WordWolf

I don't see why being a Trinitarian Christian or a non-Trinitarian Christian should make this any less clear. This has never been opaque as long as I've read this.

WordWolf replies in boldface. I'd like to take this opportunity to address an error concerning our liberty in Christ, and how badly-mangled the Bible's teaching on this was when we were learning. vpw said-right in pfal- that if you love God and you love your neighbor, "YOU CAN DO AS YOU FOOL WELL PLEASE." I submit that the point of this was to de-emphasize loving God and loving your neighbor, since that's the only way you can do what vpw REALLY wanted to teach, "YOU CAN DO AS YOU FOOL WELL PLEASE." Let's see what Jesus said on the subject, shall we? KJV. Luke 10:25-27. "25And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." Here we see the first part of what we said-"love God, and love your neighbor as yourself." Now let's see the SECOND part-when Jesus gives an example of what that means. Luke 10:28-37. "28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 29But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? 30And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 36Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise." Jesus gave an example of loving your neighbor-funny how he specified it was about NEIGHBOR, and not LOVE. The priest and the Levite in Jesus' example, I suspect, offered a prayer for the man who was beaten and robbed. They offered the standard twi level of compassion. "Give them The Word, pray for them, but if they have a physical need, tell them to suck it up and make sure they attend pfal on time." Then the priest and Levite proceeded to "do as they full well pleased." The Samaritan-a fellow of questionable religious knowledge (unlike the priest and Levite)- was the example Jesus used- a man who didn't consider the personal cost to himself (although he obviously could afford what he did without impoverishing himself) but instead took compassionate ACTION to him. He spent his own TIME and his own MONEY, and had no expectation of receiving any favours in return. Jesus at no point advocated "doing as you fool well please", unlike vpw. ======= Ok, let's suppose we can blow off Jesus' words, like we learned in twi, and only focus on the Epistles. "They're addressed to us! We can follow THEM and blow off the 'previous administration'!" In Romans 14, we see specifics "that have your name on them", as vpw said. Romans 14:13-21. "13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." We have liberty in Christ, but if we think "do as you fool well please" is what it means, we don't UNDERSTAND the liberty we have in Christ. If our freedom allows us to put a stumblingblock in front of a brother in Christ, we are not to use that freedom. A free Christian is FREER TO DO GOOD, but NOT FREER TO DO EVIL, or to do that which God says not to do. A Christian CAN do these things, but a Christian IS NOT to do these things. Out of love, he voluntarily limits his freedom. Is this bondage? Is this legalism? Is this being "a wimpy Christian who lives by the law?" NO. This is doing what God said to do. Even our liberty to eat foods offered to idols has limitations. I Corinthians 8:1-13. 1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3But if any man love God, the same is known of him. 4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 7Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." So, out of love for God and brethren, we are to use our freedom to FREELY CHOOSE to limit our actions, to help our brethren. So, can we at least make fun of "wimpy Christians", and turn aside? If we have to limit ourselves, can we just leave them alone after that? After all, someone once claimed "Weakness always brings down strength." Sadly for the "macho" Christian, NO. Romans 15:1-3. "1We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. 3For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me." One may contrast that with the explanation of what to do when our brethren are offended back in pfal. vpw himself spoke to the effect of DISREGARDING those offended. After all, he said, if one person didn't like my tie, another might not like my vest, and at that rate, "pretty soon we'd get down to bare facts." It sounds soooo CLEVER, but if I had to choose between SOUNDING CLEVER and SPEAKING GOD'S WORD, I shall continue to be clumsy and awkward, and speak the words of God.

That would have been an issue if the word "homologeo" appeared in that passage. I was speaking of the difference between the CONCEPTS.

Please clarify how Melchisidec figures into "the doctrine of the Trinity." I really don't THINK you're claiming the King of Salem was Jesus himself, or any part of God in any traditional Trinity sense. Please correct my understanding if you ARE claiming that. A cursory glance can make it look like that's exactly what you're suggesting.

It's been about a week. Can we either get MORE quotes or move this along?

