Jbarrax

Masterherbalist, reread my post. You have misunderstood what I wrote. Thou hast said, "First of all, Hope HAS revealed the name on her Corps name tag- now, do you believe her? Didn't think so.........." Two problems there. Perhaps you didn't finish reading my post before you responded to it. One: I didnt' say I don't believe these accounts. I said just the opposite. I'm just playing "devil's advocate" and presenting the other side of the story. Two; I never implied that Hope herself was one of the accusers. She didn't say that any of these things happened to her. All she said was that she heard Craig scream at a friend of hers. That's not what we're talking about. JerryB

Hope; The problem for those of us who never had such horiffic experiences is that a forum post by an anonymous person carries little weight. If an allegation is posted by someone under their actual name, it's easy to try to verify it. When scandalous accusations are leveled against respected leaders in society at large, most reasonable people expect some sort of corrobating evidence ala Monica Lewinsky's infamous blue dress. In the absence of corrobating evidence, it's "he said-she said"--the word of the accused vs the word of the accuser, in which case, the decision rests on the established credibility of the witnesses. But if the accuser isn't willing to reveal his or her identity, that credibility cannot be established, so the accused retains the benefit of the doubt. One of the fundamental precepts of American life is that one is innocent until proven guilty. It's been said in this thread that this isn't a court of law. I presume the poster meant that we don't have to offer that same constitutional standard of innocence to the accused. However, one could also argue that, since we are dealing with the reputations of ministers, we should hold to ourselves to a standard that's higher than the secular one, not lower. Let's face it, if I wanted to, I could sign on as "6th Corps Refugee" and talk of being accosted by VP in the motorcoach. So for those who still live by PFAL it's not enough that someone posted a story. I'm not saying I don't personally believe the allegations against VP & co. The number and persistence of them is significant, and they fit with the character of things taught. In other words, I didn't see the fire, but I can clearly remember seeing and smelling the smoke. But for those who didn't see either one and want to cling to the benefits received in TWI, it's easy to dismiss allegations offered by people who won't tell you their real names. Peace JerryB

Hi Zixar. I won't answer for The Evan, but I will say that I don't believe the Bible was intended to be our guidebook. It's a starting point, a primer for approaching God and Christ. We're supposed to walk by faith, not by the book. But back to the topic at hand. Here's another example of a passage in the Bible that doesn't interpret itself. When I went back through this section in the PFAL book, I was actually surprised to see that VP even asserted that Revelation interprets itself. If these "keys" can be applied to the book of Revelation, they should elucidate Revelation 9:2-11 Okay, what are the locusts? They come from the bottomless pit and are ruled by an "angel", so are they spirits? The description of them is entirely physical, so are they animals? Scripture harmony, anyone? I hesitate to cite this passage because it may seem unfair to refer to prophecy and demand that it interpret itself.The prophecy in Daniel was sealed. I seem to recall a TWI teaching that such prophetic scriptures are impossible to interpret until their fulfillment is about to happen. But Revelation 22:10 says the prophecy was not sealed because its fulfilment was close at hand. So, if the Word of God does interpret itself, what is the Biblical interpretation of this passage? JerryB

All Scripture Interprets Itself This may be stricken down as an error of interpretation, but I'd like to offer it anyway. We've already discussed the Actual Error of VP reversing the meaning of the biblical phrase "private interpretation". He shifted the emphasis from its Biblical meaning of how we got the Bible to how we interpret it. As is the case with many of PFAL's errors, this one leads to another. The private interpretation error was used to set us up for the doctrine that underlies the controversial teachings "the Four Crucified", the Cry of Triumph, and Paul's thorn in the flesh; the creed that the Word of God interprets itself. All of these trademark Way doctrines were introduced as examples of how the Scripture interprets itself. The logic being that "...if you dare not interpret it.." or I dare not interpret it, then "...either there is no interpretation possible" or it has to interpret itself. The doctrines above were all examples of how the Bible always interprets itself, either in the verse, in the context, or how it's been used before. The charts used in this session of the class read "All Scripture interprets itself". VP was adamant about this point. The problem is, it just ain't so. Not only can we find examples of Scripture that are not explained in the verse, context, or previous usage,(ie I Cor. 10:10) but there's a big hole in this system and it's called Orientalisms. An Orientalism is a passage of Scripture that alludes to a custom or aspect of Biblical culture with which we are no longer familiar. Such passages are often misunderstood by modern western readers because we have no knowledge of the cultural background involved. For example, Romans 12:20 says To modern western readers, the verse appears to say that being kind to your enemies will enrage them and that this is somehow a desirable thing. According to the Orientalism books, this is a reference to an eastern custom in which someone had to go out early in the cold predawn morning and physicalaly light the streetlamps. The person would carry the coals of fire in a special headdress. The wearing of the headdress would warm the person and help insulate him against the cold. The meaning here has nothing to do with enraging an enemy, but deals with the warming and humbling effect of unconditional kindness and mercy. Now where in the verse does it say anyting about streetlamps? Is there a special Biblical usage of the phrase "coals of fire"? No, the coals are actual coals. Does scripture buildup, or harmony with the related verses give us this info? No. Does the context mention the practice of lighting ancient municipal lamps and being warmed thereby? No. Where in the previous usage do we read about the streetlight custom? Nowhere, mon frere. Sorry to belabor the point, but this is just one example of a whole category in God's Word that does not interpret itself. So I think, as long as we need secular history books to "rightly divide" these sections of Scripture, Wierwille's assertion that "All scripture interprets itself" should be counted as an Actual Error. Peace JerryB

