oldiesman

Thanks for reminding me Waysider, I thought that was a terrific teaching. :) Well I guess that puts to rest the propaganda that Wierwille didn't teach about the immense greatness of Christ. And that is just one statement's worth.

Which was all taught by Wierwille.

That's absolute nonsense. What a cheap shot. The immense greatness of Christ is described in the Word of God. The WORD is THE LOGOS in writing. VP teaching that Christ being the subject of all the books, that the bible is magnified above God's name. I received tremendous abiding respect for Christ and his greatness by understanding the Word, that VP taught. I think if anyone's mind was / is closed to the greatness of Christ, it is that individual choice and has NOTHING to do with Dr. Wierwille.

I appreciate yours too Dan and thanks for the correction.

Another Dan, to try to answer you question, I am not comfortable calling Jesus "God". To me, there is only one Supreme God who stands alone. Jesus is not Jehovah Elohim or Allah. I think if God calls Jesus God, that's ok, God can call Jesus whatever He wants. However I AM personally very comfortable calling Jesus LORD. :) If that's what you choose to do and have no problem, then its ok with me :)

Thanks Evan. I have crashed twice, once in 1985 and once in 2005. Both times were my fault entirely, and totally preventable. Thank God my stupidity didn't involve anyone else. But when I ride now, I'm extra cautious at intersections as they are very dangerous for bikers. I also use the SEE method regularly when approaching intersections and changing lanes, (Search, Evaluate, Execute)

FOR CAR DRIVERS

It helped establish more harmony in our home. *That* was concrete.

Well Golly, I coulda also offered that from JCING. The idea that "Jesus will be called God" doesn't make him God.

Another Dan, thanks, you too. Here's a short answer on what I think: it is not uncommon that people were given the God title in the Bible. Another instance is Psalm 82:6. God in that verse is Elohim. But that doesn't mean people are God Almighty any more so than Jesus is God Almighty. I would ask Abigail what she thinks of Psalm 45:6, she knows more about the old testament than I.

If I say to you "black is white and white is black" is that useful to you? Another Dan, I'll have to look those up. Could you please quote the scriptures (chapter & verse).

Well, I don't believe it does but isn't this what trinitarians believe?

While some ideas and concepts can have duplicate meanings, a lot of VP's explanations especially on the trinity make more sense to me than the relativism offered by some other churches and groups. As VP said in his book " if son of God means or equals God the Son " then language and words are useless as a tool for communication. Another principle that helped me taking PFAL was that the Word means what it says and says what it means, and shouldn't be watered down. I think if there's an apparent contradiction then, I think its much better to say "I don't know" than water it down to fit your beliefs or traditions as I believe trinitarians do with that one belief. I received little inspiration from the religion of my youth because of their failure to provide solid answers from the bible, like VP and TWI has done for me.

A man named Stefan Emerick started things off in the Bronx, in 1971. Fortunately for me, he lived just around the corner. His mom Annie was a waitress in Riverdale and knew my mom who also was a waitress. My mom began twigs in 1972 and the rest of us followed shortly thereafter.

Well it certainly mattered to twi and PFAL. The accuracy of the Word was one of the prime directives, their bread and butter and was taken very seriously. I think one concept that both trinitarians and unitarians can agree on is that Jesus is LORD.

So then according to his Advanced Class teaching, his body may have been possessed. Golly.

If you are talking about three persons, three egos, three intellects, or three selves; you are talking about three Gods, am I missing something? In other words: If Peter, Paul and Mary are all God, three distinct persons of a God of unity and purpose, and somebody worships them equally because they believe they all form together one nice big fuzzy God of the same unity and purpose; then one still worships Three Gods, not one. The God Peter, the God Paul, and the God Mary. That's three, not one (except in unity and purpose).

Well I can see that with vocal cords, but not with cancer...

Its doublespeak. First you say there is only one God, then you define God as having 3 persons, egos, intellects or selves. i.e,, Three Gods. Golly no wonder why folks get confused about the bible.

There may be an exception: vocal cords. If memory serves, I think there was a teaching by VP about devil possession of vocal cords. But here's a question: is it possession of the actual vocal cords or the mind? Does one actually speak with vocal cords or with the mind?

I don't think so. But Wierwille's trinity so to speak would be "one in unity, one in purpose". Not one in the selfsame. :) Thanks Waysider, I stand corrected. I don't understand how a devil spirit can possess a body part, but hey, it's Monday! :)

I agree that VP taught that it was life and "all life is spirit". Disagree that he taught that those who have cancer are possessed. When you think about it, it makes no sense. Possession is in the category of the mind, whereas cancer runs around the body. Unless one literally believes that lung cancer means lung possession, prostate cancer equals prostate possession, breast cancer equals breast possession, throat cancer equals throat possession, etc. etc.

It does say the scripture is of no private interpretation. Therefore a problem with your view might be an interpretation that contradicts another, obviously. As I see it, there may be different levels of understanding which is ok but in order for it to be "the Word of God" it can't contradict itself. A simple example would be "I and my Father are one" John 10:30. I had a conversation with a good friend who's also a priest, who said he believed that means "one in the selfsame"; whereas I believe it means "one in unity, one in purpose." PFAL did help me in this case since one of the keys to the words interpretation of itself, as taught in PFAL, is that the difficult verse should be understood in light of the clear verses. If one stick out like sore thumb, it must be understood in light of the many clear ones. Here, the clear verses over 60 of them are that Jesus is the son of God. There are others that show Jesus's sonship to and worship of God, whereas the opposite is not the case. And so I think from this one verse alone one can logically surmise that the scripture can't rightfully contradict itself so much so that "son of God" means "God". i.e. several different levels of interpretation of this verse may lead to serious error.

They may have crabs.

Some of the JBS stuff is quite good. I'm not much for the conspiracy stuff, sometimes I do listen intently, but they do have excellent DVD's on the purpose and meaning of the Constitution of the United States, how our form of government supposed to work and why it is the best around, the proper function and original intent of the founding fathers, and how our government and rights differ from other political governments. etc etc.