe haven after the gradual decline of their own religions, besides the infusion of philosophies, theosophies, and religions of the East, especially those of Persia and India. Henry Longueville Mansel (1820 – 1871) was an English philosopher and ecclesiastic, summed up the three principal sources of Gnosticism: 1. Platonism – its philosophical form and tendencies. 2. The Dualism of the Persian religion – speculations about the origin of evil and emanations which is an idea in the cosmology - emanation is from the Latin emanare meaning "to flow from" and is the mode by which all things are derived from the first reality, or principle. All things are derived from the first reality or perfect God by steps of degradation to lesser degrees of the first reality or God, and at every step the emanating beings are less pure, less perfect, less divine. 3. Buddhism which had an antagonism between matter and spirit – and the unreality of derived existence – the germ of Docetism which in Gnosticism taught that Christ's body was not human but either a phantasm or of real but celestial substance, and that therefore his sufferings were only apparent. ~ ~ ~ ~ A hobby of mine is reading philosophy of religion stuff. Philosophy and religion deal a lot in concepts…metaphysics… abstract theory – one is not dealing with physical reality. In my opinion, moving from philosophy to religion is like a screenwriter pitching a high concept movie or TV plot – emphasizing a striking and easily communicable idea…it’s based on an interesting and attractive idea that can be explained in a simple way. Christian fundamentalism interprets the words in the Bible in the most basic sense and pays little attention to metaphor or allegory. And thinking about what I learned in TWI in their Orientalism class – I think TWI tended to ‘sanitize’ the culturalisms to make them more palatable to the western Christian mind. In my opinion that was unfortunate – TWI ignored the vivid ancient culturalisms which – if they had done their research – would cast many passages in a whole new light see my Oct 2nd 2022 post on idiom of permission thread and my Oct 4th 2022 post on idiom of permission thread…folks don’t have to settle for TWI’s rinky-dink-amateurish-but-call-it-research when there’s a wealth of legitimate scholarly resources available like NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible and other stuff - I’m currently reading Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness by Michael Heiser – in my opinion Heiser is top-notch in biblical languages and cultures – the book is grounded in what ancient people of both the Old and New Testament eras believed about evil spiritual forces and in what the Bible actually says. ~ ~ ~ ~ Just speculating here – maybe early Christians were more openminded in their conception of God. I don’t get the feeling from reading the church and pastoral epistles that they were that concerned – if at all - about walking a fine line of serving Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior but making sure it didn’t turn into idolatry…I venture to say it might be that way for a lot of folks today …even Trinitarians…what’s the big deal anyway….It’s called Christianity for a reason. …not that I’m a good reference point but I think of growing up in the Roman Catholic Church - way before I got involved with TWI – in my prayer life or simply thinking about God and mulling over something – I don’t recall intentionally directing my attention to God the Father and putting Jesus on hold – but I think I’d flip back and forth between the two – depending on what the issue was. For behavior-issues I probably leaned more on Jesus – WWJD might be something instinctive – or maybe you read the gospels enough there’s ‘moral muscle memory’ – I dunno…But I definitely knew of a distinction between the Father and the Son – think of Michelangelo's creation of Adam – even as a child I got it – that’s God the Father …white hair and beard...Reflecting on wierwille's anti-Trinity rants, I think he made a mountain out of a molehill - or maybe an idol out of an icon ...whatever...he figured out yet another way to distinguish himself from mainstream Christianity.

we were watching church TV this morning (David Jeremiah) and he was teaching on faith - referenced verse if you had the faith of a grain of mustard seed - that's all you need - because it's not about the size of YOUR faith but on the power of God. he said which would you rather choose if going ice-fishing - having a little faith and walking on 2 feet of ice or a lot of faith and walking on thin ice. then Jeremiah joked and said he would take note of whoever chose a lot of faith on thin ice - to remember to never go fishing with them. That reminded me of a funny tik tok of a polar bear crawling across thin ice - very smart - bear spread its weight out so it’s less likely to break the ice Polar Bear crawling across thin ice this tik tok resonates with me - I think this is what I look like crawling through life yeah howdy - I’ve got auto insurance, homeowners insurance, medical coverage…got a pistol and various scenarios plans and a huge Akita mix the size of a moose - called Moose if the cops can’t make it here in time to stop a home invasion…yeah I’m living on thin ice alright

yes - working on it now - it will take me a little while - something I promised to do on the Craig has his own offshoot thread...I intend to provide doctrinal analysis on each portion of his quote

