WordWolf

He probably means he was never in vpw's physical presence while the man drew breath. That's not the same as his taped stuff, which is STILL being disseminated in one form or another. BTW, even he never saw the taped stuff, he was exposed to vpw's influence because that infected all sorts of twi people, which was the idea.

You're talking about Dr Ernest L. Martin's "The Star That Astonished the World." https://philologos.org/guide/books/martin.ernest.3.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_L._Martin The original dissemination of the material was in Christianity Today's article (in 1976) titled "“The Celestial Pageantry Dating Christ’s Birth." He continued with this in his 1978 book, The Birth of Christ Recalculated. JCOPS and JCOP were books written by the twi research dept, to which vpw added his name and a few words of introduction and a dedication. (Personally, I think that takes gall, but he's not the first to pull that one.) Both of those books were far superior to anything vpw was involved with, and both had bibliographies. Martin was correctly credited in JCOPS. I didn't hear it, but that eliminates the vpw stuff and the Intermediate Class (and the TIP class.) Since they had access to the material as of 1976 when everybody else did, that suggests that any class covering it would have been filmed/recorded after 1976. It would not surprise me if lcm said that, not even aware he was stealing the credit for all the work for twi from Martin. lcm didn't see the same reality as the rest of us all through the 1990s and through his ouster from twi. BTW, anyone who wants the full text of the article and lives in the US, they might be able to get it. What you do is walk into a local library, and consult "the Readers Guide to Periodical Literature"- looking at Christianity Today and checking for Ernest L. Martin's article in 1976 with the name I posted above. Then you'll have the correct date-issue, and I forget if the page#s are included. Either way, if the library is well-stocked on periodicals, you can then request that issue on microfilm (or microfiche, depending on their system). Most of them will have a reading-gadget that will allow you to print out a photocopy (in negative form, IIRC) of the pages you want, for some change. If your local libraries don't have it, I'm sure any college library would have it. (I looked up articles in that magazine when I was in college, and I didn't go to an ivy-league school.)

Mark Pendel Arthur Kipps Ignatius Perrish Walter Mabry Nate Foster David Copperfield Allen Ginsburg Yossi Ghinsberg Sean Haggerty John Kipling Dr. Vladmir "Nika" Bomgard Alan Strang Maps J. Pierrepont Finch Billy Claven Rosencrantz Sam Houser "Igor Straussman" Miles Manny Wallace Harold Jamws Potter Tim Jenkin

WordWolf: "if you'll check your Greek, or, for that matter, your Concordance, you'll see that the "again" in "born again" is "anothen", which translates into "from above" sensibly and consistently. (Check your Concordance. Check your Interlinear. Check your Greek Lexicon. "Consistently.") John 3:7 and John 3:8 sure look like they're saying that "born again/born from above" and "born of the Spirit" are the same thing, phrased differently." ========================================== TLC: "Yes, agreed, and I really have no problem seeing that they more or less speak of the same thing. The issue I have is that I don't see that any of them are applicable to what is (or ever can be) experienced prior to the passing (i.e., the end, or if alive at the last trump, changed) of life that is in the blood. Furthermore, it appears that Jesus Christ's answer to Nicodemus (look closely at verse 8) was evidenced in Christ after his resurrection. And, as mentioned previously, Acts 13:33 specifically pinpoints his resurrection as the day he was "begotten" of God. So, when OldSkool spoke of "those born from above," the problem I have is with its broad application (right now) to anyone other than Jesus Christ, as I just don't see it used like that anywhere in scripture. Evidently this wasn't clear enough in my previous post, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. (Like I said, sometimes my perspective on certain issues is a real bear to communicate well.)" =========================================== Difficult to tell for sure in the Gospel occurrence, since it wouldn't be present-tense or past-tense in those accounts. But it is a different thing when going back to the I Peter occurrence. That's after Pentecost. If it speaks of "born again/born from above" as present or past tense there, then it obviously isn't tied specifically to the reality AFTER a resurrection. "I Peter 1:21-23 (KJV) 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." ================================== Hampered by the archaic phrasing of the KJV, we don't know for sure either way. But other versions, written in the 20th/21st centuries, render it a lot clearer: NASB for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. NIV For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. RSV You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; NRSV You have been born anew, not of perishable but of imperishable seed, through the living and enduring word of God. ESV since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; ==================================== As of I Peter 1:23's writing, the "born again/born from above" thing was a PRESENT reality for the Christians, and they weren't yet resurrected or raised from the dead or otherwise brought back from death in any clinical manner.

