Jbarrax

Well friends, once again I have missed out on some good discussion. My eleven hour work days and my son's work on the family pc have kept me away til almost bedtime. So I must step back to the status of an interested lurker. But if I may be so presumptuous as to speak for Evan: I believe the long, low whistle indicates that it's quite a stretch to try to justify praying to dead people and to present that as a doctrine that doesn't do violence to the Scripture. Everything in the NT says we are to pray to God or Christ; no one else for any reason at any time. So the Catholic tradition of praying to Mary or anyone else is, in the minds of Protestants, a clear clash with the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. Carry on.... JerryB

Well. I've missed a lot today. Evan's repsonse about Sir Thomas Moore and Tyndale preempted what I was going to say, as have a couple of other posters more historically informed than I. So at this point, I've only one comment. Mark, you have accused me of anti-Catholic bigotry, but you continue to refer to Luther, Calvin, and every other Prostestant as "heretic". That seems somewhat hypoctritical to say the least. What makes Luther a heretic? The rejection of the claim that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ? The rejection of a celibate priesthood? Or was it his insistence that raising money by the selling of indulgences was a corrupt practice? To paraphrase John 10:32, For which of these do you consider Luther a heretic? And since we're discussing the virtues and vices of the Roman Catholic Church relative to the Bible, how does one justify calling a man a heretic for breaking with the RCC because of something he read in the Bible? (Specifically, Martin Luther reading Romans). Peace JerryB

Yes I know there are skeptics. I've already read both sides of the story thoroughly. I'm still undecided, but the presence of skeptics alone doesn't necessarily mean it's invalid. There are skeptics who think God Himself is a fantasy, and I don't let them keep me from praying. My mind's still not completely made up about the Bible Code, but, based on the three books I've read, it could be geniune. The other side of the Yitzak Rabin story is that Drosnin found a code that predicted the assassination of his successor, Netenyahu. As he did with Rabin, he took the information to Netenyahu, who claimed not to believe it. But he did alter his travel plans, postponing a trip to....Syria I think. Which may have saved his life. And on another note, I had a thought about the World Trade Center last night that might be relevant. My family and I toured the building in August of 2,000. We were told that the Towers hold about 40,000 people on any given workday. The death toll from the attack was about 3,700 if I recall. That means that, through a combination of circumstances--some who were supposed to be there deciding not to go to work, the timing of the attacks, etc. less than 10% of the normal population of the towers was killed. As horriffic as it was, the death toll could have been much, much worse. Peace JerryB

I'm a strange person. :-) Actually, I did that to give myself time to find a quotable, linkable, online reference to what I'm referring to. I read about it in a famous book, but don't have a copy of it onhand, so I can't quote it. I'm looking for a link at the moment...... Here we go. Click here for a summary of the story. It involves a prediction of the assassination of Yitzak Rabin that was found encoded in the Torah. Jerry the Strange

Well we have quite a heated discussion here don't we? Mark and TempleLady: I seem to have skewered some sacred cows of yours. I do not mean to ruin anyone's day, I'm simply offering a different perspective than those you seem to be so passionately committed to. Mark. I believe my original statement was in the context of Paul's writings having been preserved by God's providence even during a period of time when the ruling Church did not want the knowledge of the Scriptures disseminated. I'm sorry if that statement offends you. You can obsess over my use of the word "bured" if you like. It is a historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church, although they had the Scriptures, did not TEACH from the Scriptures. Their people were deliberately kept ignorant of them. It is also a fact that the Roman Catholic Church persecuted people who wanted to publish and distribute Bibles. Look into the reign of "Bloody Mary" the Catholic Queen of England and see how many people she had tortured or burned at the stake in an effort to prevent the distribution of English language Bibles. Now please note. At no time in my post did I say that Catholics are evil, stupid, or any such thing. So your accustion of bigotry is an overreaction to my mentioning facts about your denomination that you don't happen to like. Chill. TempleLady: I still think we're missing each other. As Evan said, you seem to have dug your heels in about Paul. And I think Evan answered quite eloquently regarding the importance of Paul's influence in the preaching of the gospel of Christ. I have issues with Paul's writings too, but I cannot discount the impact of his ministry. Look at it this way. Jesus gave the Twelve a job to do. They weren't getting it done. So he went and found someone who would carry the gospel to the Gentiles. Was Paul perfect? No. He had been a murderous Pharisee. But the best men chosen weren't spreading the news, so he had to go with the second string. If you want to say that Paul should never have been an apostle, I won't argue that. If you want to say that Paul blew it and got thrown into prison for his own disobedience, I won't argue that either (although Evan would). But to say that Paul doesn't deserve credit for taking the message of Jesus Christ to the rest of the world, just isn't valid. Love and peace JerryB

That's both funny and sad.