It seems you place too much confidence in wierwille’s unhealthy and presumptuous fixation with demonology – and it usually gives Satan undue attention – which also ignores the sovereignty of God and the authority of Jesus Christ. While certain passages do state that the whole world lies in Satan’s power 2 Corinthians 4:4 – it is because the present age has made him its god. This does not mean Satan rules with absolute autonomy. The NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible notes on II Cor. 4:4, page 2026, Jewish sources do not call Satan “the god of this age”. Jesus himself expressed Satan’s limitations John 14:30 I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me. Satan, may be the prince of this world but he can be overruled by Jesus Christ. But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you…Luke 11:20 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”… Matthew 28:18 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross…Colossians 1 the real devious temptation in Matthew 4 wasn’t a card game and Satan was bluffing about a worshipping world he had to offer. Satan was offering Jesus a shortcut – he didn’t have to go through the suffering and death of the cross to ‘redeem’ humankind. There are some fascinating typologies in Matthew 4 and Genesis 3. What was the reason behind giving Adam and Eve a prohibition? The Garden of Eden narrative is universally compelling because it tells of a paradise within humanity’s potentialities. The gut-wrenching decision of the first couple, so very “human” in its impulsiveness yet so very tragic in its consequences, grieves us, infuriates us, leaves us pining for “paradise lost.” Beneath the surface narrative, however, the story poses the crucial problem of human existence; unaided human beings cannot create paradise. Flawed and limited, they cannot oversee and ensure justice and wholeness; they cannot even tame the monster within themselves. Paradise comes at a cost. To live there, one must submit to the rule of an other, the owner of the garden. This is an essential feature of paradise; Do we choose to live in the garden and submit to the master? Or do we choose our own reign and face expulsion? Those willing to submit find wholeness and intimacy; those who choose otherwise echo the defiant sentiment of the fallen archangel, who in John Milton’s words proclaims, “Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav’n.” From page 249 of Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach by Bruce K. Waltke & Charles Yu It’s intriguing to think of Jesus Christ as the second Adam – in a manner of speaking he’s going through the same test as Adam. Who would he choose to submit to? Just like in the Garden there were 2 options as in Matthew 4 - Satan or God. Jesus of his own free will chose God: 7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’ d ” 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” 10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ e ” Matthew 4 Jesus chose God to submit to God – of his own free will he chose the way of the cross - Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done Luke 22:42 …I still remember one of the anti-Trinity arguments – see there’s two wills indicated here – Jesus can’t be God…yes, that’s obvious he's not God the Father ! But I call to mind the dual nature of Jesus Christ – the Word made flesh – he was both human and divine – I see the Father’s will, deeming it necessary to sacrifice His only begotten Son as the only way to fix the problem – and I see the humanity of Jesus ignoring the self-preservation instinct. ~ ~ ~ ~ On a side note, about the Fall and the need for humankind to be redeemed - I read an interesting question in a philosophy of religion book. Why didn't God just immediately fix the problem in Genesis 3? There is no definitive answer for that. what is your point? Again - what is your point? Oh, so that’s your point? You lost me there. It’s pure speculation – you’re claiming to know the mind of Satan - and you're fabricating a pretext to suit your theory Well Jesus warned us Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many… Matthew 24: 4 & 5 and that seems to me to go right along with what Paul said He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God… 2 Thessalonians 2:4 Jesus correlates a false Messiah with antichrist with someone claiming to be God. So, you lose that round. Thanks, you just made my case! oops - you're not making any sense again. I handled Satan's 'Trinity' in an earlier post...Class, that's your next assignment - find my post on this thread where I got into Satan's unholy trinity...and please hold all your questions until you read that entire post and this one. oh man, PFAL-flashbacks Your point is bizarre and irrelevant . NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible on page 256 comments on Numbers 21 as follows about Moses instructing them to make a bronze snake: while this strikes many moderns as some form of ancient magic, the text is clear that it is actually the Lord’s solution and works only because of his power. By having the Israelites look at the very symbol of their judgement, the Lord is having them acknowledge, “This is the judgement that you, Lord, have justly brought upon us, and only you can deliver us from it.” Jesus uses this event to explain his death on the cross. End of excerpt ~ ~ ~ ~ Wow – just wow! How do you know what God’s intentions were? Is that something you came up with? Please read about the supremacy of Christ and that he is the image of the invisible God in Colossians 1 and then explain to me why it’s wrong to worship Jesus Christ…The Greek word for image is eikon– from which we get our English word “icon”. In computer science it’s a graphic symbol (usually a simple picture) that denotes a program, command or a data file or a concept in a graphical user interface – like when you click on the icon for your browser – that enables you to connect to the Internet. Christ is in effect - God's icon - because Christ represents exactly what God is like . Christ is how we connect to the Father John 14:6 . Everything we come to know about Jesus Christ brings to the mind the compassion and forgiveness of our heavenly Father John 14:9 ...Maybe find some Scripture prohibiting the worship of Jesus and then we've got something concrete for a debate. Another interesting passage of Christ representing God is in Hebrews 1:3 “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.” In ancient literature “exact imprint” was a specialized tool like a die that was used to cut and/or form material to a desired shape or profile, such as engraving on wood, etching in metal, branding an animal hide, stamping an image on a coin, or making an impression in clay. I think it’s a shame the way wierwille disparaged the cross of Christ…maybe just another gimmick to distinguish himself from mainstream Christianity I guess. Another interesting side note – check out Caduceus - Wikipedia I don’t mean to be a pill about it but on another thread here you claimed my posts lacked substance. Have you read all my posts on this thread? And by read, I mean did you look at and comprehend the meaning of what I wrote - mentally interpreting words, concepts, Scriptures, hyperlinks and books I mentioned? In case you forgot - reading is a process undertaken to reduce uncertainty about meanings a text conveys. The process results from a negotiation of meaning between the text and you. The knowledge, expectations, and strategies you use to uncover textual meaning all play decisive roles in the way you negotiate with the text's meaning. How can you say my posts had no substance? Remember in PFAL wierwille said something along the lines of most people believe that they think but they really don’t think…did you bother to read or think about any of the info I posted? come on johniam, put some effort in this thread you started. Were you expecting the doctrinal forum to be your own personal pulpit? A monolog? I crammed a lot of substance in my posts - i.e. Scripture and the history of the theological development of the Trinity – AND MY MAIN POINT in most of my posts was to prove wierwille and his fan club misrepresented the doctrine of the Trinity to the point of trivializing and lampooning the nature of the Godhead. And I have been upfront and honest in expressing my own view – - which could be screwy anyway - but that's the fun of the Socratic method - we sort stuff out - anyway ...I've mentioned this earlier on this thread too - which is that God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son are NOT identical and that there are many Scriptures that allude to the interrelationship of the Father, the So ad the Holy Spirit. And perhaps there are no passages more insistent about their threefold interaction than John 14 , John 15 , and John 16 . Am I saying they clearly address wierwille’s myopic view of the Trinity? No. I’m saying those chapters of John indicate an interagency of all three. For me “Trinity” enumerates there’s three supernatural beings involved. From what I understand in the Bible, they have some common features but they’re not identical to each other – since even their names or titles suggest individuality in the ‘team effort’. Scripture has always indicated the Father is the source - - all flows from Him – and ultimately all will be subsumed in Him – 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” c Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all…1 Corinthians 15