chockfull: "In sorting through this salvation topic (permanent/not) - it seems like one thing missing is a "glossary of terms" of sorts. I think the dictor in his "research" liberally misapplied the mathematical transitive property of equality to several things which are most likely quite different in reality and definitely nuanced in terminology in scripture. Born again Born from above Saved ... Defining all terms to the point where we all agree with everything is a tall order. However, defining these terms probably is going to be a barrier before we can proceed much further along this topic we are discussing IMO. What other phrases belong in this glossary? Any start to definitions? What commentaries or materials cover this? Thoughts?" I'd add all the critical tetms we're all going to dance around. So, you started with born again...........born from above.....saved.... I'd add "incorruptible....seed... eternal..life..." (4 terms) and reserve the right to call for more terms to be defined when they come up. ============== In other news, it sure would be nice if everyone would post friendly. We ARE trying to have a nice discussion here.

Just my thoughts, responding by your numbers... 2. Was she actually one, or was she not and just dropped for "GENUINE SPIRITUAL SUSPICION" (THEIR WORDS, NOT MINE)? I've heard lots of people who did nothing wrong even by their standards got kicked out for SUSPECTED wrong-doing with no proof, under this odd excuse. BTW, even if she WAS, this should have been caught long before she was assigned, let alone sent out. If there was any sort of oversight- and, more to the point, divine revelation- to the process, there should have been someone screening out inappropriate volunteers who were inappropriate for any number of reasons, some of which were known only to God Almighty. (We're not sending wows to Mesa, Az because God's warning us to change the locale-[earthquake later hits city], God said this person isn't ready now [major dental surgery 3 months later, would have had to leave the field], this one doesn't match our standards because they're a closeted gay...) As vpw founded it, and it remained for decades, the thing was open to whoever showed up with the money. That was vpw's big standard for all programs. "You can stay as long as your money holds!" - vpw to lcm, on lcm remaining in the Corps. In other words, if it's true, then it's their fault for sending people out unvetted. They disrupted the established groups by sending out unfit people, then dismissed them, disrupting the groups. If it's false, then an innocent person was sent home for doing nothing wrong but being on the wrong end of their PARANOIA. So, it's their fault if it's true, and it's their fault if it's false. 3.If he was that much better, he should have "shown you how it's done" by going to the car, praying over it, and healing the radiator hose like he wanted you to do. THEN you'd know how to do it. His lack of ability to do so was hidden by his accusation- but he was all talk and no action there- which he learned from twi, of course. 4. Their lack of planning left him high and dry. They kept promoting stuff until hours before they stopped it. Then of course, it's your fault if you planned by listening to them instead of going by revelation. (Naturally, those who ignored them to go by revelation were lambasted or kicked out, depending on the specifics.) 5. They lacked the skills to DO the credit checks, and were lazy. Furthermore, they didn't care. You had your money up front, that was enough. Later, if you had to go home, you were sent home, no refunds. Yes, divine revelation might have revealed something, but they knew how to FAKE that pretty well, not how to receive it.