How about a documented account of someone seeing a prophecy encoded in the Old Testament and trying to warn a head of state. Said head of state ignored the warning and was assassinated. After the event, the person who carried the warning found more details in the encoded Scritpure including the name of the assassin. When the person who saw this code found another one predicting the assassination of slain head of state's successor, he warned him as well. The successor changed his plans and is still alive. Technically, it's not "revelation", but it's a case of someone carrying a prophetic message from God and it fits all of your other criteria. Some of you know what I'm talking about. No spoilers please. :-) Peace JerryB Wow. talk about cronyism. I would have figured that leadership qualitications had at least something to do with it. Maybe what he really meant was, 'Of all the spiritually gifted, salt of the earth natural leaders I have to choose from, Craig is the most loyal, etc. ' I know this shounds pitifully naieve, especially from me, but I find it hard to believe VP would be that cynical about such a big decision. Maybe he figured it was going to go down the crapper no matter who took over so he might as well give the job to someone who'd earned a favor. Peace JerryB

That's why Jesus went out of his way to commission him on the road to Damascus. Barnabus is referred to as an Apostle too, but he didn't see the Lord outshining the midday sun. He was simply annointed in Antioch. That happened before the crucifixion. According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, after his resurrection, Jesus told the Apostles to Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. His exclusive ministry to Israel was over, and it was time to bring in the sheep from his other folds (John 10:16). For whatever reason, they failed to do so. So Christ found someone who would carry out his will. True, there were a few others, but they didn't get far beyond Judaea and they founded only a fraction of the churches Paul did. Paul was by far the most effective. And he was the one to whom God gave the revelation of the mystery. It's funny that you speak of the Gentiles having been grafted in to the olive tree, because you're quoting the man you call a heretic. It was Paul who penned those words. :-) Tish tosh. The Roman Catholic Church buried and obscured the Scriptures. Their masses and liturgies were all conducted in Latin, which most of the parishoners didn't know. When a few brave souls tried to translate the Scriptures into languages the people could understand, the Roman Catholics burned them at the stake. Under the rule of the so-called "Holy See", the average "Christian" lived in ignorance of God's Word and will. Why do you think they call it the Dark Ages? The Bible was not widely read or disseminated until after the Protestant Reformation. And do you know what started the Reformation? Martin Luther read Paul's epistle to the Romans and realized how corrupt, legalistic, and ungodly the Catholic Church had become. It was Paul's words that broke the rule of the Pope and brought an end to the Dark Ages. That's why I said all Protestant Denominations owe their roots to the Apostle Paul. Peace JerryB

PLEASE don't. :mellow:

Aw geez Raf you're gonna make me blush. Your work is more even-handed and objective, but thanks.

Wrong again doofus. You know nothing at all about the people with whom I fellowship with. Why do you assume I fellowship with PFAL grads? JerryB Uh...maybe it would invite you in for a nightcap? Sorry I know typo's are not fair game, but I couldn't resist that one. ;) JerryB Congratulations! :) LMAO! Hello My name is Jerry and I'm a PFAL Rejector. On a more serious note. Actually, I used to be a hard-hearted PFAL quoting Weirwillite. I used to be like Mike! In fact, I think I used to browbeat Maureen on another ex-twi thread about 7 years ago. So you see Mikey, there is hope for you too! :D

I often wondered why he didn't choose John Lynn. (of course Oldiesman and the Weirwillites will say because he was following revelation). But from a standpoint of leadership ability, I think JAL had as much if not more than Craig. And JAL was involved in the ministry before Craig, if I remember correctly. Started all the outreach in Virginia I think. So he was a proven evangelist, a capable leader, and had tons of charisma. Of course, he, by his own admission, was involved in the adultery too, so perhaps the end result would have been the same, but I don't see how he could have done worse. Why didn't he get the salt & mantle treatment? Any of you old Corps folk have any insight on this?

No Karmicdebt, I don't think that was too blasphemous. And I think I know what you're getting at with the comparison to LCM, although I've never posted or even said anything about it. But, calling Paul a "heretic" is a bit far-fetched in my opinion. Paul was the only Apostle to actually carried out Jesus last commandment. He told his Apostles to Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. According to Luke, he told them, on the day of the Acencion that they would be witnesses unto him in Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. But what did Peter & co. do? They stayed in Jerusalem! Rather than preaching the gospel to every creature, they avoided contact with the Gentiles. It took an unprecedented triple revelation to get ONE of them to set foot in the home of a Gentile--what, 15 years later? And even after that, they refused to accept the fact that God had given the Gentiles equal standing in the Church. If it weren't for Paul and his commitment to carry out the ministry that his predeccors had neglected, the gospel of Christ would have died in Judaea. So I don't buy the whole Paul vs. Jesus argument. The only reason there seems to be such a gulf between Paul's gospel and the Jesus' gospel of the Kingdome is because the bridge that was supposed to be built between the two by the Twelve never got built. Peace JerryB I don't think that following Paul will keep you from finding Christ. A look at history will show that the opposite is true. As I said to Karmicdebt, if not for Paul, the Christian Church as we know it wouldn't even exist. It was Paul who brought the gospel of CHRIST to the Gentiles, and eventually, to all of Asia and Europe! Since every protestant denomination owes its roots to Paul's epistles, I think it's rather illogical to think that following Paul will lead people away from Christ. Sure Paul made mistakes. That doesn't disqualify him to preach the gospel. Peace JerryB

