WordWolf

If you're interested, there's threads where we play games. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/forum/14-movies-music-books-art/ Read "how to play the game threads" and the first few posts of any thread, and the last page or so, to get the rules, general play, and where we're at now. You can choose to join any thread, all of them, or none of them, or join one and then just stop posting on it, as you see fit. The only catch is that play is on "the honor system" - we agree not to cheat. (Explanations are on the threads.)

Interaction is what you make of it. During the Covid crisis, a lot of people went to church via Zoom/Skype. (Some still do.) I've chatted with a lot of people online. I've met a few offline, later, and made some friends. Mrs Wolf and I met online and communicated a lot. We're married now. So, you and I don't know each other and never will- but we could choose to, as did myself and the Mrs.

When paging through the King James Version, in the Old Testament, you may notice that sometimes the word "LORD" is in all caps, and rarely the word "GOD" is in all caps. That's not a stylistic decision. In those cases, the Hebrew word there was "YHWH." For the high-faluting, that's the Tetragrammaton (the 4 letters.) For observant Jews, it's a common practice to refuse to write it or say it aloud out of respect for God Almighty. So, that "YHWH", depending on translation, has also been rendered "Yahweh", and "Jehovah." (Depending on the letters in your language and the vowels you choose to fill in the word.) In Hebrew as well as Latin, there's no letter "J", so the Romans wrote "Iulius Caesar" for Julius Caesar, and so on. If there's a truly definitive answer on pronunciation, I neither know it nor consider it important. "YHWH" was how it was written originally, and "Yahweh" is as close an approximation to pronouncing it as I can get, so I'm fine with that. While you can find other gods mentioned in the Old Testament, and other "lords", they were called other things, "baal" or "adon", but NOT "YHWH." In the Bible, that word is only used to refer to God Almighty.

Whether or not there are "administrations"/"dispensations" in history is a subject for debate, with different posters holding different positions. On the one hand, I disagree with those who keep blaming Mac Donald for inventing it or Darby for disseminating what Mac Donald invented- I don't think this doctrine can be traced at all to her or significantly to him. On the other hand, ignoring a question of who said what, my own thinking on Scripture has generally resembled another position on history- a "covenantal" approach. That is, rather than say "now began the Law Administration", I'd say "now God entered into a covenant with Israel with the Mosaic Law." With the "administration" approach, no 2 administrations remain in effect alongside each other. (We can also start drifting into "replacement theology", where Christians supposedly REPLACED Israel, and so on.) It's my personal opinion that God's Covenant with Israel remains in effect, and God's Covenant with Christians remains in effect. I think Jesus, among others, tried to make a point about that very thing, where one person is promised one thing, and another is promised another, and each received what they were promised, independently of each other. Once again, this might be a good topic to start in the "Doctrinal" forum. Don't be shocked when you see different posters rather emphatic on their positions.

I Corinthians 15: 20-28 (NASB) 20 But the fact is, Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man death came, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in [i]Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to our God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is clear that [j]this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. ======================== It wouldn't be a bad idea to discuss this in a separate thread, probably in Doctrinal. I'd prefer to discuss what the Greek said in those verses rather than any English version, since they all will put their own spin on the subject, intentionally or not.

The final disposition of all humanity (is everyone everywhere and everywhen saved?) is a good subject for at least 1 thread. Unfortunately, a few posters got cagey talking around the subject (freaking WHY?), and when I made a thread for the subject, they refused to discuss it. Too bad, I think there's a lot to say on the subject.

Ok, I gave the others a chance to post. I'll go in the other direction from movies about little things. This would be "TITANIC."

I'm a little surprised nobody else has jumped in yet, but I'll give it a little longer.