I have to justify my posts now? Ok, I'll play along, and enable the "help files." First of all, take a deep breath and a brisk walk around the block. Your posts look tense lately. If you're posting tense, you're not at your best. We agree it's better to post at your best than otherwise, I'd expect. As to your question, I'm going back a few posts. This was in reponse to previous posts. One problem as an ex-twi survivor is to be used to, familiar with, or locked into (depending on the poster) the twi explanation for anything. I saw signs of that earlier, and commented on the specific point where one of those came up. (Bullinger's contradictory explanations for "other", which vpw retaught without rethinking.) Then we got to some discussion of "born again" that skipped over that the KJV said "born again" but the literal Greek for "anothen" is not "again", but "from above", (The KJV reliance is another potential problem for twi survivors.) So, I addressed that. Then we discussed something where examples appeared in the Gospels and Epistles. "It only appears once, in an Epistle." I posted where it appeared previously, in a Gospel. The response made it sound like Gospel verses are of little importance, especially compared to the Epistles. That's ANOTHER issue that comes up. If it's because vpw said that verses "aforetime" were "for our learning", then that's a factual error because the Scriptures written "aforetime" were the Torah/Old Testament. (BTW, the "for our learning" thing is ANOTHER KJV error, the "learning" here is the same word rendered "doctrine" as in "profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction..." So, the Scriptures written "aforetime" were "for our doctrine.") So, the thinking is often as vpw taught- the Gospels are unimportant because they are "written aforetime" and thus "for our learning." This is wrong because (1) For our learning is "for our DOCTRINE" and not just a side- note as vpw portrayed it (2) the Gospels weren't "written aforetime" and heither was "Acts". Think about life in the 1st century church. No printing presses- books were hand-copied when they were found, Christians were breaking societal codes and laws by meeting and by being Christians. The New Testament books, for the first century AD, were not WIDELY circulated. They could neither be run off a printing-press nor sought openly. They were contraband-and hard-to-find contraband of limited supply. Finally, with at least one Gospel and the Book of Acts specifically stated to be written TO Christians-which is what makes the Epistles such a big deal- then the most reluctant reader is forced to at least accept that THAT Gospel and Acts are of equal weight. (Mind you, the Gospels, to any serious read, are not written specifically as conversion tools, they read more as material for the Christian than the non-Christian. I referred to this when I posted that twi was wrong in pushing this "only read the Epistles" thing. This discussion takes some interesting directions at times- mainly because a background in twi predisposes posters to make certain specific mistakes, sometimes in harmony. (Of course, I could, and would, say the same if the posters were all Roman Catholics or something.) I bring things up because if I don't bring them up when I see them, they may end up the linchpin in someone's doctrine- an error that could have been easily fixed long ago. It could have prevented boondoggles like Geer's "God doesn't know all things" and maybe something else that this thread's about in the first place. BTW, don't think I can't change my position now or ever. I've done it plenty of times as the preponderance of the evidence weighed in on one side, whether or not I LIKED that side. In other news, carry on everyone, and keep posting friendly!

Although the exact wording of most of the Gospels doesn't say "This was written primarily to (x)" as us modern readers would prefer, both Luke and Acts were addressed. Luke 1 King James Version (KJV) 1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. Acts 1 King James Version (KJV) 1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Depending on who you ask, both are either addressed to a specific Christian who was instructed, or in general to the "beloved of God". In either case, Luke and Acts are addressed to one or more Christians.

Then you were safe. vpw and his cronies targeted young females. lcm and his cronies targeted young females. rfr and her cronies ("the shrew crew", thank you Tonto), target females. Now that I think of it, it's strange you were even allowed to serve the head table.

when addressing the Way Corps live (and caught on tape while doing so), vpw was rather clear that it was intended to serve like the Marine Corps. He claimed that the US was able to get effective, loyal soldiers. His explanations after that diverged slightly in wording, but the intent was the same. "I thought, 'What about God'?" "So I concluded that the Army was greater than God, the Marines were greater than God..." Mind you, this was from a man who spent no time in the military, no time in the reserves, no time in the National Guard, no time in ROTC, and was not directly related to anyone in any of the above categories. So, his idea of what the reality of the Marines was, was based on old movies. That's why the Way Corps didn't actually RESEMBLE anyone's genuine military experience. But, really, what else is new? vpw always had an excuse not to do what he told others to do. Even when he told lcm to do the opposite, he did it again. When it was time to address a crowd in the rain, vpw said "if the crowd gets wet, so do you." The way to cement this would be to step out and introduce lcm. Instead, vpw stayed dry and shoved lcm out. vpw told people to hitchhike, and didn't do it himself. Sent people on runs- rode around on Cushmans and golf carts. Told people to go witnessing-and said an evangelist's job wasn't to get out there and witness, but to get others to go out there and witness. My, how CONVENIENT. Never did show chapter and verse on that one, though... The real apostle Paul risked his life getting out there.