I'll make another shortcut for yah to reply here tis' T-Bone's reply on your Trinity thread Sunday February 26th 2023 Slander: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation Defamation - Wikipedia - Defamation is the act of communicating to a third party false statements about a person, place or thing that results in damage to its reputation. It can be spoken (slander) or written (libel). It constitutes a tort or a crime. The legal definition of defamation and related acts as well as the ways they are dealt with can vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions (what exactly they must consist of, whether they constitute crimes or not, to what extent proving the alleged facts is a valid defense). ~ ~ ~ ~ I am curious as to what “seemingly endless posts of slander” you were referring to. Are you referring to untrue statements that misrepresented YOU , wierwille or both? Could you please be more specific. How did I falsify anything you said? After your starter post the only thing you mentioned of substance (if you want to call it substantive ) was a reference to the Omen > johniam post July 17th 2022 4:31 AM mentioning the Omen …you brought it up. That thread is in the doctrinal forum – I referenced a lot of Scripture and other legitimate sources that successfully destroyed your rant against the Trinity…you said: “What about the devil?...He is no longer free. Prior to the day of Pentecost, he wanted God's people to believe that Jesus was evil. Since the day of Pentecost, he NOW wants God's people to believe that Jesus is God. Why would he change like that? He did a 180. He looks fickle. What's going on???... Once again, the trinity is both the welcoming committee and the public relations machine for the antichrist. It is a perpetual reminder that..."haleluia, the antichrist is coming". No Christian should want anything to do with supporting something like that…God's love is perpetual. God gave every one the same capacity to make our own choices. God will never force anyone to choose, believe, or do anything. If any still want to believe that a man is God, enjoy it while you can.” johniam's starter post on Trinity: asset or liability; June 18th 2022 1:01 PM This all appears to be conjecture fueled by confirmations bias I am sympathetic to your complaint about all my posts - so I'll repost some stuff here on that thread and hopefully you can respond in a timely manner hoping to hear from you soon over there uhm... in case you missed it above here it is again T-Bone's reply on your Trinity thread Sunday February 26th 2023 all hail redundancy !!!!! "The word of God, as taught by VP" - for a proper treatment this needs a whole thread devoted to delineating specific topics he taught…otherwise YOU are bluffing and either don’t know what to say or YOU ARE AFRAID ‘truth’ won’t hold up to close scrutiny. To have an intelligible discussion we need to define what is the baby and what is the bath water. I know it means discard something useful, essential, or important because you want to get rid of something undesired or negative; to lose valuable ideas or aspects because you want to get rid of certain things you don’t want. From Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater, don’t | Idioms Online …In light of that – there will undoubtedly be differences. What I think is essential, someone else might not think so…It seems you and Mike like to overcomplicate the Socratic process. For example I might say exploring Scripture is essential to unpacking the threefold relationship of Father/Son/Holy Spirit. And the essentials I hear from you guys is a bunch of rehashed rhetoric from wierwille’s ‘catechism’ JCING. I don’t mean to be a pill about it but on your Trinity thread my posts were crammed with substance - i.e. Scripture and the history of the theological development of the Trinity – AND MY MAIN POINT in most of my posts was to prove wierwille and his fan club misrepresented the doctrine of the Trinity to the point of trivializing and lampooning the nature of the Godhead. And I have been upfront and honest in expressing my own view – - which could be screwy anyway - - which is that God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son are NOT identical and that there are many Scriptures that allude to the interrelationship of the Father, the So ad the Holy Spirit. And perhaps there are no passages more insistent about their threefold interaction than John 14 , John 15 , and John 16 . Am I saying they clearly address wierwille’s myopic view of the Trinity? No. I’m saying those chapters of John indicate an interagency of all three. For me “Trinity” enumerates there’s three supernatural beings involved. From what I understand in the Bible, they have some common features but they’re not identical to each other – since even their names or titles suggest individuality in the ‘team effort’. Scripture has always indicated the Father is the source - - all flows from Him – and ultimately all will be subsumed in Him – 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” c Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all…1 Corinthians 15 ~ ~ ~ ~ Can a person misrepresent themself? Yes – that’s the main idea of hypocrisy - Matthew 23 Can a preacher or a teacher misrepresent the gospel of Jesus Christ? Yes – that’s obvious from passages like Matthew 24 , Romans 16:17 - 19 , II Corinthians 11 , II Timothy 3 , Titus 1, II Peter 2 . ~ ~ ~ ~ I wonder how you would feel about wierwille or LCM sexually molesting a woman that you know, or maybe a girl you had witnessed to and under-shepherded her all the way up until she went into the way corps program…How does one reconcile the public persona of the president of The Way International with the same person being a sexual predator? Here’s another reading assignment - Losing the Way: A Memoir of Spiritual Longing, Manipulation, Abuse, and Escape by Kristen Skedgell . I wonder how you and your wife would feel about being at a ‘pajama party’ along with your 16-year-old daughter and wierwille is showing everyone a porn video. He invites your 16-year-old daughter up front and shows her a ‘pornographic pen’ (which wierwille describes to everyone there as a little silhouette of a guy humping a girl when you tilt the pen back and forth). Do you think wierwille misrepresented himself as a man of God? Do you think it’s okay for a minister of the gospel to sexually molest women?