You're free to study-or not study-anything you want. You're free to build a 40-foot bronze statue to someone and bow to it when the music plays if you want. However, I feel the need to make corrections when FACTUAL errors are given. (That happens a lot on the internet.) You said the King James Version is "THE BEST VERSION." Now, if your standard for best relies solely on "vpw used it so it's the best", then, yes, under that definition, it is the best. The KJV has advantages and disadvantages. The intent King James had in authorizing a version was in making one version that was academically superior to the other versions present. He succeeded- in 1611, it was "cutting edge." The advantages of the KJV at this time are: -it is easy to find -it offers the italics for words the translator added -its language has that "old-time" feel -it offers word-for-word translation rather than concept-for-concept paraphrases. The disadvantages of the KJV at this time are: -its language is stilted and outmoded -despite some updates, it is far behind textual research of the past 50-100 years Now, the NIV lacks the italics, but is a fair word-for-word, & has incorporated many improvements. The NRSV has much the same advantages. However, if you want a Bible that offers all the strengths of the KJV with fewer weaknesses, and none added to the KJV, you want a New American Standard Bible. The NASB uses a word-for-word translation, is direct, uses modern language much clearer than the KJV, incorporates modern improvements based on texts discovered in the past several hundred years, AND USES THE ITALICS. Anyone who likes to use the KJV because of its word-for-word approach or its italics (or both) should switch to a NASB the next chance they get. They're not on every streetcorner, but any bookstore or Christian bookstore either can order it or has it in stock. Many times-and we've discussed many of them here- the archaic, awkward phrasing of things in the KJV were taken BY VPW and whole doctrines were formed around them- when a version like the NASB doesn't make the mistake in the first place. Let me know if you need examples of this; we've discussed one in the past week alone. ====== Relying on vpw- or people who rely on vpw- produces the same problem as relying on ANY one teacher for your education- you take on their WEAKNESSES as well as their strengths (and vpw's education lacked many things.) That's why men learning a craft down the centuries entered a stage called "journeyman". A Journeyman travelled (thus the name), practiced what he learned, and also learned from other master-craftsmen besides who he started with. That way, he can correct errors he began with, and add additional skills to his repertoire. Nowadays, it is VERY easy to learn from many different Christians from many different groups. You don't even need to leave your desk-if you have the internet. However, if you're determined to ONLY learn the vpw style, and ONLY learn from vpw-endorsers, that is entirely your privilege. Me, I didn't limit myself to that even before the internet, and when I thought vpw was the best.

"Everything is so out of order here- God would have never created such an irregular and desolate landscape." I had saved that on the Greasespot Gems thread. :)

As always, vpw or lcm didn't understand something = debbil spurts. One could argue about questionable meditational techniques used with certain soft styles, but Jiu-Jitsu, among others, is a hard-style, and used for self-defense. I'm almost surprised he didn't connect it to Jews just because the first word is pronounced "Jiew". Corps Principle 1 was "Acquire an in-depth spiritual perception and awareness." Funny how there was disagreement on this one. vpw himself said that it originally read "Acquire an in-depth spiritua perception and awareness OF THE WORD." He claimed he didn't like the current phrasing because he didn't think this applied to other things. Naturally, lcm applied it to EVERYTHING, except maybe The Word....

In the GSC Documents section, I read where parents said their kids learned to curse FROM LCM. So much for setting a good example for the church...

Great. I'll meet you there when you have time. This isn't a race or anything.

I'm still waiting for an actual, authoritative source to come out and say this was a legitimate usage of the term, from a source unconnected with a twi history and not trying to defend vpw's teachings specifically nor generally. Does anyone have one? Something with sources? Worth thinking about, but with no details on such provided, it's all speculation, whether good, bad, logical or miraculous. We don't know if God "removed this obstacle." Also, I've read that some young women who are active in sports have this break whether or not they are sexually-active. It was not a medical source I read this from, so I don't know how much credence to give it.

*reads about 1/3 the Protoevangelium of James* *skims the Wikipedia article* Forgive me if I don't put any stock in this. It neither looks "right" to me, nor does it seem to date back to the lifetime of James at all. I think it was written by the intent and hand of a well-meaning man who thought it was a good idea.

I was tempted to guess "Q2" as a joke. There was a Star Trek:TNG Collectible Card Game (ST:TNG CCG). It worked a little like Magic:the Gathering, and was made back when EVERYONE was making a CCG. (I have some cards from the Monty Python Holy Grail CCG.) CCGs were/are of 2 kinds: battle or quest. M:tG is a battle game- 2 players have their cards fight it out. ST:TNG CCG is a quest game- 2 players attempt to complete missions before the other player does. Some cards can interfere with the playing of other cards- those in the ST:TNG CCG that can be played to do that anytime are called "Interrupts" (they can interrupt the action.) One "interrupt" is Q-2. It can be played anytime, and it cancels the actions of the cards "Q" "Amanda Roberts" and "Kevin Uxbridge." The picture on the card was of the other Q Continuum member who showed up when Q lost his Q powers. So, my saying that would have been a joke that would have been the correct answer by chance.