Good stuff Rafael! You rock! :)--> JerryB

I think we should look at the sonship rights teaching as an error in communication. Personally, I've never felt that this was well thougt out. The word "right" means something you can demand or receive because of your citizenship or relationship. American citizens have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Children have a right to access to their parents' wealth, etc. These connotations all relate to things we may access at will by choice. Is this true of righteousness, sanctification, or justification? Can you demand to be righteous? NO, God makes you righteous when you receive salvation, at which time He also sanctifies you (sets you apart from the world), justifies you (applies Jesus' payment to your sins), and redeems you (buys you from the Devil and places you in His kingdom). My point is, none of these are benefits to be received on demand, like the right to speak your mind. They are spiritual gifts, given by faith. If you're already righteous, how can you demand righteousness? How can you "claim your sonship right"? It's actually a little nonsensical. I think I understand what VP meant by this teaching. It was in the renewed mind section and he was talking about changing your self image, your thinking and habit patterns. We, as righteous, redeemed, justified, sanctified, sons of God have a right to peace of mind. We can claim it, receive peace by asking for it and rebuking anxiety and the sources therof. If I understand this properly, and I'm not sure I do, this would work primarily in the area of spiritual oppression. If you are anxious, worried, depressed, or angry out of all proportion to the circumstances and are unable to reign these emotions in, there may be a spiritual (read 'demonic, satanic, or devilish) presence intensifying that emotion. In such a situation, you can claim peace; you can receive on demand freedom from that oppression, anxiety, anger whatever. That's what I think VP was getting at. So if we wanted to fix this section, we might call it a case of poor communication, like the famous "throughly" teaching, or his circular definition of "made". I don't think sanctification, righteousness, et al are "sonship rights", but the gift of sonship gives us the right to health, peace, and protection from harm. What do you all think? JerryB

Hi George. If I remember correctly, he was in the renewed mind section, encouraging us to "claim our sonship rights" (Hey is that another ae?) and renew our minds. I think it was designed to reduce fear of failure. He said all walking is just falling and catching yourself before your nose hits. I don't know if that counts as an actual error or not. Have to ask Raf on that one. JerryB

Groannn.Dat was wicked, man, really wicked.

Well I must say I am appalled at the number of pretentious pretenders this pitiful excuse for a THREAD has attracted; nay spawned. Spawned, I say. The figure of speech here indicates the presence of hellspawneddevilspiritinfested stewed prunes that have led us to this dreadfully disgraceful dissertation disguised as debate and diligent discussion. Zixar is obviously deceived by the secret coded messages from the ninth Circle of the Illuminati that are hidden in his precious...COMIC books. "Comic" indeed. Like most empty-headed Churchgoers, Mr, Zixar doesn't know the true meaning of the word "comic" from the HebrewEstrangeloAramaic word anthropopasteya, or Hookypookism in the Latin, means "to produce hooky pook". This is just a trememdous trugh that has taken us years to ferret out and bullshi--uh...research. So today we have all the little "comic" books, being passed off as entertainment so the little kiddies can get started right in the HookyPook field! Makes me grow ten feet tall or somethin! Isnt' that a tremendous verse of Scripture when you really read it in its integrity with all the punctuation taken out and the words reversed? Of course, as the Great Eastern Bishop and Harley mechanic U.B. Alie once told me in his study, "VP, if this teaching on the evils of comic books ever gets a hearing, you'll be able to boink all the hippie chicks you can find. Count me in, Dude!"