B) The alleged promise was a lie. Supposedly, God Almighty promised He would teach like it hadn't been known since the 1st century AD. If this were true, there would be a complete disconnect with what was being taught and known elsewhere in 1942 EVERYWHERE and what vpw later taught (because we know he taught others.) However, even those who idolize vpw agree that the material he taught was already taught by others. A paper trail can be traced for virtually all the twi material vpw taught. vpw took Leonard's class, and a few months later, taught 100% of the same material. vpw bought Stiles' book, then typed up a book with the contents- later adding the contents of books by Bullinger to flesh it out more. And so on. So, either God Almighty lied when giving this promise, someone else claiming to be God lied and vpw couldn't tell the difference between a lying spirit and God Almighty, or vpw lied and nobody promised him at all. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24980-concerning-the-failure-of-the-1942-promise/

How I picture this is not that different from how you picture this. Under a feudal system, a local landowner would be lord over his property and the people therein. He would swear fealty to a more powerful lord, who ruled larger sections, and so on up to the king or queen or emperor. So, I swore fealty to Jesus and am his liegeman, he is my liege-lord. He swore fealty to God Almighty. So, they command my loyalty. (No, no church-group on earth gets in between us, that's direct from me to Jesus. I may work with a group, but my fealty is not to them. And if they try to convince me otherwise, it's time to leave the group.) Communication may come to me from God, from Jesus, or some angel/intermediary. It's all the same, as far as I'm concerned. God and Jesus are one in purpose, and work together, having worked together for at least 2,000 years. If they are one in other ways, that only reinforces what needs no reinforcement to me. There would be issues if they ever disagreed on anything, but I don't see that happening. If they ever did, I expect they've settled any disagreements hundreds of years ago if not thousands. ======================= Psalm 110:1 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. ======================= That "LORD" at the beginning of the verse is "YHWH", the name of God Almighty, Yahweh, and is not to be given to anyone else. David wrote that YHWH said to David's lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." Did that refer to YHWH and Jesus? ======================== Acts 2: 34-36 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. =================== So, YHWH said that to Jesus. =================== I Corinthians 15: 23-28 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. ====================== I prefer the NASB version of the same verses, they're a little clearer, IMHO. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to our God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is clear that [j]this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. ====================================== The interlinear renders "God, even the Father" as "He who is God and Father", which is clear enough. In what is to come, all will be made subject to Jesus...... ...except God Almighty, Who subjected everything to Jesus- He won't be subject to Jesus. Once everything is subject to Jesus, then Jesus is subjected (as if he isn't now) to God Almighty, subjecting everything to God through Jesus, "that God may be all in all." Will that be because that's the order, or because of the Trinity? It will work out exactly the same, either way.

For those who think I was kidding, I was not. Another poster here had known Donna when she was pretty new at twi, and Donna had told her outright that, when she married, it was specifically going to be to a bigwig in twi. So, that was her mindset before lcm came along. "LCM finally decided he needed to get married. He goes to Dr and lets him know his thoughts and seeking advice. Dr promised he'd look out for a good woman for him. Later, LCM decided to marry Donna and immediately told Dr. Dr said 'She's a good woman' and then rode off quickly on his motorbike. LCM found out later that he had gone at once to call Donna and talk to her to let her know and understand fully what she was getting into with LCM. He was going to be a great leader in the ministry and she had to be prepared to handle herself accordingly, etc." So, lcm decided on Donna, whom he didn't know well at the time. This is so freaking ODD. Instead of "We've been together, we are a good fit with each other, we share goals and values, maybe we should consider marriage," it was "I should get married to some woman. You, let's get married. Oh, but let's get to know each other, first." So, vpw went off immediately, and told Donna that lcm was thinking about marrying her, and how lcm was going to be a big shot in twi and replace vpw himself. We know what she'd said before- naturally this was all she'd needed to agree to marry lcm. All accounts of that marriage looked pretty distant and cold, and now that makes a lot of sense. It was based on lcm being twi's grand poohbah, and when he no longer was, the marriage was effectively over, long before any divorce papers were served. "Donna was in residence at the time but Dr gave her permission to visit Emporia frequently so that they could get started early on getting to know each other." So, a couple who had agreed to get married had to start spending time 'GETTING TO KNOW EACH OTHER.' If this was fiction, this would be considered badly-written fiction. As real life, it still doesn't make much sense. But, apparently, in lcm's head was a phrase he later said, often, and it was recorded on tape. "Any 2 believers can make a marriage work- it's called 'commitment.' " For those of you wondering what happened to that marriage, apparently, there was no more commitment into it by at least one of them. (Besides, as she didn't seem especially fond of men, she seemed to be, in effect, married to lcm's successor. She was more concerned with who was big in twi than anything else.)

The Smurfs!