Got it. Too busy hiding your head in the sand and claim there’s no substance - that’s funny - I’m not the one referring to movies like The Omen franchise. Guess you had to be on the Trinity thread to get that joke. (Cue the 2 Muppet old farts in the balcony “but you weren’t there” …oh fearless thread-starter lacking a response of substance). At least you admit you’re totally fooled by wierwille’s con game. Cheers You should be commended for sticking by a delusional cult-leader’s broken latrine. 4 crucified? Oh nothing wrong with that. Scripture interprets itself ? Oh yeah sure As long as you love God and neighbor you can do whatever you want? Man, if that isn’t convenient I don’t know what is. What a handy religion - rub the law of believing lamp and god MUST accommodate you. Who doesn’t want that? Thanks for not hiding the fact that you accept wierwille’s word of god. You know some Mormons are sneaky and don’t come right out and say they’ve got their own scriptures - funny those golden plates up and disappeared…at least wierwille got a real diploma from a non accredited seminary - I mean it was manifested in the senses realm - and everyone HAD TO call him “Doctor” …oh while we’re sorting out the baloney of the phony who was the 7th in line of something or other ? Oh speaking of substance - what’s with that 1942 promise - do you still believe that ? Why? If one doesn’t see that wierwille’s port-a-potty is broken then don’t worry about fixing it. That explains a lot. What’s puzzling is why wierwille-fans think his bull-$hit doesn’t stink.

