Taxidev

I believe Paul was being sarcastic there. The entire verse is: 2Co 11:8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. He was letting other churches support his efforts with the Corinthians. But that certainly doesn't detract from the point you made, which is excellent.

The bible says God is love, and we should walk in love, and we should love one another, and we should do good unto all. If I read 10 authors on a topic and build a derived work from them, and draw my own conclusions, is it loving to not at least put those authors in my bibliography? Even if I don't quote them and reference them in the pages, it is proper to show they were my sources of information. Do you really believe that the God of Love would have me slightly modify another's work and call it my own? I wonder why it is so important to you to convince everyone here that VPW did not plagiarize. Waysider showed me a very clear comparison of VPW's book on spirit vs Stile's book on spirit. While I originally didn't think VPW plagiarized, that comparison was all I needed to change my view. Is this something you are unwilling to do?

Wow! I had no idea. This was before my time. Apparently not. Thanks to both of you. I stand corrected.

Exactly. There are some works by VPW that cite other authors and list them in the bibliography. But, as I mentioned earlier, he seemed to have eventually decided to make it look like he figured things out on his own, so he would word things in his own manner which was vastly different than the other authors. This is what Tony Robbins does with what he learned from Jim Rohn, and it is not plagiarism, even if we think it should be. The big thing for me was realizing VPW wasn't as insightful as he portrayed himself to be, and the little bit that he may have tried to work out on his own had much error. I've tried to point that out to some former wayers, but they just can't get their heads out of highly honoring him to take a hard look at some ridiculous things he said.

Not at all. Plagiarism is when you just copy someone else's work without permission. There are so many books out there that have been compiled from the works of other authors that are not instances of plagiarism. Also, if a blurb is copied from another work, and the original author and source are referenced, then that also is not plagiarism. So, while it is not plagiarism, it is dishonest to pretend, as VPW and Tony Robbins have done, that the information was all figured out on their own. I have much more respect for JCOPS by VPW than I do the classes he put together. It's a relatively simple matter to include a bibliography and references in a book than it is on stage or in front of a camera. But the class syllabus could have had them, even if it was just to show who was used as a source. I wonder how many wayers know who Ernest L Martin is. His name is in the bibliography of JCOPS. This is the biblical scientist, not associated with TWI, that determined, through astronomy and computers, the date of Jesus Christ's birth. And while he is in the bibliography, I never saw a reference to him when VPW specified the date.

It seems to me that if we are looking at anything related to teaching and clarifying God's Word through - presumably - God's eyes, there is no such thing as plagiarism. That term has no biblical significance at all. So the simple fact that this thread is about plagiarism precludes God's perspective. The book "Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed" has a pretty extensive bibliography, and references to the contributors to VPW's material throughout the book. That is not plagiarism. He is giving credit to the sources of the information, he is not directly quoting them unless referenced, and he has packaged the bulk of the material in his own verbiage. However, I saw no references in the PFAL class material. Based on his extensive use of other authors and research materials in almost everything he taught, I would be hard pressed to believe that the PFAL class was compiled all on his own. I did like how the material was packaged, but it was presented as if he had determined all of that alone. Was any of it directly quoted? Who knows, I sure don't. But there is a plethora of books and materials out there that are the result of gleaning from other sources, and they aren't considered plagiarized. I got the impression that VPW, if he had actually plagiarized, didn't intend to plagiarize. Rather, he wanted to look like he had this all on his own. I once saw a short clip of Tony Robbins speaking on stage about how to be successful. It was interesting. But then a few years later, I heard his mentor, Jim Rohn, speaking. They both shared pretty much the same material, just tailored to their own manner of delivery. The main difference between them was this: Robbins delivered the material as if he had figured it all out himself, just as VPW did. But Rohn told where he found the information, and almost everything he talked about was credited to someone else, including the bible. There were just a handful of points he shared that he took credit for himself, and I can believe he probably did figure those out himself. I have much more respect for Rohn than I have for Robbins. So you can probably guess how I feel about VPW.