Ever consider that twi pushed this "only read the Epistles" thing, and left out a LOT? The Gospels were not "written aforetime". THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN AFTER PENTECOST. ACTS WAS WRITTEN AFTER PENTECOST.

TLC, if you'll check your Greek, or, for that matter, your Concordance, you'll see that the "again" in "born again" is "anothen", which translates into "from above" sensibly and consistently. (Check your Concordance. Check your Interlinear. Check your Greek Lexicon. "Consistently.") John 3:7 and John 3:8 sure look like they're saying that "born again/born from above" and "born of the Spirit" are the same thing, phrased differently.

You mean, something like this? Step 1. "You can lose your salvation. Stay faithful to God." Step 2. "We can help you stay faithful to God. We can guide you safely." Step 3. "You're in danger of losing your salvation. Follow our guidance and you'll be safe." Step 4. "You'll lose your salvation unless you do what we say." Step 5. "Do what we say, or we'll kick you out, and you'll have no guidance to keep your salvation, and you'll lose it. All because you disobeyed us." It didn't take twi long to reach Step 5. Took a different path to get there, but the rhetoric was the same. Do what we say, or we kick you out and God discards you.

In a fraternity, it's an example of what's called "hazing." Hazing is illegal, and is grounds for throwing a fraternity off-campus, or throwing a chapter out of a fraternity (or not, if the fraternity is cool with it.) Colleges make a big deal out of it, and legal action can be taken. Some fraternities make a huge deal out of it. But in twi, it was business as usual. "They're feeling too comfortable- time for a little hazing to shake them out of their complacency..."

*checks* Thanks for checking on that. However, it's effectively the same as "do you have that channel?" The website wants confirmation you're already receiving their channel (or, more to the point, are paying for this channel.) If you're not getting this on TV already, you can't catch it there, either. Frustrating but true.

It depends. We've neither defined "salvation" nor what it would mean to be "lost". Based on the possibilities, I DO think the answer can be something besides yes or no- in fact, depending on what you mean, the answer can be both yes AND no, depending on what would be "lost". It's a little like discussing whether "immortality" would be a blessing or a curse. A blessing, if one has good health and excellent physical condition forever. A curse, if one has immortality but not eternal youth, meaning one's body got older and older, and at age 350 would totally look and perform like it's350 years old. Without agreeing on what "immortality" meant, either could be the result, or something else.

In case you didn't realize, a character name in quotes means the character was using that as an assumed name, like Kurgan as Victor Krieger in "Highlander." So, not the character's legal name, but a name they assumed (or was given to them.)

Mr I'm-the-super-believer wierwille was supposed to be Par Excellence for the so-called "law" of believing, the "law" that has failed so many people, so many times. Supposedly, his believing was the Top Tier on the planet, so it should have been a piece of cake for him to believe for more years. Instead, he died too young. In his final hours, he was STILL the captive of his own teaching- he was literally trying to figure out what was blocking his ability to believe for his own healing. Even as death approached, he wouldn't, or couldn't, be honest with himself. You don't have a "prison" of your own making, in your mind. You do, however, have a "prison" that HE made. Step outside of it. The entire "Word-Faith" thing has shown to be toxic. When people suffer, the "Word-Faith" people are REQUIRED to blame them, kicking a man when he's down. Miserable comforters blaming those suffering are as old as the book of Job. They were wrong then and they're wrong now.