Sad to see you go CM. Your posts were always thought-provoking and insightful. Im still thinking about one from a few months ago in fact. God bless you much! Grace, love, and peace! JerryB

Yes. A look at human history will confirm that. People are inherently selfish, lazy, covetous, fearful, and therefore violent. Have a nice day!

Same old dodge, Mike. You still haven't got the guts to face the fact that your cistern is broken. Look bud. it was YOU who said, on this very thread, in your reply to TempleLady, that PFAL fits perfectly with the doctrines of the Bible. Now you want to change the subject and say that you can't compare PFAL to anything but itself. Another dodge. A nice try, but Weirwille didn't say that God can't discuss really deep things with natural men. What he said was--no, more to the point--what he WROTE was, "But God is spirit, and therefore, cannot speak to brain cells; God cannot speak to a person's mind." Furthermore, he said there is a "chasm between the natural man and God". Now a chasm is a breach that cannot be crossed. And the Bible makes it plain that God can reach across VP's mythical chasm and speak to whoever He wants to, whenever and however He wants to. Right after the so-called chasm was put in place, God had lengthy conversations with Adam and Eve and even with Cain, the first murderer. So again, VP's Great Principle is not based on biblical research. It's an erroneous theological construct. and it disproves your assertion that PFAL fits perfectly with the doctrines of the Bible. Of course you don't. That's because you're insane. Once again, you make assumptions about my personal life that are both unwarranted and incorrect. You have no knowledge whatsoever of whom I 'hang out with" and so your statement is presumptuous to say the least. Besides being presumptuous, it's dead wrong. Perhaps, you should go back and reread what's in your sacred book and --here's a novel idea--consider the possibility that just maybe we're right and your beliefs need to be adjusted to fit the truth. Peace JerryB

That's a common misunderstanding Lindy. When Paul refers to the law, he's not just talking about the Ten Commandments. Being a debtor to do the whole law means observing Passover, attending the feast ofWeeks, offering sin offerings, wave offerings, heave offerings, etc, etc. The law was a voluminous code that covered almost every aspect of life. And a lot of it demands severe punishment for violations thereof. According to the Mosaic Law, a rebellious and disobeient child was to be stoned to death by his parents. How many of those who advocate living by the Ten Commandments would support executing disbodeient children? By the way, Jesus made reference to this law according to Matthew. He criticized the Pharisees concerning their interpretation of it. Care to guess which side he came down on? The answer might suprise you. (Matthew 15:4-6). There's so much more to the Law than most Christians consider that the arguments over posting the Ten Commandments in public are really quite stupid. Peace JerryB

Point taken Mike. Absolute terms like "whenever" and "every time" are almost always wrong when applied to human behavior. I should have said, "usually" or "seemingly every time". Mike, this statement has been proven wrong so many times. There are dozens of areas where PFAL contradicts the Bible. How about "The Great Principle" for instance. According to PFAL, God cannot communicate with a natural man without "coming into concretion". On page 78, paragraph two of POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING, we read the following (emphasis added). This statement is the foundation of what is taught in the Intermediate and Advanced Classes as The Great Principle. [God, who is spirit, teaches His creation in you which is now your spirit and your spirit teaches your mind. Then it becomes manifested in the senses realm as you act.] This foundation is shaky at best. There are clear and dramatic examples in God's Word of Him speaking directly to natural men without spirit in or upon them. Consider the following from Genesis 20:1-3 God gave information to King Abimelech, a man who is not described in the Bible as a prophet or seer. He didn't "come into concretion" as VP asserted. He spoke to him in a DREAM. Which of Abimelech's five senses did God use? Sight? No, your eyes are closed when you dream. Sound? Touch? Taste? You get the idea. Dreams occur complete within the human MIND. The MIND that PFAL says is beyond the reach of God. This is just one clear example of how PFAL contradicts the Bible. There are many, many others, too numerous to mention here. The body/soul/spirit, formed/made/created construct is beautiful, as logical construct go, but doesn't agree with Genesis. It's obviously not based on painstaking biblical research. Likewise, Dr Weirwille's supposedly scientifically precise definitions of Greek words like apeithia, apistia, heteros, allos, and especially pros, are all nonsense when compared to Biblical usage. Rafael's Actual Errors in PFAL has amply demonstrated this, as has the PFAL Review The Class has some good things in it, but it is by no means the perfect presentation of truth you so adamantly declare it to be. It's a confusing half-baked mish mash of equal parts truth and error. Why not just accept it for what it is, and get on with your life? Peace JerryB