vpw was usually smart enough to maintain his MOG image whenever "the cameras were on" and he was addressing groups of people. He reserved all his despicable behaviour and his cursing for in private, or when around the corps and staff. (Usually.) IIRC, the live PFAL '77 taping includes vpw having a meltdown on camera because some tiny detail wasn't perfect, so he berated some staffer in detail over it. I think he didn't mean to do that on camera, but he slipped. Supposedly, the 2 most blindly-loyal-even-unto-painful-death people to vpw were lcm and cg. cg-when I met him-seemed a VERY nice guy (and I watched him "off-camera", too). However, this is the same man whom others say they've seen verbally abuse and humiliate people for tiny errors-real or perceived. vpw's most loyal students learned a lot of lessons from vpw, and some of them were not what any of US would want as a legacy.

That part isn't applicable to you. Not because it CAN'T be, but because you don't fit the description. That addressed people who CLAIMED they did a bunch of things and CLAIMED Jesus is Lord, but Jesus knew better. As Raf pointed out before, there's a difference between PROfessing something and CONfessing something. Your CONfession comes from the heart, and its last stop is your mouth. Your PROfession starts at the mouth and ends there. Those people PROfessed Christ but never CONfessed Christ. That's why Jesus didn't know them-they were "all talk." That's not you, so you have nothing in that dept, at least not being one of them.

I don't have those offhand. I think ResearchGeek was one of the ones who was on the research staff, and worked on either JCOP, JCOPS, or both. I believe that misrepresents what I said.I said they wrote 2 books (or possibly 3, I don't know about JCING in this context), JCOP and JCOPS, and vpw placed his name on the cover as AUTHOR and left out any references to them. The SIAL were EDITED by them- at least 1-4, and 5 was edited (as was the LV book) by cg himself (AFAIK, he may have used anonymous staff as well.) The subjects came from him. The wordings came from him. The books came from him. He went to the staff and said "here's this tape and these notes- reformat this into a book." They precise wordings are debatable, since they cleaned up some grammar-as any editor would- and left out the jokes and so on. Compare the LV tapes with the LV book and you'll see the process that was used. A significant amount was a transcript, but some things were unnecessary and irrelevant (like jokes and personal references) and weren't committed to paper. The book was fundamentally what was on the tapes. And in any case, vpw still endorsed them, signed off on them, and put his name on the covers, saying he was the sole author. (The exceptions being the books published after his death, SIAL 5, LV...) To say that the staff wrote or re-wrote the SIALs is to misinterpret what happened. Congratulations! You've presented the most original attempt to absolve vpw of the plagiarism that he intentionally committed that's been seen for at least a month, probably longer! (Whether you're doing that intentionally or not, I can't tell, but that is the net result.) Please review WHAT PLAGIARISM IS and then we can discuss it. "Plagiarism 101." http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=12755 I can believe that in part....but you're trying to absolve vpw of felonies that you either lack full understanding of (which happens here a lot) or you understand sufficiently and have no problems misrepresenting to claim vpw didn't commit them (which happens here a lot) I'll presume it's the first and give you the benefit of the doubt (i.e. you neither understand the full meaning of plagiarism, nor the depth of what vpw did across many sources), and presume that you are at least partly interested in learning more. I was in that position at one point, and slow to believe vpw plagiarized, and QUITE surprised when the evidence began piling up. That's also true of a lot of people here. Perhaps it is true of you.

Interesting view. I reserve the right to completely disagree, of course.

Here's a few to start you off. There's lots. "vpw's plagiarized sources" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...&hl=sources "vpw on the sources of his books" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...&hl=sources "JCOP, JCNG" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...89&hl=JCOPS "Did vpw plagiarize JCING?" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...91&hl=JCOPS

I've seen the case for "virgin conception and virgin birth" and the case for "virgin conception but not virgin birth", and find a strong case for the first, and a rather weak case for the second by comparison. I find one needs to reach for obscure possible meanings and ignore the more direct ones in order to reach it. That's acceptable to me when the direct meaning is obviously contradictory, but otherwise I see no reason to do that. Naturally, everyone's welcome to make up their own minds. No need to correct yourself Jean. It was much more interesting when John said he had given birth three times.