No. He was pointing out that you're so locked into one or 2 things and only those, and trying to see if the answer is A or if the answer is B, while others are trying to present answers C-E. Wisdom often doesn't show up on demand. In fact, I've found insight tends to sneak in disguised as something else. "Some people can read "War and Peace" and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."

The phrase "born again" is in I Peter 1:23, John 3:3 and John 3:7. (KJV) ================= 3 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.=========== Looks like John 3:7 and 3:8 are implying an equivalency between "born again" (literally "born from above") and "born of the Spirit."

My 7th/8th grade History teacher (same teacher both years) would have refused to accept it. She had a rule which I've been thinking about a lot during the past few years. Our definitions were not allowed to recurse. That is, we were never allowed to use a word to define itself. (There's never a guarantee your audience knows the meaning of the word, otherwise why ask you what it means?) Most of the time, that was easy to work around. We all hit a snag on defining "fur trader" without using the word "fur". I wrote down "animal pelt" and others ended up using "hairy skin of the animal." So, if she asked you what a fur trader was, and you said it was a trader who traded in furs, she wouldn't have accepted that answer. So, knowing this, and knowing that the same issues of understanding occur all through life, I return to answer your question. To be asked what "incorruptible seed" means to you, and to answer with "it's seed that's incorruptible" is just to shuffle the order of the words you were asked. It answered nothing. If I had no answer at all, I would have left it unstated. If I was game to try to explain it, I would explain, that, to me, it means "[meaning of seed] that can't be [meaning of corrupted.]" Either is a legitimate answer, One just avoids answering if you don't have an answer, one is an answer. (There's also "I don't know", which is a legitimate answer but people seem to loathe to resort to it.) I find this sort of thing is actually an ex-twi thing more than anyone else- when dealing with adults. I've seen so-called leaders resort to dodging when asked questions about the party line when they were forced to agree with it while knowing it made no sense. They dodged in harmony, too. In fact, I was preparing to snail-mail some Saltine crackers to various leaders in reply to those comments when they suddenly all stopped parroting that same line and seemed to all reverse position. Then again, I encountered a different cult where they all parroted the same things as each other also, so it's really more a cult and ex-cult thing than uniquely twi.

Mark Pendel Arthur Kipps Ignatius Perrish Walter Mabry Nate Foster David Copperfield Allen Ginsburg Yossi Ghinsberg Sean Haggerty John Kipling Dr. Vladmir "Nika" Bomgard Alan Strang Maps J. Pierrepont Finch Billy Claven Rosencrantz Sam Houser "Igor Straussman"

The original cartoon was "Dragonball." The main character was Son Goku, a boy who was from another planet and was super-powerful. He was partly inspired by legends of Sun Wukung, the Monkey King, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Wukong and Superboy. He was a Saiyan, and Saiyans are born with tails. When they see a full moon, they turn into King Kong's bigger brother unless their tail is removed (they change back to humanoid if it's removed from Emperor Kong.) The show had a kid who was a stranger to Earth customs AND was super-powerful, plus the sub-plots involving the other characters hunting for the Dragonballs. If you collected the 7, you could summon the big dragon and get a big wish granted or something. The wishes were only grantable once (if you wished for your friend to be returned from the dead and they died again, then you couldn't rewish them back) and the dragon was summon-able once a year. Sequel cartoons included Goku as an adult (Dragonball Z), and later ones included the next generation of kids like Gohan. ("Gohan" translates into English as "rice.") (I'm leaving out a LOT in the descriptions.)

Oh. The adventures of Superboy if he had a tail! I've seen some of those.

"Born again of incorruptible seed." What does it mean?" "To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible. It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure." There's not answering something, and there's pretending you answered something. If you don't want to address the question, it's ok to leave it alone. But "ducking a question" like this is a politician's strategy for deceiving people and getting them to like him. It's neither needed here nor preferred, and it isn't a good fit for "a discussion forum."