I do not doubt you think that. I used to believe that too. However, actions do speak louder than words. From my 12 years of involvement with TWI and from the preponderance of anecdotal evidence from many others I know beyond a reasonable doubt that wierwille did not like to be challenged. The excessive admiration for wierwille may be partly due to a self-imposed paradigm shift that cult-followers experience – most TWI-followers tend to view wierwille in a very positive light. In Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, the character Jessica said love is blind. That seems to be a timeless truth indeed – when we love someone, we tend to overlook their faults. I never took notice of wierwille’s self-promotion. I believed him when he spoke of his early struggle as a simple clergyman frustrated with the lack of answers and power in his life until God spoke to him. That is the unvarnished truth of why I was attracted to wierwille and his ministry. It was the promise of getting answers to the big questions in life and experience whatever it was to tap into the power of God. For whatever reasons or delusions that drove wierwille, I think he framed himself as being honest and humble. But besides whatever reasons anyone may have had to hold wierwille in such high regard – there is another more alarming explanation for wierwille possessing such favor - he demanded the utmost respect from his followers! That is something common in harmful and controlling cult-leaders. They REQUIRE excessive admiration...Consider some excerpts from a Joe Navarro article. Joe Navarro, a former FBI Counterintelligence Agent and the author of What Every BODY is Saying: An Ex-FBI Agent's Guide to Speed-Reading People wrote an August 2012 Psychology Today article Psychology Today: Dangerous Cult Leaders, Clues to what makes for a pathological cult leader Navarro said the two questions he gets asked most frequently by students of criminology and psychology are: How do you know when a cult leader is bad, evil, or toxic? and when is a cult leader pathological or a danger to others? Navarro said those are valid questions in view of the historical record of suffering and hurt caused by various cult leaders around the world: “From my studies of cults and cult leaders during my time in the FBI, I learned early on that there are some things to look for that, at a minimum, say "caution, this individual is dangerous, and in all likelihood will cause harm to others. Having studied at length the life, teachings, and behaviors of Jim Jones (Jonestown Guyana), David Koresh (Branch Davidians), Stewart Traill (The Church of Bible Understanding), Charles Manson, Shoko Asahara (Aum Shinrikyo), Joseph Di Mambro (The Order of the Solar Temple a.k.a. Ordre du Temple Solaire), Marshall Heff Applewhit (Heaven’s Gate), Bhagwan Rajneesh (Rajneesh Movement), and Warren Jeffs (polygamist leader), I can say that what stands out about these individuals is that they were or are all pathologically narcissistic. They all have or had an overabundant belief that they were special, that they and they alone had the answers to problems, and that they had to be revered. They demanded perfect loyalty from followers, they overvalued themselves and devalued those around them, they were intolerant of criticism, and above all they did not like being questioned or challenged. And yet, in spite of these less than charming traits, they had no trouble attracting those who were willing to overlook these features… …These personality traits stand out as the first warning to those who would associate with them, but there are many others. Here is a collection of traits of cult leaders that give us hints as to their psychopathology. This list is not all-inclusive nor is it the final word on the subject; it is merely my personal collection based on studies and interviews that I conducted in my previous career. If you know of a cult leader who has many of these traits there is a high probability that they are hurting those around them emotionally, psychologically, physically, spiritually, or financially. And of course, this does not take into account the hurt that their loved ones will also experience. Here are the typical traits of the pathological cult leader (from Dangerous Personalities) that you should watch for: 1. He has a grandiose idea of who he is and what he can achieve. 2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, or brilliance. 3. Demands blind, unquestioned obedience. 4. Requires excessive admiration from followers and outsiders. 5. Has a sense of entitlement—expecting to be treated as special at all times. 6. Is exploitative of others by asking for their money or that of relatives, putting others at financial risk. 7. Is arrogant and haughty in his behavior or attitude. 8. Has an exaggerated sense of power (entitlement) that allows him to bend rules and break laws. 9. Takes sexual advantage of members of his sect or cult. 10. Sex is a requirement with adults and sub adults as part of a ritual or rite. 11. Is hypersensitive to how he is seen or perceived by others. 12. Publicly devalues others as being inferior, incapable, or not worthy. 13. Makes members confess their sins or faults, publicly subjecting them to ridicule or humiliation while revealing exploitable weaknesses of the penitent. 14. Has ignored the needs of others, including: biological, physical, emotional, and financial needs. 15. Is frequently boastful of accomplishments. 16. Needs to be the center of attention and does things to distract others to ensure that he or she is being noticed, e.g., by arriving late, using exotic clothing, overdramatic speech, or by making theatrical entrances. 