What a great viewpoint! I would even extend it to my physical and emotional life. Since they all reside in me, then it is best that none detracts energy from the other. Thank you, Twinky!

chockfull, This is an insightful question, and I believe at the root of the issues brought up by the R&R folks. RFR so refuses to be meek to even consider someone else might be right and she is wrong, that it has caused tremendous schism within the ranks. Her reaction? Discard them, and anyone else who agrees with them. Absolutely. I was just recently having a discussion about this with a former wayer, and I brought up the point that it isn't us VS them, it is us AND them. As demonstrated in the bible, the body of Christ was all over the known world, and no one was making demands of them, trying to control everything they did. Knowledgeable believers were just going out and teaching them the Truth! And when Paul noticed a discrepancy, he went back to Jerusalem and had a big meeting with them to resolve it. All those in Jerusalem gladly looked at scripture, gladly shared perspectives, gladly listened to each other, and gladly found the answer together. That is the household working together, to do what the true head, Jesus Christ, wants. Not some fake head with a title.

We are saying the same thing.

That definition sure sounds current to me, especially after mentioning the 1990s and 2000s. Certainly not biblical times. So what is your interpretation of it? Here's an example of scientific discovery that lines up beautifully with the bible regarding the birth of Christ. And this is definitely NOT from TWI. http://www.askelm.com/star/index.asp What they discovered was something that already existed.

Thanks. I will look at this some more and then come back to this thread.

Considering the new testament hadn't been written yet, I would say it was extremely useful, especially once he understood the truth about Jesus Christ. Exactly. I learned that God is the author, and there were many writers, implying that He determined what would be written. But the section in 1 Cor 7 where Paul talks about not being of commandment indicates to me that God wasn't telling him what should be written, in whatever manner that may be. I only used "dictate" to differentiate that from inspiration, which is more like, "Hey, you should write about love". Since Paul knows about love, that inspired suggestion would most probably be sufficient. I wasn't thinking this, Paul said it. 1Co 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. Am I looking at this slanted?

Yes, this is the definition I was utilizing. And the insight they gained was to grasp a scientific concepts that already exists but they were unaware of until that moment. Yes, these are sciences. And, from what I have seen, also fit my description of science. Anthropology - not that I follow this science as closely as others, but so far I have not seen or heard anything that contradicts anything in the bible. It may contradict what some "Christians" say, but so does the bible. Archaeology - this one has actually proved many things in the bible, like findings of buildings talked about in the bible, artifacts that support the lifestyle in biblical times. Sociology - I used to be extremely interest in psychology, which I found to be a bit bizarre, but never delved into this one, so my understanding of it is infinitesimal. But - and please correct me if I'm mistaken - this is something than can only take place currently to have any accuracy. The past can only be speculated on, not actually studied, as far as human interaction goes. We do have some records in the bible that demonstrate mob mentality, both in the old and new testaments, but I wouldn't call that an actual study.

I completely agree. Maybe I should elaborate a bit on my point about Paul. I believe that Paul did receive revelation, on more than one occasion. I also believe he had the most complete and thorough understanding of the Torah, except the red thread of Christ. Once he learned that missing piece, he was unstoppable. It turned his life around. I'm sure, at first, it was devastating to him to learn how off he had been in his actions, but he corrected that. However, as for the letters he wrote, some, obviously, in response to reports of serious error, I am now leaning toward the point DWBH made - the letters were inspired to be written, not dictated to Paul. That certainly doesn't mean he was leaning unto his own understanding. On the contrary, he was leaning unto the Word he so clearly knew, understood, and lived. There is, at one point in one of his letters beginning in 1 Cor 7:6, a section where he specifically states that he is giving his opinion rather than explaining a commandment of God. In other words, what he was saying absolutely was not based on the Word, but based on his own personal insight into the matter. Surely, that was NOT dictated to Paul, or it couldn't have been his own opinion. This actually lends credence to the "inspired vs dictated" viewpoint.

T, this is exactly what happens today. It's all becoming so robotic. I wonder where is the love of God for the people? They're all just so concerned with whether they are doing what HQ wants them to do. Like the communion ritual. This year I just couldn't sit through that incredibly "solemn" ritual yet again - hold the bread in the right hand, wait until everyone has it, then when we say "take, eat" eat the bread. Then go home and reflect - there won't be refreshments. As I recall, when Jesus was talking about this, they were all eating, actively. And he said nothing about any of this nonsense! At this point, if my fellowship coordinator didn't do such great teachings, I would probably be gone by now. But she does a great job, and everything, so far, lines up with the Word.

The way I see true science is that it merely explains what already is. It doesn't discover anything, because it's already in front of us. And it doesn't define anything new, because it is God that creates. A scientist may discover something he didn't know, but the facts have always been there, because God already put them there. So it is axiomatic that true science will always agree with scripture, because God created it all. He set the physical and chemical laws in place. If it doesn't agree with scripture, then the test and analysis is corrupted in some human way. This is done frequently with statistics, to be able to support one's argument. But that is not true science, that is manipulated science. So, how's your awe now?