Yeah, what he said. :-D

Hi Lindy. I think CM made some good points. The topic of Galatians 3 is not replacing one law with another. Nor is it about revering the Ten Commandments. Paul said that if you try to keep any part of the law, you're obligated to keep all of it. So it's an all or nothing situation. A "curse". Instead of trying to replace "the law of sin and death" with the "law of love" (which TWI certainly didn't exemplify), we should accept the benefit of Christ's fulfillment of the law by faith and walk by the Spirit. The emphasis of the beginning of the chapter is the fact that the Galatians had come into the Church by the ministry of men walking by the spirit. They were called, saved, and delivered by the power of the Spirit of God in manifestation, not by someone trying to live according to a written code. So for those of us who have experienced that kind of walk, it's senseless to try to legislate ourselves into God's goodness by drawing up a list of do's and dont's. But replacing one law with another is easy and apprealing to human nature, because you don't have to start each day seeking the will of God for your life. You just live by the rules you've memorized. It's much less challenging. If you wake up and ask God or Jesus (your preference) what you're supposed to do that day, you might get an answer you don't like. If you have a neat little code to live by, it's less unpredictable, and hooman beans don't like unpredictability. I think people who obsess over keeping the Ten Commandments miss the whole point of Jesus ministry. I think Paul's message in Galations 3 is this: Believe in the perfect accomplished work of Christ and all that it means for you; for your righteousness with God, and use that gift of righteousness to walk by the Spirit and do God's will in your life day by day. Peace JerryB

TempleLady, I am truly sorry for your pain. The fact that TWI is sheltering this scumbag is unbelievable and reprehensible. praying for you.... Love, JerryB

Hi Bob. The thread didn't actually "take a turn". It was turned by the ubiquitous madman, Mikeol. Whenever anyone brings up the issue of VP plagiarizing, Mike feels compelled to leap to the defense of his god and spews his particular brand of insanity. It's kind of like trying to have a fellowship meeting at an open air cafe in Greenwich Village and every time you sit down and start to chat, the homeless babbling nutcase thinks you're there to hear his sermon and jumps on a soapbox. It's unavoidable, but the fellowship is worth the distraction. In time you learn to tune him out. Peace JerryB

Decade of Prevailing????? What a buch of horsehockey! How can they have read Acts chapter 19 and have the nerve, the unmitigated gall to claim that they're living in the "Promised land of the Prevailing Word"? Does Rosie 's hankie drive devil spirits from people? Does Harve Platig do "special miracles"? Does ANYONE get healed or delivered at their lame fellowships? (Pardon the pun) I noticed they've put the modern marketing spin on it. "Solutions" is the current buzzword in marketing. Software companies peddle "solutions". So the Way has "Biblical Solutions" for daily living. Man, what a bunch of empty b.s. Where's a good eye-rollin' emoticon when you need one? Peace JerryB

You all make good points. It is true that groups who were in the minority were denied the ability to contribute to the canon. The Gnostics come to mind. It is clear when you read the Canon we have that there was a concerted effort by the Jewish leaders to suppress the doctrine of salvation by grace (first the Apostles' doctrine, then Paul's gospel) and replace it with legalism. A few centuries after the "Acts 15 Council" the Holy Roman Church picked up where the Sanhedrin left off and declared the Unitarians to be heretics and drove them from the Church. What followed was centuries of non-scriptural nonsense, carnality, and legalism (sorry Catholics, but it's true). The Catholic Church and the Church of England burned people at the stake for the heinous, unspeakable crime of translating the Bibles into languages most people could understand. Nevertheless, we still have Paul's epistles, canonized in the Bible. Both the Sanhedrin and the Catholic Church actively tried to suppress the tenets of Paul's gospel and eventually failed. So in a sense, VP was right about God protecting His Word. The gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of God has survived all attempts to stamp it out. And I've been greatly blessed by believing what's written in those hallowed pages; healing, speaking in tongues, etc. So I can't just decide that since men messed with the process, it's devoid of spiritual benefit. In the end, I will probably arrive at some combination of fundamentalism and gnosticism. As Groucho said, the book points us to a destination beyond quoting verses. We're supposed to arrive at a living spiritual relationship with God, as dear children, as His habitation. So perhaps instead of arguing over whehter it's "all God's Word or none of it", we should look at the Bible as Truth 101: An Introduction to God and Christ. Peace JerryB

:D Raf's just being himself. Mr. Olmeda is a professional journalist. Like the best journalists, he's thorough and objective. That's one of the things we love about him. (Or is that two...?) JerryB