17. Has insisted on always having the best of anything (house, car, jewelry, clothes) even when others are relegated to lesser facilities, amenities, or clothing. 18. Doesn’t seem to listen well to needs of others; communication is usually one-way, in the form of dictates. 19. Haughtiness, grandiosity, and the need to be controlling is part of his personality. 20. Behaves as though people are objects to be used, manipulated or exploited for personal gain. 21. When criticized he tends to lash out not just with anger but with rage. 22. Anyone who criticizes or questions him is called an “enemy.” 23. Refers to non-members or non-believers as “the enemy.” 24. Acts imperious at times, not wishing to know what others think or desire. 25. Believes himself to be omnipotent. 26. Has “magical” answers or solutions to problems. 27. Is superficially charming. 28. Habitually puts down others as inferior; only he is superior. 29. Has a certain coldness or aloofness about him that makes others worry about who this person really is and or whether they really know him. 30. Is deeply offended when there are perceived signs of boredom, being ignored or of being slighted. 31. Treats others with contempt and arrogance. 32. Is constantly assessing people to determine those who are a threat or those who revere him. 33. The word “I” dominates his conversations. He is oblivious to how often he references himself. 34. Hates to be embarrassed or fail publicly; when he does he acts out with rage. 35. Doesn’t seem to feel guilty for anything he has done wrong nor does he apologize for his actions. 36. Believes he possesses the answers and solutions to world problems. 37. Believes himself to be a deity or a chosen representative of a deity. 38. "Rigid," "unbending," or "insensitive" describes how this person thinks. 39. Tries to control others in what they do, read, view, or think. 40. Has isolated members of his sect from contact with family or the outside world. 41. Monitors and/or restricts contact with family or outsiders. 42. Works the least but demands the most. 43. Has stated that he is “destined for greatness” or that he will be “martyred.” 44. Seems to be highly dependent on tribute and adoration and will often fish for compliments. 45. Uses enforcers or sycophants to ensure compliance from members or believers. 46. Sees self as “unstoppable” and perhaps has even said so. 47. Conceals background or family, which would disclose how plain or ordinary he is. 48. Doesn’t think there is anything wrong with himself and in fact sees himself as perfection or “blessed.” 49. Has taken away followers' freedom to leave, to travel, to pursue life and liberty. 50. Has isolated the group physically (moved to a remote area) so as to not be observed. this is the list that I use to survey the cult leader for dangerous traits. Of course the only way to know anything for sure is to observe and validate, but these characteristics can go a long way to help with that. And as I have said, there are other things to look for and there may be other lists, but this is the one that I found most useful from studying these groups and talking to former members of cults. When a cult or organizational leader has a preponderance of these traits then we can anticipate that at some point those who associate with him will likely suffer physically, emotionally, psychologically, or financially. If these traits sound familiar to leaders, groups, sects, or organizations known to you, then expect those who associate with them to live in despair and to suffer, even if they don’t know yet that they will.” End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ As I look over the above list of 50 typical traits of the pathological cult leader – it’s sad and unsettling to realize that most of them are a spot-on reflection of wierwille. Another treacherous aspect of pseudo-Christian groups like The Way International is how their trap is already primed for unsuspecting victims who are much more likely to be attracted to traditional belief systems like Christianity – something many people are familiar with – compared to something like Scientology. That leads me to think that to understand the power of harmful and controlling pseudo-Christian cults we should look more at their methods than their seemingly innocuous statements of belief. The trick is to see how these harmful and controlling cults put their “theories” into practice – by twisting Scripture…misinterpreting Scripture…misapplying Scripture to facilitate…to justify…to excuse their bad behavior and exploit others...and most of all wierwille presented teachings in such a way that it's intimidating to followers who might otherwise question something - but remain quiet fearing the consequences of what might be akin to challenging Moses giving the 10 commandments. “…VP actually wanted other people to do research even if it proved him wrong. Could be like a campaign slogan; could be true…” Nope – I don’t think so. As a side note, I’m not really impressed with Walter C.. If you haven’t read it already you should check out Penworks’ book Undertow: My Escape from the Fundamentalism and Cult Control of The Way International and you’ll find out how Walter caved in to the pressure wierwille employed for Walter to mistranslate a text to suit wierwille’s agenda…Your friend Mike is super busy cleaning windows and trolling posting on Grease Spot that it’s taking him forever to get through it – perhaps you’ll finish it before him - - but it’s an easy read showing the inner workings of TWI and you might find some stuff that resonates with your own experiences.