Romans 15:4 (King James Version) 4For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. learning: Greek word "didaskalion", from "didaskalia", "teaching, instruction". ln the KJV, "didaskalia" is rendered "teaching" one time, "learning" one time (Romans 15:4) and "doctrine" NINETEEN TIMES. One of those is II Timothy 3:16. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" So, Romans says the things that were written aforetime were for our DOCTRINE, for our TEACHING, for our INSTRUCTION. (Raf and others pointed this out some time ago.) Now, as to aforetime, there's a gap of some 400-500 years between the "Old Testament"s last book and the beginning of the New Testament. At the time of the writing of Romans, there being no printing presses, copies of ANY books of the New Testament were either UNWRITTEN YET, or nearly impossible to find due to initial scarcity and inability to mass-produce. The things that were written aforetime- unless Paul was using a modern meaning of "accessible right now", are the books of Genesis to Malachi. The Gospels were NOT circulated at the time Romans was written-in fact, Paul may have been unaware of most of them. A strict view towards dispensationalism, an an urge to pigeonhole everything neatly into little packages-plus a desire to be new and different- produces sharp cutoffs like the one that shoves the unwritten and uncirculated Gospels into the Old Testament. The Gospels- at least anything instructional- are as applicable to us as the Epistles- at least the instructional parts. Sometimes twi doesn't even teach on the Gospels THEN.

James 1:22-25 (KJV) 22But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. 23For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: 24For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. 25But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. James 2:8-13 8If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. 13For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

No. I'm saying that vpw edited and "wrote" the first 2 editions of RTHST, which is demonstrated by there being nobody else around TO edit. With the S.I.A.L, the books were taken from material vpw had already "written", dictated, what-have-you, and the staff EDITED that material. According to staff, this wasn't a simple proofreading process, as they sought to correctly convey his intent (primarily) while leaving his words as intact as possible (secondarily). Therefore, I believe they intended to convey his intent, and succeeded in doing so. (I can't absolutely guarantee it, but he DID "sign off" on books 1-4.) The material was "his", but the framing was theirs. I don't consider that being them literally writing the SIALs. Now, JCOP and JCOPS, those WERE written entirely by the research staff, and vpw added his name on the cover, and an introduction, and that's all he wrote for them. THOSE were the serious research books from twi, you probably noticed. (lcm's book, "VP and Me" includes him complaining about one of the staffers while the staffer was writing-as one writer- JCOP.) Now, those 2 books, yes, I consider vpw's contribution" to be equivalent to slapping his name on them to directly say-not imply- "I wrote this." He neither is listed as "editor" (which would at least have admitted others wrote it) nor included ANY MENTION of writing done by the research staff. Contrary to what one or two people have tried to claim in the past, this has never been acceptable policy ANYWHERE, and no credible Christian writer has engaged in such practices. So it wasn't commonplace or expected- rather, honest representation was-and is-expected anywhere except twi-world. You WERE aware of SOME of this, right? If not, let me know, and I can direct you to threads that were specifically about the books and who wrote them. My intent in mentioning this was to point out that it is unlikely but POSSIBLE that vpw's precise intent got lost in editing. Therefore, if he is wrong, it is not necessarily (only PROBABLY) his fault. Without guaranteeing his phrasing, one can't guarantee what he INTENDED to say.

I wasn't trying to imply anything there. My main point was that all of us in this discussion either agree on that point, or are non-Christians willing to discuss as if they did agree with that point in order to participate fully in the discussion on its own merits. They're accepting, for the purposes of this thread, the position that the Bible is God's Word, although they do not personally hold that conviction. (Oakspear mentioned something to that effect.) It was parenthetical because it doesn't affect the thread or its content.

The posts we had from staff who discussed how the magazine articles, the S.I.A.L. books and so on, reflect a position where vpw ENDORSED the finished product, but the editing staff operated as I previously described. I'm taking it as a given that those posts are correct. (The exceptions to this process, of course, are the (at least first 2) early editions of RTHST, which vpw did personally and HAD no real staff to edit in the first place, and JCOP and JCOPS, which were written entirely by the research dept.)

You can blame the early discussion of "thing" on me, for which I gladly take the credit and blame. The implication of twi's teaching that the KJV-exclusive translation is "thing" was that abortion was acceptable- which some people had been specifically taught in twi, and that with this verse. The intent of the initial post seemed to be about Jesus' nature, and how he is "holy", and his heredity in some form or another. I think all the posters (those not discussing this on a purely intellectual level) agree Jesus was holy- and still is. It's the OTHER stuff beyond that where the disagreements are.