This thread is the best comedy I've read in quite a while. You people have elevated witty repartee to an art form. I will now return to guffawing. Thank you and Good night. JerryB

Well said, Rafael. And in response to Def, I must say that, despite my anger at having been deceived so thoroughly, I would stop short of saying he has "no credibility" and "his works are worthless". The doctrine on speaking in tongues blessed hundreds of thousands. He may have twisted some words to present it, I still believe that this is a true doctrine and that it was a great benefit to the Church of Christ, not just the Way. And, speaking of dispensationalism, would VP's twisting of the definition of oikonomia , which Steve referred to, be counted as an actual error? The Biblical usage of the word really doesn't have the connotation of a period of time, as Steve has mentioned repeatedly. It means stewardship. Mr. Lortz could probably provide more details. Whaddayathink, Raf? Peace JerryB

Hi Rafael. It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it. :)--> I see what you mean about supposed AE #31. Toss it in the IE bin with the law of believing and the deity of Christ questions. What about VP's excessively narrow definition of pros. I know you've mentioned it in your posts to Shmegel-uh, Mike when you reminded him that VP said if any other word than pros were used in John 1:1, the whole Bible would fall to pieces. Weirwille defined pros as "together with, yet distinctly independent of". The obvious implication is that pros always carries this specific meaning. Otherwise, why would the Bible crumble if any other preposition were used? In fact, pros is used over 600 times and is usually translated "unto". See if you can get the togetherwithyetdistinctlyindepentof meaning out of any of these verses. (The word translated from pros in each verse is in bold type.) Obviously, the usage of pros in the verses above doesn't fit VP's definition. Or I should say, VP's definition doesn't fit the Biblical use of this word. How that impacts the interpretation of John 1:1 is a matter for another thread. :P--> Peace JerryB

AE #32? This is similar to what Rafeal pointed out about VP's error in II Timothy 2:15. He said the phrase "rightly dividing" is translated from the Greek word orthotomounta when, in fact, the word used is orthotomeo. In his teaching about the others crucified with Christ, VP says that the King James translators added the word "one" to the text to change the meaning from two others to four. Whether this doctrine is valid or not is a question of interpretation. But, in discussing John 19:18, on page 166 of Power For Abundant Living, he wrote... Actually, these are not the same words. The words used in Revelation 22:2 are actually enteuthen kai ekeithen. This is an important distinction because it may shed light on the translation of John 19:18. The second word in Revelation is not enteuthen, but ekeithen, which means "thence". This of course begs the question, 'what does enteuthen mean? It means "hence" and is translated that way in Matthew 17:20, Luke 4:9, 13:31, 16:26, and John 2:16, 7:3, 14:31, 18:36, and James 4:1; every place it is used except John 19:18 and Revelation 22:2, it is translated "hence". Hence means from here. If Elaine Benes' favorite exclamation were written in King James english, it would be "Get thee hence!" The phrase in Revelation 22:2 could be translated "hence and thence". There may be a Greek idiom that mandates that this verse and John 19:18 be tranlsated "one either side" rather than "hence and hence" in John and "hence and thence" in Revelation. Any input from the thread's resident Greek scholars here would be appreciated. If there isn't such an idiom John 19:18 represents one of the challenges of translating from Greek to English, in which case the addition of the word "one" has nothing to do with adhering to tradition, as VP charged. If they had translated it, "Where they crucified him, and two other with him, hence and hence...", how the heck would we interpret it? Peace JerryB

The Undiscovered Country! :D--> :D--> :D--> :D--> :D--> I laughed so loud I almost woke my daughter upstairs! JerryB