Charity, you might be interested in reading something. The guy who pushed that "any 2 Christians can make a marriage work- it's called 'commitment'" naturally had his marriage end in divorce, mostly because he and his wife had nothing in common and the marriage was mostly a sham, especially by the end. That was lcm, and he wrote a book once called "vp and me." It contained a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff. We discussed that book in a thread called "vp and me in wonderland." In the thread, he mentions how his marriage began, and how his relationship began. It was INCREDIBLY shallow and unemotional. It's almost shocking it lasted at all. Then again, his mrs had previously declared she was going to marry up in twi, and vpw went to her to approach her for lcm, and undoubtedly told her he was vpw's successor. Well, she was onboard after that, and lcm apparently had no idea how little he PERSONALLY mattered in his own relationship and marriage. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/8019-vp-and-me-in-wonderland/ That thread was a sequel. Before that, we discussed twi's advertisement, the book called "The Way-Living in Love." That thread was called "the way-living in wonderland." https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/7363-the-wayliving-in-wonderland/ Those threads will take time to read, if you're interested. In the case of lcm, I thought you'd find it fascinating reading.

Hi, Oldies. Just thought you'd appreciate this one, it's for free. I remember hearing a criticism of Christians eager to pray over someone with laying on of hands. SUPPOSEDLY, the reason was this verse: I TImothy 5:22 (KJV) Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure. Nobody ever asked me about that verse, but I was already aware that "keep thyself pure" was the main point of that verse, and the "hands" business was ABOUT being a partaker of other men's sins. It was a common belief in the Greco-Roman empire days that to lay hands on a criminal right after they committed a crime meant you were taking part in that crime. I came across that in Edith Hamilton's "Mythology", when reading about Hercules and Theseus. (Hercules was in shock over his guilt about something, and Theseus snapped him out of it by deliberately grabbing hold of him, allegedly taking part in the same crime. The writer explained the significance of the whole thing in passing. Edith Hamilton's a recognized expert in history and mythology, which is why her book is a textbook in high schools all over the US.) So, you might want to read up on that yourself, on the odd chance someone wants to criticize you over the manner in which your group tries to help people.

The Astonishing Ant-Man?

Oh, you think you don't? Fenneman, get the gun!

It's a completely different world, post-twi. It's a completely different Christianity, post-twi. And the other Christians are often not the fools we were told they were. Agreeing to disagree when there's an INEVITABLE difference leads to a life with a LOT less stress.

We had some fascinating discussions on the subject of "speaking in tongues" a few years back. We discussed the physical actions we were taught, what the Bible says on the subject, and whether or not those were the same thing. Personally, I NOW think they were never the same thing. (I changed positions as the discussion unfolded.) I think that the SIT in the Bible may exist somewhere, but I haven't seen it because what I've seen doesn't match the Bible but only matches what I was told the Bible MEANT. In twi, a number of verses that don't mention "speaking in tongues" are allegedly about it. In hindsight, I'm wondering why God Almighty got so coy if they're really the same thing ( " something something in the spirit" and "speaking in tongues.") There's no verse that says "speaking in tongues, that is to say, something-something in the spirit" or equivalent. I know He didn't have to speak to my modern mind, but that's something necessary, if such an important subject is what I was told it was. None of this affects my faith or my prayer life- I can pray just fine "with my understanding" and get miraculous results "with my understanding". I also don't go around sneering at Christians who think the modern SIT is the Biblical one. What would that serve? For that matter, I don't sneer at people with various positions on the Trinity (for example) for the same reason- so what? God's honoring our prayers equally, so it looks a lot like He's making them non-issues.

The "marginalize Jesus" thing in twi was never as successful for me as they would have liked. I knew full well what it meant to make Jesus my Lord. That meant I had sworn fealty to him, and he was my sovereign. That's a relationship also- where the subject gives loyalty and service to the monarch, and in turn the monarch watches out for the subject. No matter how little we spoke about him, I was still clear he was my lord and I was his vassal. To some people this is obvious, to others, it's unusual and an introduction to the idea. So, if God passes the order to Jesus who passes it to me, or God passes it directly, or they both pass it directly because they're the same being, in practice it works out the same.