Some people wet themselves when they get a little attention…and use the same trolling tactics as the other hobgoblin…why do provocateurs persist? And yet they are the victim they insist…oh stupidity where is thy sting? Oh stink where is thy bull-$honta?

A literal entrapment

You should always follow instructions… …except when you’re told not to.

Run for your lives – the cat is loose!

After a merger of five companies: American Airlines Alcoholics Anonymous AAA Insurance AAAA size batteries AAAAA Inc. Commercial Equipment Wholesaler They finally settled on a company logo

Parallel parking was not one of Fred’s long suits.

Thanks Nathan - I went back and corrected misspelling his name

Give me a little time and I could come up with some correlation Learned behavior is probably the easiest to find similarities with this thread. As the thread title states, religion demands acceptance of the unprovable. I think that’s true but oddly enough some folks are drawn to religion anyway – regardless of the demands – and that’s something I find fascinating. Why? I’m a sucker for You Tube ‘tutorials’ on cats and dogs. I remember one video on 8 or 9 things people don’t know about cats – that said cats meow to communicate something to people – and that it’s not usually used for cat-to-cat communication. Don’t know if there’s anything to that – but if it’s learned behavior it makes sense to me. We got our feral cat from a local animal shelter – he was about 8 months old. They told us he was a little shy being a feral cat but the person who brought the cat in remarked how friendly he was in getting handouts from the neighborhood. So, the cat discovered certain actions (like meowing) got him food – and now I’m on board with his learned behavior – so I’m trained too – whatever – maybe we both get something out of it – I earn my cat’s trust to be the best cat valet I can be. Maybe some things about religion are learned behavior. What do religious folks get out of it? In The Case for God by Karen Armstrong she says in most premodern cultures there were two recognized ways of thinking, speaking and acquiring knowledge – the ancient Greeks called them mythos and logos. Both were essential and considered complementary rather than in conflict with each other. Each had its own sphere of competence. Logos – reason – was the pragmatic mode of thought that empowered folks to function effectively in the world – forward-looking - always on the lookout to make efficient weapons, tools, better controls, invent and improve stuff. Logos was essential for the survival of our species. But it had its limitations – it couldn’t alleviate human grief or find meaning and purpose in struggles. That’s where mythos come in. The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell came up recently on another thread. Armstrong made some references to The Power of Myth too. She said currently we live in a society of scientific logos – and in popular jargon a myth is something that is not true. But in the past myth was not a self-indulgent fantasy – and has been called a primitive form of psychology – designed to help people negotiate the obscure regions of the psyche – to enter the labyrinth of their own minds and fight personal demons. Religion is a practical discipline that teaches us to discover new capacities of the mind. Myth would not be effective if people simply “believed” in it. It was essentially a program of action. The myth of the hero, for example, which takes the same form in nearly all cultural traditions, taught people how to unlock their own heroic potential. Later the stories of historical figures such as the Buddha, Jesus, or Muhammad were made to conform to this paradigm so that followers could imitate them in the same way…Religion, therefore, was not primarily something that people thought but something they did. End of ‘excerpts’ from The Case for God ~ ~ ~ ~ As Christopher Hitchens said: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” I like that. I found another cool quote by him on Christopher Hitchens Quotes (Author of God Is Not Great) (goodreads.com) : “Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely soley upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, open-mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.” ― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything I no longer have a fundamentalists view of the Bible. I don’t look at the Bible as having a mathematical exactness and scientific precision. And personally, I find nothing in it that infuriates my mind. I try to understand it from its ancient cultural basis – folks trying to deal with the inexplicable. I like the freedom to investigate stuff for myself and consider other viewpoints. I may never get definitive answers on anything – but I keep at it anyway – because I keep figuring out there’s more questions to ask - and sometimes wind up reframing the problem (whatever the particular issue is that I'm exploring). Now going full circle – I found another Hitchens quote that ties it all together with what I’ve been talking about – religion, cats and dogs: “Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods.” ― Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever This is freakin’ amazing – there’s at least two distinct religions practiced in our home – our dog thinks me and my wife are gods. And my wife and I practice the ancient Egyptian religion of worshipping our cat. think I'll check out some of Hitchens stuff.

I think you’re right…and oddly enough our cat is or rather was a feral cat. We adopted him 3 years ago. First 3 days I thought he was a mute. Then while I’m cleaning out his litter box he got on a chair nearby and meowed at me . I was floored. Now I’m a cat valet - he meows when he wants food or wants a window or door opened.