Dont' hurry, you've got a weekend to get to. As for me, I'm going to post one more AE and then get back to Wing Commander IV. :D--> We've talked about the error in II Peter 1:20 regarding "private interpretation". A closely related error was Dr. Weirwille's handling of II Timoth 2:15, specifically the corrupt and dishonest doctrine about "the only way to stand approved before God". Not only is this an actual error, imho, but it's a particularly obnoxious one because it helped build the idea that true righteousness and Christian maturity could only be found in detail obssessed Bible study. Jesus' message was that love is paramount and faith runs a close second. VP dismissed those in favor of Biblically accuracy and in doing so, ridiculed our Christian brethren and furthered the notion that we were smarter, better, and more enlightened than those silly Church people. VP's assertion that the only way to stand approved before God is to rightly divide the scriptures is an unsupported leap of logic. Just because Timothy was told to do stand approved before God by rightly dividing the scriptures doesn't mean there's no other way to do so. Paul's exhortation to Timothy is in the context of a Church in which error is running rampant and overthrowing people's faith (2:18) . Does every believer share this responsibility? The word "approved" is used elsewhere and sheds light on this question. VP made reference to the second of those uses, (Romans 16:10), but skips the first one. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, what he said about the second occurence contradicts what God's Word says in the first! Dr. Weirwille's unmistakable implication is that we are not expected to stand approved before men. This is a direct contradiction of Romans 14:18. First, let's note the context. It will be important in a moment. Verses 4, 10, and 13 all tell us not to judge one another. Verses 14 & 15 teach us not to offend our brethren with our liberties. These are the "things" referred to in verse 18. I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that if you're acceptable to God, you stand approved of him. I can't imagine that one could be called "acceptable" unto God, yet not "stand approved" of him. So VP's assertion that the only way to stand approved before God is wrong. Furthermore, he bypassed this verse so he could go on to the next one and contradict it with his comment about Apelles' not standing approved in the community. It clearly says that one who serves Christ in these things will not only be acceptable or approved of God, but of men also. Why a Christian leader would seemingly go out of his way to imply that we aren't supposed to care about the community's assessment of us is troubling to say the least. This kind of teaching only furthered the Way belief that we were too spiritual to be concerned with stuffy, silly old Church notions like eschewing boozing, illicit sex, and selfishness. What is even more puzzling about this 'oversight' is that, in his assertion that the only way to stand approved before God was by rightly dividing the Scripture, VP quoted verse 12, saying "Every one shall give account of himself to God!" He swooped in, plucked a verse, then proceeded to ignore and contradict its context. What an amazing feat of biblical research. Actual error # 31? JerryB

Hey Rafael, here's the more detailed explanation of PFAL's erroneous definition of allos and heteros. As you recall, VP said that one of the reasons there had to be four men crucified with Jesus is because of the use of the Greek words allos and heteros in Luke and John. For convenience and efficiency's sake, this is lifted from ye olde PFAL Review threads. We were taught over and over that Greek is a very precise language, and VP repeatedly claimed that the Greek words used were perfect in their semantic accuracy. This, as I've noted in the review of the PFAL teaching on pros and apistia is false. His definition of pros only applies to about 16 uses out of over 400. The truth is Greek words are not used with the kind of precision or consistency that lends itself to VP's exact definitions and the doctrinal edifices he built on them. Another example is found in his treatment of heteros and allos, building blocks of the "four crucified" teaching. Now there may or may not have been four people crucified with Christ. I don't care one way or the other anymore. My point here is that the specific definitions of the Greek words involved are incorrect because of their oversimplification. On page 167 of Power for Abundant Living, we read, Oh really? Well then it should be obvious which words are used in the following verses. One is allosand the other heteros. Guess which is which. According to VP's definitions, we would guess that the first "other" is heteros because a man only has two cheeks and that the second is allos because there may have been more than two other cities involved. And we would be dead wrong. The verses are Matthew 5:39, in which allos is used of the other cheek, and Luke 4:43, in which heteros is used referring to "other cities". Of course there are verses in which these words are used according to VP's definition, but the fact that they seem to be interchangeable in the whole of the New Testament defuses the claim the the "sharp accuracy" of God's Word demanded that heteros be used in Luke 23:32 and allos in John 19:32. Of the 94 uses of heteros in the NT, only about 20% of them fit Weirwille's definition. That's not very sharp accuracy. Peace JerryB

Fascinating post on the Jewish DNA Rafael. This is the first detailed refutation of Koestler's book I've read. I too, used to believe and teach that stuff. But Geez, that was,...what, hours ago. Thanks for setting the record straight. JerryB :P-->