It did NOT occur to those buzzards. Please remember that there are people who think that religious conviction and scientific knowledge are antithetical to each other, and will scorn whichever they have not chosen. So, there's religious people who shun basic science, and science believers who shun religious belief in conventional forms (even if their own beliefs include leaps of faith while condemning others for making leaps of faith.) People like that nowadays can make Christians look bad, unintelligent, and anti-intellectual. Too bad they don't know enough history of science to know how many Christians were out there, inventing science that we now take for granted. Sir Isaac Newton wrote and, in effect, invented Calculus and wrote on gravity and many other things, and wrote considerably on the Bible as well. Gregor Mendel can be considered "the father of genetics"- he performed experiments in a monastery because he was a monk. It's only the last 2 centuries that this antagonism between Christianity and science has been able to find any ground- on either side of the divide.

Good points. vpw was unable to teach us about a RELATIONSHIP with Jesus. Why? Here's a few reasons. 1) vpw didn't view relationships or people like we do- he viewed them as resources. So, actual relationships with caring- as opposed to business relationships - were beyond him. 2) vpw largely faked his way through the ministry. He learned the proper gestures and mannerisms, how to bow his head in prayer and so on. he learned to deliver speeches in a convincing manner. He learned how to cut corners by taking the work of others and presenting it as his own, either in written form or as a preacher, preaching someone else's work as his own. He picked the soft options in school and skipped church history and languages (that's why his grasp of Bible languages was so weak.) So, he learned to parrot back the works of others. The deeper matters- unless he had someone to directly quote- were not things he could speak on, so he avoided them. 3) vpw didn't want us to have a relationship with Jesus. vpw wanted us to have a business relationship with him and twi, where he sells the things of God, the prayers, the classes, etc, and everyone else pays tuition, tithes, etc. Not convinced? Ok, answer this: how many denominations or church groups out there teach to consistently give MORE than the tithe? vpw taught it and gave it a name- "abundant sharing." Followup question: how many denominations or church groups out there teach that you can separate what money you need to live on right now, and should give all of the rest to the church? vpw taught that, and gave it a name- "plurality giving." For that matter, he made the tithe a mandatory 10% and a necessity, where the Bible says we are NOT supposed to give "of necessity"- which means, once again, vpw taught the opposite of the Bible on a subject.

II Peter 1:19,20,21 (KJV) 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. =========================================== How many decades ago were we discussing how vpw's explanation of these verses were completely wrong? vpw said that 1:20 was warning us not to "privately interpret" the verses of the Bible- while doing exactly that with that verse. These verses explain the ORIGIN of Scripture. It's a more sure word of prophecy that wasn't of someone's "letting-loose" (to use a familiar phrase), nor by the will of man long ago, but rather the result of holy men of God who spoke as directed by The Holy Ghost. This "one's own letting-loose" thing meaning how to avoid approaching the Bible, that was an elementary mistake that, as often happened, was the result of elevating the wording of the 1611 King James Version over the texts from which it came. Often, vpw came out with a lengthy explanation with rambling analogies, all stemming from the exact phrasing in the King James Version. However, when one goes back to the texts- Stephens, Nestle, etc, one finds nothing of the kind. vpw got hung up on the exact phrasing of the King James Version as if it was AUTHORITATIVE in its exact phrasing, rather than a translation of texts more authoritative than itself. So, to avoid "one's own private interpretation" as referred to in I Peter 1:20, don't try to write something by your will and claim it's Scripture. (BTW, trying to write something by God's Will and claim it's Scripture is self-defeating, so don't try that, either.)

It IS "Pirates of the Caribbean - Curse of the Black Pearl." I thought that Elizabeth Swam pretending to be a Turner might be a giveaway, for me, the reference to "Bootstrap" Turner would have definitely done it.

"No! Not good! Stop! Not good! What are you doing? You’ve burnt all the food, the shade! The rum!" "Yes, the rum is gone!" "Why is the rum gone?!" "One, because it is a vile drink that turns even the most respectable men into complete scoundrels. Two, that signal is over a thousand feet high. The entire Royal Navy is out looking for me, do you really think there is even the slightest chance that they won’t see it?" "But... why is the rum gone?"

Oh, and I'm busier than usual, partly because of the World Cup, so please cut me a little slack on updates.