waysider

Surely you jest. This was the main thrust of the first four sessions of PFAL. "If one section doesn't fit, the whole thing falls apart." (or something to that effect) Inerrancy was the single most critical factor in making Way theology congruent. And in other news, it's just been discovered that water is wet.

Step 4: Tell Straw Man to have a seat and wait for Sir Q. L' Reasoning to arrive.

CLICK

Oops. We're teetering on the edge. (no politics at GSC) Chalk it up as dry humor instead. (obligatory chuckle)

Looking at this as a purely academic exercise, the answer to that question lies in The Advanced Class. According to the definitions Wierwille swiped from somebody (might have been B.G. Leonard), if something is revelation, it would be impossible to ascertain said information via the five senses. If you need the exact definitions from the class, I have them here somewhere. Probably using the syllabus to prop up a wobbly table leg or something.

Just a guess on my part. I'm thinking the red is supposed to symbolize the blood. But who knows? Maybe Wierwille got them on the cheap and didn't want to waste them.

Is there anything outside of the Bible that claims Jesus rose from the dead, such as historical records and things of the like? I've never personally seen anything but, then again, I'm not sure I ever really looked.

Can you briefly describe the difference and illustrate how it relates to the topic?

Hmmm. I think I might see the problem.

It's perfectly fine to disagree with something. Disagreement should be expected and welcomed in any valid discussion. However, it would be helpful in understanding your point of view if you would specify what you disagree with and explain why.

If we're still talking about building something, one need look no further than how the article's author builds to a conclusion in the final four or five paragraphs. edit: referring to the Historical Paul article.

Maybe I'm having a bad day or something but, at least to me, this sounds a lot like the argument people use when they say "Yeah, that Wierwille was a bum but, gosh darn it, he sure taught some good word".

Happy birthday, Twinky. Have you given any thought to what you might like to do when you grow up?

Bullinger used the old "Do you still beat your wife?" ploy with this. If you answer "no", it means you used to beat your wife but no longer do so. If you answer "yes", it means you beat your wife. But, what if you don't beat your wife and never have? The question forces you to distort reality. Bullinger forced the text to mean something that it never really said. I think this is representative of Bullinger's methods, lots of dancing around words to make them say you beat your wife. Dr. Juedes wrote about it here. Sorry, I've veered off-topic again..

I'm not sure if this is on-topic. It's tangential, at the least. It was Bullinger who concocted the 4-crucified scenario that has since been debunked.

He was also an ultradispensationalist. So there's that, as well. Now, as to the "computer only" scenario, I think people tend to ignore how incredibly advanced some ancient civilizations were in their understanding of complex mathematics.

And, at least with boot camp, you know it won't last forever.

This was the key to it all, right here. Sure, they made money on classes, advances, WC labor etc. There was usually a minimal operational cost involved. But, this was absolutely 100% free money. And, it was consistently flowing in, month after month and year after year. We paid for the "privilege" of being an uncompensated sales force. No salary, no commissions, no bonuses. Just a sharp smack of the ruler to the back of the hand if you failed to meet quota. Some weren't even that lucky. That's a whole other subject.

It was fool's gold. I'm from a blue collar family. I wasn't sure what genuine gold was supposed to look like. In addition, it placated a lot of concerned, skeptical parents. Now, there are those who may say it was my fault because I'm the one who made the choice. They are right, to a degree. But, If someone sells you fool's gold under the premise that it's genuine, knowing that it's fake, they must share in the culpability, as well.

This was one of my biggest disappointments with the FellowLaborers program, as well. It was pitched as a way to gain in-depth training and insight. Turns out it was just a stinking commune with a Biblical facade.

You don't argue with a coconut. You mix it with lime and drink it all up.

We're all aware of this section of scripture, Mark. I think you may be missing the point.

It doesn't "add" anything because it's simply restating what the Bible says about itself. If you brought something from an outside source, and then showed how it was corroborated by the scripture you posted, that would be adding.