Man, this thread moves fast!! Rafael, great job with the list. If you need help putting in colum format, I can help with that this weekend. I do some web publishing as part of my marketing duties at work. Steve, I didn't see your post, but there's a wealth of great info there re: II Timothy 3:16. I agree that the doctrine, reproof, correction setup is a twisting of the Scripture, but I think I'd consider it an error of interpretation. By the way, I think the fourth aspect of the profit of the Word, "correction in righteousness" is a reference to judgment. I wrote a lengthy post about it before. If I can find it, I'll dredge it and send it to you. Troubledwine said: Wow! That's a terriffic concept. Never thought of it that way TW, but it makes a lot of sense, especially in light of the salutations in Luke and Acts. I'm gonna have to go back and re-read the Gospels. Steve "Braveheart" Lortz said, :D--> :D--> :D--> :D--> :D--> :D--> Hilarious. Okay, back to reading. I'm still back on page 11!! Peace. JerryB :)-->

...and while we're on the subject of Dr. Weirwille's lame lexicon, I think we should include his erroneous definitions of allos and heteros, which he used to prop up his four crucified teaching. The four crucified teaching itself, lifted entirely from Bullinger's appendix (that had to hurt), is an error of interpretation. But I think VP's narrow definitions of allos and heteros are definitely actual errors. If you want, I'll copy and paste a more detailed explanation of the particulars for the consideration of this esteemed body. Peace. JerryB

EXCELLENT post Tw. That's a terriffic examination of all the aspects of the "image of God". Such a thorough and well-researched presentation makes the PFAL definition seem ridiculously simplistic. Hey, Raf, since you're compiling, I'd like to add a new one. I don't think we've discussed Dr. Weirwille's definition of laleo, the Greek word for "speak" used in the verses relating to speaking in tongues. VP defined it as "to use the voice without reference to the words spoken". The way it was presented in such a narrow context, it seemed to make perfect sense, as if it was a special version of the word "speak" used only of inspired utterances. But when you look at the other Biblical uses of the word ( there are almost 300 ocurences), you will see that it's almost impossible to hold this definition. A few examples: Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak (laleo) good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. This verse in particular seems to communicate the opposite of the PFAL definition. If it's from the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks, it's not by inspiration, but by thought patterns. Matthew 12:46 is also interesting. While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak (laleo) with him. Did Mary and his brothers want to have a "believers' meeting"? Doubtful. What about Matthew 26:13? Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told (laleo) for a memorial of her. Doesn't the idea of generations of people passing on a story by memory directly contradict the idea of using the voice without reference to the words spoken? Even more interestingly, this word is also used of the speech of devils. Luke 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak (laleo): for they knew that he was Christ. And finally, I think we should all get off Peter's back about the denial of Christ. It was obviously prophecy or inspired utterance. We know this because this unique word laleo is used. ;-) Luke 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake (laleo), the cock crew. The vast majority of the uses of this word are in the context of preaching or witnessing. It's even used in a backward sense because when Jesus and the apostles were falsely accused of speaking blasphemies, laleo is the word used. So it may perhaps be most narrowly defined as to proclaim or speak boldly, as opposed to the word "say" or "said" which is usually translated from the word lego. Lego, which is used over 1,300 times, seems to have a more casual meaning than laleo. But the PFAL definition that implies inspired utterance and the bypassing of conscious thought is not derived from Biblical research. I'd say this is actual error number....19? Peace JerryB

Thanks Hope, OC, Mark, and Rafael. It was intended to be short, but, well, you know how I get. :)--> I hope that kind of puts it all in perspective. God bless youn's guys&gals!! JerryB :D-->

