oldiesman

The sins of the teacher does not negate the truths in the teaching.

"tithing is a divinely-assured income tax, paid freely in offerings with love."

This is not patently false. Nobody was ever permanently kicked out of the ministry. if so who? Kicked out of the corps yes, but folks always have been welcomed back if they choose to. Come on guys, we are talking about PATENTLY FALSE VPW one-liners....

There you go again Jim. Howard never said that. He said: "there are no strangers at the way." Accuracy is important!

Is this thread about twi wolves only or all wolves? Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Priests

Here is another I believe to be false: "Tithing is our minimum financial insurance, health and accident insurance."

:)

To be fair, here are a couple of VPW statements that I believe to be patently false: 1 -- "tithing brings wings to life" 2 -- "you cannot afford not to tithe"

No, I stand by my statements. I think this is yet another case of what Mike mentioned previously numerous times, about TVT's (twi's verbal traditions) and how they repeated themselves yet varied from actual written statements from VP. That is why I believe written documentation, when available, trumps the so-called verbal "recollections" because those recollections might be based on inaccurate and mistaken perceptions of former written statements previously written in certain contexts. Bear in mind, the thread title is "VPW's patently false one-liners" so I just quoted written documentation of one statement, and btw that statement came from a certain context. One might as well at least get it accurate in its context before one condemns it. Oh and BTW, I think the two statements are not patently false.

I believe your statements are inaccurate from the get go: #1-- From the PFAL syllabus: "no one rises beyond what he believes and no one believes beyond what he is taught." #2-- "People are to be loved, things are to be used."

Did you read what I wrote above?

That is NOT what he claimed. He claimed the opposite. Taking all his books to the dump one year doesn't mean he didn't learn from other books, sources and materials later, which he did. He did not say "I got rid of all my books and never looked at another one again". that was not the message. God showing him things didn't prohibit men of God being involved in that process. If the message had been "do not read or listen to any source other than myself" your version would fit and make sense but that was not the message.

I agree Mike. Perhaps if there were no clear statement "lots of the stuff I teach is not original" and there were no bookstore items proving in plain english that lots of his stuff came from elsewhere, along with all the verbal statements throughout the years, I would have had the impression way back then that he was receiving his knowledge directly from God Himself without assistance, thereby possibly feeling duped today. But such was not the case, which is why I find these arguments weak.

Ok, not legally; but he made sure that his students knew that lots of his stuff was not original, which admission I believe was most important.

This is simple for me to understand. There was a point in time early in his ministry when he threw away all his books and used only the bible. Years later, he "learned from men of God scattered across the continent". It is easy to see the difference when you look at the time periods involved. What he did NOT say was "I hauled over 3000 volumes to the city dump and used the bible as my only handbook and source for truth and never learned from anyone else". Obviously he did, and said so, when he said "lots of the stuff I teach is not original."

I wouldn't. The very statement "lots of the stuff I teach is not original" disproves him "passing it off as his own" or at least portraying that his stuff was original. What stuff was or was not original does not matter; the very fact that he said lots of his stuff was not original means he is not hiding the fact that lots of his stuff IS NOT ORIGINAL. Folks can believe what they want; I have written proof that satisfies me. At the very least his statement weakens your argument considerably.

hi Mike, I don't have that quote but in fact I remember VPW saying on tape that the Way wasn't the only source for truth, that much I do remember. Early in my stay in twi (perhaps sometime in 1973) someone played a tape from 70 or 71 where he taught that groups who teach the rightly divided word are teaching the truth and the way was not the ONLY group who did this. He said that we in twi were the most accurate, comprehensive best source, a ministry where you can get the MOST rightly divided word, but there were other groups out there teaching the rightly divided word in various categories and aspects. BEST yes, ONLY no. I wish I could remember the number of this audio tape; I'd love to hear it again because I think it makes a fair portrayal that made perfect sense with everything else I knew about him getting lots of his stuff from other sources.

I can go along with a statement "we all bought that I VPW am teaching the true word". I think I can say with reasonable certainty that we who hung around twi all once believed that VPW was teaching the true word. What I disagree with, again, is use of the word "ONLY". VPW said "ONLY I am teaching the truth." Balderdash, he never said that. It is unsubstantiated, inaccurate, and incredible. Nobody, not even VP says "I am the only source for truth". (except maybe the RC church ) They certainly teach through their sacraments is the only way to heaven )

I think that is kind of a strawman in itself. The claim was that God would work with VP; NOT that God would work with VP ONLY. If God worked with other folks (which I certainly think he did) Vp doesn't disprove that by his words or experience; all he is claiming is his own experience and not disproving anyone elses claims. I am weary of these claims that purport to show that vp and twi claimed they were the ONLY source of truth; I think that is a false premise designed to mislead and that never came from vp or twi. Besides, VP said "lots of the stuff I teach is not original" so how in the world can he think he's the ONLY source or means to understand the truth if lots of his stuff came from elsewhere? Just knowing that lots of the stuff came from other men disproves them being the ONLY source. Most accurate, ok. ONLY means, no. ...I think that is irrelevant as to whether his teachings are truth or of benefit to the student of biblical research. I think the teachings stand or fall on their own merit. King Solomon (who did much worse evil than VP ever DREAMED of) sins didn't negate the truths in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon; obviously God wants truth communicated regardless of the sins of the communicator.

If what you say is right then I think we are all in deep dooo dooooooo. But I continue to believe that the sins of the moonwalking bear didn't negate the nourishment in the porridge.

That's too bad because I thought your past research on the blue book noting what's good with it and what's bad with it was quite a fair and respectable effort. BTW what happened to your Living Epistles website?

The sins of the teacher do not negate the truths in the teaching. Happy New Year!

I wish him well.

Does not look like Rosie.

I wish him well.