I think it's even worse now. At least in the past, each fellowship could teach on things that were more relevant to the people in that fellowship. But now, HQ dictates what is to be taught throughout the entire ministry. Like what I need to hear today is the same as some woman in Idaho, or some kid in Mississippi, or a family in France. Just so bizarre.

DWBH, This is so insightful! After reading this I went to my bible and looked at the Greek word that was translated "given by inspiration of God" in 2 Tim 3:16. Thayer, who I have more confidence in than Strong, defines it as inspired of God. I never really thought deeply on this before, but I can clearly see that this, in no way, equates to "dictated by God". This puts a radically different slant on the content and structure of the bible. That said, I have always believed, and still do in spite of this epiphany, that the bible is the will of God. But now, it seems plausible to me that the letters from Paul could be much more inspired by God to write them, but relying on his own understanding of the Word - which he was an expert on from his training - and the truth of Christ. This could easily extend to the old testament in areas other than where is states clearly, "God said" or "thus saith the Lord". The book of Proverbs is by Solomon, and doesn't say anything about "thus saith the Lord" in it. So this entire book can, clearly, just be Solomon's own understanding of life, not any specific revelation from God. Now I've got a lot of work to do. I don't know if I should thank you or be miffed. LOL!

Here is why it matters whether or not there is a trinity: 2Ti 2:15 Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth. ASV The details actually matter. And since the trinity wasn't introduced until the council of Nicaea, it is obviously an addition to scripture and therefore invalid. The Word has so many verses that declared Jesus Christ as the son of God, not part of God. But here is one that is quite definitive: Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. KJV That underlined word, "man", properly translated from the Greek, means human. God is not human. In all of Paul's letters, he never once declares, nor implies, that Jesus is part of a trinity. If you can find him doing that, I will be quite surprised.

Fired for the letter put together on another thread here by Howard Allen? Yes, he was fired, but says he doesn't know why. Here is a direct quote from his letter to believers, dated March 30, 1988: "On April 1, 1987, I was fired by the Board of Trustees from my position as Limb Coordinator of The Way of Washington, D.C. Why? That's a good question, and one I asked Howard Allen that day. He refused to give me a reason."

TWI hasn't changed since the founder. The new leader just keeps up the status quo and then some. It's a shame - I know several people still heavily involved and completely sold out to them, but they are such good people. Just naive, to the point that they aren't even willing to consider that they are in the wrong place. Fortunately, I am not sold out to any organization and, while I still attend fellowship sometimes, I typically don't participate in their activities, unless it sounds really interesting. I guess I wasn't actually following anyone there, I was just learning, and have learned enough to know my relationship is with God, not a particular minister or teacher. That's why I can listen to teachings at a Way fellowship, or by Joel Osteen on TV, or by a R&R person on the web, or from my friend here in the area. I have had issues with some fellowship and branch coordinators, but when they taught the truth I was still able to listen and look at the verses to see if it lined up with the Word. If we don't give importance to who is talking, but only to what they are saying, then we will be able to discern truth from error. But to automatically assume someone is right or wrong based solely on who they are is an error in judgement bordering on foolishness.

Harry Truman was astute. It says in the bible to be wary of fair speeches. Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. I was wary of Graham for quite a while, intensified when, after the world trade center slaughter, he was asked why this would happen, and he said he didn't know. Not a response I would have expected from a man of God. A bit off topic, but I found it so interesting that the attack occurred on September 11. We do all know what that is, yes?

I am referring to the voice-over. I just realized we - meaning me and the rest of you - could be thinking of two different versions of AOS. I remember being told that the one I watched was the second version. In that version, is was Don W doing the voice-over. I can only guess that the original was replaced because Mike Verdicchio probably left TWI. That's typical of them, as that's why they do remakes of their classes. I never saw the original AOS.

I saw the video version, and it was definitely Don W doing the speaking. His voice was so resonant, and the music gradually built up, and the imagery was a smattering of colors that became more vibrant. It was something any movie studio would have been proud of. But like I said, that was the only good part. I don't know who Dr Weingarner is.

I was relatively new to TWI when I saw that production of AOS. I thought it was really strange, except for the narration by Don W at the opening (or was it at the end?). That was magnificent. The rest provided nothing for better understanding of devil spirits; rather, I saw it as a platform for LCM to strut his stuff. It's amazing what ego will accomplish.