Mike. I think it interesting that you asked me a question about how growing beyond PFAL has blessed my life, but rather than wait for my answer, you rejected the possibility that I had one and closed the subject. On the one hand I'd say that's been typical of your interaction here, but I'm at least encouraged that you asked. For the benefit of lurkers who may also be interested in the benefits of growing beyond a man-made doctrine, I'll post my response here, with apologies to Rafael, Steve, Goey, Troubledwine, & co. I'll also try to honor your request and contact you by e-mail for a more detailed answer and perhaps an extended dialogue. ************* Those of you interested only in doctrinal stuff,f read no further ************* During all of the years I was devoted to Dr.'s doctrines, I remained unsuccessful at work, financially strapped, always in debt, moving from one job to another, and barely tolerating my marriage to a lovely good-hearted woman. She didn't share my zeal for "The Word", so obviously she was beneath me. Or so I thought; and so I was encouraged to think by my TWI leadership. In short, I thought I had all the answers, but I was failing the litmus test of session one. I failed to manifest a more abundant life. Partly because of this failure to master the basics of providing for my own, I never won any co-workers to the my way of thinking. I always had an explanation for every aspect of life and never shied away from sharing my beliefs and opinions. Sometimes I was tolerated as being weird, sometimes I was embarrassed when my Weirwillian perspectives proved to be ridiculously wrong. Because I was a decent person and God was gracious in my immaturity, there were always people who helped me and gave me opportunities, but I could never bring them to fruition. I rationalized that it was more than made up for by my "spiritual abundance" and the result of my high ethical standards. Nevertheless, we were very unhappy and at times, very poor. Since having abandoned the confines of 1)PFAL and 2)the idea that ANY book has all the answers [more on that in a moment], my life has blossomed in all categories. I am now the vice presient and general manager of a rapidly growing company. Oddly enough, I didn't have to abandon my ethical standards. There really are people out there who've never heard of The Way Ministry who strive to be honest, fair, AND prosperous. We now live in a fairly new house that is what we dreamed of in vain for years under the yoke of TWI. Our children actually have full rewarding social lives, unbridled by the fear relationships with "unbelievers". My respect for and relationship with my wife is better than ever and continually improving, my peace of mind is the best it's ever been and, best of all, I have learned to actually trust God to take care of us based on His grace and mercy. I have also learned more than ever the importance of wisdom and obedience. Somehow the Way fostered a kind of cavalier attitude about basic obedience to God's will. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seemed as if we were taught to expect God's best whether we did his will or not; just because we were the elite, the Way believers. Actually, as I think about it, I CAN put my finger on it. A Corps guy on "Hoho relo" once shared a story with me about his lashing out at a Corps buddy on a work project. His supervisor looked on and, at the end of his tirade said, "That's right. Give em hell Dave. Cause you don't get nothin from God by being good." The basic lesson was that righteousness, honesty, integrity, temperance, all of the virtues that most Christians strive for, were relatively unimportant if you had 'big believing'. That kind of elitism destroys one's integrity, corrodes relationships, and defeats success and prosperity by eroding one's sense of personal responsibility. Mine is being rebuilt with the loving help of God and of my Lord Jesus Christ. Am I now the perfect Christian? Heck no, but I'm moving in the right direction and I'm not deceiving myself anymore about it. Finally, I have learned, many times over, that the world doesn't turn on my understanding of life and living. I have accepted the fact that the Bible contains many apparent contradictions, difficult verses, and doesn't have all the answers. It's not supposed to. No book, man-made or God-breathed does, because God didn't send His only begotten Son to live and die for us so we could keep our noses in a book and rely on our understanding of some words on a page. That's carnal Pharisaism. Walking by the senses; leaning to your own understanding. It is the antithesis of walking in the spirit, trusting God and emulating Our Lord. Jesus didn't have all the answers. He did what God, the Holy Spirit told him to do, as God told him to do it. We're supposed to do likewise. You speak of having a book that teaches all about the manifestations and "the power". People don't get spiritual power from books Mike. They receive it from God by Jesus Christ as someone ministers it to them. If I may paraphrase the Apostle Paul, He who ministereth to you the spirit, doeth he it by the words in a book, or by the hearing of faith? . So I submit that leaving PFAL behind will enable you to prosper more, be more at peace, interact more with your fellow man, have better intimate relationships, and have a richer relationship with God your Heavenly Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ (remember Him?) based on obedience, trust, and faith. Justas importantly, you may be released from the subtle but incredible stress of having to feel like you have aaalllll the answers. That's what it's done for me. And you don't have to give up being a witness for God. Just last week, one of our managers came to my office and said that he was talking with some of our other employees about faith in God and the reliability of Christianity. He told them he sometimes has doubts, but he reasoned. "Jerry's a pretty smart guy and he has faith. So it must be a good thing." He told the the story of the conversation and said. "So in a way, my eternal destiny is dependent on you." Then, smiling, he added "No pressure." In all the years I pretended to have allllll the answers, I didn't have that kind of effect on a co-worker. Now, by letting go of the pretense of omniscience, I have am a witness people can relate to, respect, and accept. I'd say I finally have what over 12 years of PFAL-think failed to produce: a more abundant life. [sorry about the long OT post; brevity isn't my forte} Peace JerryB