Thank you for revealing so much about where your head is at. And if Grease Spotters don’t mind me saying, your rhetoric reminds me a lot of classic wierwille and how he pushed his dubious ideology as the litmus test for true Christianity. Also, it appears you like using some of Mike’s trolling tactics of demonizing folks who disagree with wierwille’s dubious ideology. oh, and almost forgot – speaking of the divinity of Jesus Christ – why don’t you man up and reply to at least a few of my posts on the thread you started in doctrinal forum - The Trinity - asset or liability? – I’ll make it real easy for you – here is my last post T-Bone's post Nov 6th 2022, 9:41 PM on the Trinity, theology, the nature of God . Please respond in a timely manner… unless you prefer to remain the waterboy for a dead cult-leader, providing refreshments for wierwille’s fanbase. anyway, have a nice day 'true Christian'

Hitchens does have a point. I wish I could read the minds of our dog and cat – they seem so content. How do they pull it off? I’m envious. I’ve got a lot of unnecessary baggage cluttering up my head – and I worry too much.

long ago internet-based services providing on-demand content required enormous streaming devices

Those darn frat boys

Crap – I got off the wrong exit !

One night, papa told me the story of the McBurger Arches

125. espouses a misleading concept of rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Part 2: it’s not amoral linguistics Exploring further the Greek word orthotomounta, on pages 262 and 263 of New Testament Commentary:Exposition of Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews authors William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker affirm the same points as NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible regarding “rightly handling the word of truth” of II Timothy 2:15, this word of truth is the testimony concerning our Lord II Timothy 1:8 . Orthotomounta is a composite verb – the primary meaning of the main element (the base) of the composite verb is “to cut” – with a prefix “straight” - however the meaning-emphasis may shift, until in the semantic process the literal sense of the base is lost. Thus straight-cutting begins to mean straight-handling or handling aright, faithfully, accurately. It is not so strange that, by an easy shift from the physical to the moral sphere, cutting a straight road or path over the course of time to the exclusively moral use of the term - The righteousness of the blameless makes their paths straight Proverbs 11:5 NIV . The person who handles the word of truth properly does not change, pervert, mutilate or distort it. On page 1170 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume, Geoffrey Bromiley says of orthotomounta occurs in the Greek Bible only at Proverbs 3:6 , Proverbs 11:5 where it means make paths straight, to build a road, to lay down a way, and of course in II Timothy 2:15 . Bromiley says the real meaning seems to be that Timothy should speak the word of truth in his conduct – he will present the word legitimately – confirming it in his life. The motifs of a journey, a path and of walking are quite common in the Bible and usually refer to the big picture of life – how we handle the mundane, careers, personal life, relationships…how we navigate through life…do we use a moral compass? On page 627 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament author Craig S. Keener says of II Timothy 2:15, to the images of soldier, athlete and farmer II Timothy 2: 3 - 6 , Paul also adds worker – perhaps thinking of his own background as a skilled artisan – his emphasis here is on an accurate representation of the gospel of Jesus Christ in contrast to the empty words of those who depart from the truth II Timothy 2:14 & ff ~ ~ ~ ~ You might think I’m splitting hairs and that it’s just a nuance of difference in the way that wierwille handled the Bible. Not really. In PFAL, wierwille makes it out to be merely an exercise in linguistics devoid of any moral implications. And to add to the confusion wierwille was incompetent with the biblical languages. As I pointed out in Part 1, wierwille let envy of the non-Christian world tinge his interpretation of John 10:10. Read the context of John 10 NIV it is the Good Shepherd – Jesus Christ talking about how he takes care of the flock. To think of Jesus Christ as your ticket to health and wealth is to change, pervert, mutilate, and distort his purpose in coming to Earth. Maybe it’s time to reevaluate the teachings of PFAL. On another thread Power For Abundant Living Today , I asked if the new class taught the same dubious stuff that was in the old PFAL class of 1967: 4 crucified The Bible interprets itself To whom the Bible is written The 7 administrations The law of believing The law of giving and receiving does that little boy still get killed by the fear in the heart of his mother? Receive, retain, release “For this purpose, was I spared” The day Jesus Christ died Who is The Word in John 1:1 The Bible is mathematically exact and scientifically precise Humankind were originally body, soul, and spirit People can get born again of the wrong seed The way to get back to the original God-breathed Word is by comparing translations and versions As long as one loves God and neighbor they can do as they full well please Technically all the women in the kingdom belong to the king Each believer can operate all 9 manifestations To receive anything from God you must know the 5 things you can’t go beyond what you’re taught God can only speak to what He is which is spirit God can only give what He is which is spirit There’s only one way to rightly divide the Word - all other ways are wrong Do you still have to hold all questions until the last session? Do they specifically mention - by name - where wierwille got most of his material from? Does the new class refer to the 1942 promise made to wierwille? Does the new class mention wierwille’s trip to India and healing a local man’s arm? Does the class still cover the mechanics of speech to teach how to speak in tongues? Does the class still claim speaking in tongues can’t be counterfeited?