Interesting post Steve. Goey, I think your point is valid...to a point. :-) VP did list figures of speech as possible biblical usages of the word "pneuma" and the use of it referring to soul life would definitely fit there. So his use of the term spirit in reference to soul in RHST fits your parameters, in which case it's not an actual error. But in PFAL, he spoke at some length about this in an attempt to explain, if not define spirit. He said, if I remember correctly [i'm at work now, so I can't check it right now] "All life is spirit." He then went on to quality that statement by saying that not all spirit life is eternal life. Remember, he compared it to love with the bunsen burner, hot love quip. You can't put love in a bunsen burner and get "hot love" (Freudian slip or harmless joke? You decide). So, in Weirwille's thinking, the word spirit may refer to all of life because it exists beyond "the senses realm." So soul life and angels and cherubim and God hiimself are all different forms of spirit life. So, because he put explained soul life as a subset of spirit life, it may be fairly said that he did use the terms "soul" and "spirit" synonymously. However, I tink in all fairness I'd have to call that a error of interpretation rather than an actual error. Peace JerryB

Thanks for the kind words Rafael. Zix, I think you nailed it. Mr Fletcher indeed! And that picture of Gollum/Smegel is a HOOT!! TW, great work on Genesis chapter 9. There is yet another reason the PFAL body-soul-spirit doctrine is erroneous. But only if you assume that the Bible is a higher standard of truth. Sadly, not all of us hold to that opinion. And I apologize because I've forgotten who posted it , but someone said that there are more grads like Mike out there than we think. I would have to agree. Although I haven't met any who take it quite to this level of denial and self-delusion, there are many still bound by the conviction that VP really did teach a truth that had not been known since the first century. I was quite dismayed when the Corps grad with whom we were fellowshipping when I first learned of these PFAL problems all but accused me of being devil-possessed because I dared to question the accuracy of The Class. I think there are many grads, and many Way Corps who still hold Dr. Weirwille in extremely high regard and consider his teachings to be...sacred on some level, and certainly well worth their continued devotion and defense. And in part, I understand that. Mike did make one valid point today. He touched on the one reason for his blind obssession with the orange tome. He said, "I prefer to work where I see God at work, and I SAW God at work in Dr's ministry in PFAL,...". Mike received benefits in his life after taking PFAL. I daresay we all did. (though Larry P may beg to differ)No matter what denomination we start in, I believe this is part of the Christian experience, part of what happens throughout the Church of the Body of Christ. People get born again in Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, and Catholic services, even at snake handlers' tent revivals. Does this mean that a Catholic or Copperhead-grapplin' Christian can't learn more by a closer examination of the Scriptures? Mike, would you tell a man who'd been saved or even physically healed in a tent revival that he shouldn't reconsider some of what he'd alreadly learned, just because he'd gotten some benefit from his religion? I doubt it. You would "witness " to him, telling him that there are more benefits, more truth, more joy, more peace available to him if he will only trust GOD to continue to bless him as he grows beyond his past experience. That's all we're asking you to do. Consider that maybe GOD your heavenly Father is big enough to teach you and bless you even more as you trust him to show you how to walk beyond the confines of that tattered little orange book. Peace JerryB

Okay people, I hate to seem like I'm hogging the forum. I considered myself done for the night, but I just read Mike's next post and I am...stunned. Mr. Mike. You wrote, I haven’t studied this out to know how exactly I’ve lined up my rough feel with what is written... I’m not qualified right here and now to extract at once ALL the places where Dr uses that phrase and/or defines it. My first response is, your blind acceptance of the perfection of something you haven't studied is dangerously naive. But it's actually worse than that. In the same post, you wrote... Neither do any of you all NEED to have all these difficulties cleared up before accepting the challenge to come back to the pure written PFAL,...We’ve all only winged it, and I am reporting that there is an exciting adventure for those who check this out more carefully. How do you justify "reporting" that there is an "exciting adventure for those who check this out more carefully" when, by your own admission, you haven't taken the time TO DO SO?? Do you know what the word "reporting" means? Do you not see the blatant HYPOCRISY in that invitation. How the he!! can you preach about an "exciting adventure" that results from something you claim you don't have the TIME or INCLINATION to do? I am truly aghast Mike. And one more thing. You should know that the people you're contending with on this thread HAVE TAKEN THE TIME to check this thing out VERY carefully, and we are "reporting" to you that it's full o holes. When you finally get around to practicing what you preach, you'll find something much less than an exciting adventure. Wake up dude! JerryB [This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 19:56.] [This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 19:59.] Man, this HTML stuff is a p.i.t.a.! :-) [This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 20:03.]