WordWolf

Got a source for this claim? Otherwise, I'm saying you made it up. It doesn't make sense, either. vpw and JCING critics objected to its main assertion and its conclusions. They did not care at ALL what his background was like. They didn't care his MOTIVATION for writing the book-they objected to the book. Considering how weak an "argument" it makes for something so controversial, most of us-even those who agree with its conclusions- can see the critics had a point, too. So, you have a source supporting the claim that "Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book."? I bet you don't, and the rest of the post will obfuscate the question... Congratulations! You COMPLETELY FAILED to support your claim that "Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book" and attempted to change the subject at the same time! You demonstrated that you have NO support for your claim of what "most critics" say, or even ONE critic, let alone 51% of them! I knew vpw was raised Trinitarian. He'd addressed correspondence before this with a Trinity invocation. YOU made a claim that critics misrepresented him- and when I asked you to show this misinterpretation, you did everything to hide FROM any quote from any critic! Your statement about critics was unsupported, and you elected to distract and change the subject when asked TO support it. Logical conclusion: this statement of yours: "Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book." Was MADE UP ENTIRELY, and has NO BASIS IN ANY QUOTES FROM ANY CRITICS, LET ALONE "MOST" OF THEM. Let's see ONE, ONE quote from ONE Introduction to ONE of their books. YOU'RE the one who made the claim they said that. Therefore, YOU'RE the one who needs to support your made-up claim. Don't pretend I have to find books that I think NEVER EXISTED, to quote Introductions that NEVER EXISTED, when you're the one who claims they do. That's not how INTELLIGENT discussions work- the Burden of Proof is on the one claiming the existence of something. The obvious question is why you feel the need to distort the critics? The obvious answer is that it helps reinforce your weak position- so that they appear to make weaker arguments than the weak arguments of JCING.

So do I, Chas! Feel free to post a quote from a movie whenever you're ready! ============= What?

For "Sledge Hammer", I would only have recognized one quote: "Trust me-I know what I'm doing." Even the one-shot comic book used that line- and put it on the cover, as well.

*sigh* I'll lay it out again in plain English in a bit. You missed a FASCinating discussion here some time ago.The upshot-and it's still here somewhere- is that there is NO REASON to think that the members of the community Jesus grew up in thought he was anyone OTHER than Joseph and Mary's son. (Except "this is what vpw taught they meant in that ONE reference in John 8", and "vpw taught that there's some ancient doctrine where illegitimates bar-mitzvah'ed at age 12", which was a separate discussion that addressed things like "THERE WAS NO BAR-MITZVAH in that century, and Jesus wasn't going to be bar-mitvahed in the account at all".) I can dig for them when I have time, or you can beat me to it. I can see I'm really going to have to break this down in detail, verse by verse. I shall, in a bit. I'd also like to thank people like Oakspear for participating in this discussion on its OWN merits, that is "If the Bible has a consistent or even semi-consistent explanation, let's see what it is" rather than shoving his opinion down our throats. (He has stated his opinion, but hasn't required it to limit the discussion.)

Do you have a source for an alternate explanation- "knew her not"- other than "vpw claimed that this is one meaning of this phrase"? You STILL haven't SUPPORTED this, and are STILL presenting it as "statement-of-fact",as "this is what happened", and not presenting it as "my understanding", as "this is what I believe happened", or "this is one possibility." Got a basis for this claim? If so, I WOULD like to see it. (No, I'm not joking- if you have one, go ahead, I may learn something.)

You're free to believe whatever you want, but if you're going to claim it doesn't contradict the Bible, you'll need to SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. Otherwise, those who CAN support their claims will point out that you're engaging in a "leap of faith" that contradicts the Bible. (Which, of course, you can choose to do, but most people prefer not to do that while simultaneously claiming to believe the Bible. Disbelievers of the Bible, of course, have no difficulty contradicting it.) Making statements of belief without supporting them is by its nature limiting, which would limit your participation in discussion. I noticed that when I asked you to explain and expand on one of your claims, you seemed to get indignant and refused to clarify. That means either "I'm too important to explain"- which is a bad attitude on the internet in general and the GSC in particular, or "I don't HAVE an answer and don't want to admit it"-which is also bad for either. Still your decision, of course... Thing is, the other accounts DID exclude "the way God set it up for children to be born." Even vpw agreed that all verses must agree with the OTHER verses on the same subject. So, saying this while IGNORING the other verses suggests your only way to deal with them contradicting your position is to IGNORE THE VERSES. You're free to do that, but, again, that's NOT a good thing anywhere, including here.

I disagree wholeheartedly. They demonstrate there were other, more INFORMATIVE, ways to handle the same subject. But if one is trying to make JCING seem more special, then of course one needs to squelch any discussion of SIMILAR BOOKS TACKLING THE SAME SUBJECT. Yeah, that's right. Within 2 weeks of the book's release..........NOTHING HAPPENED. twi was always a small-time player in the big game, a footnote in modern Christianity, something where an asterisk points to its entire existence. vpw MANUFACTURED the controversy. vpw gave the book the most controversial title he could, and made sure it had a HUGE TITLE on the cover. Don't believe me? MEASURE IT, then measure the cover. Then compare ANY other twi book. The print on THAT cover was HUGE. And he picked a yellow-and-black contrast. That's the colour contrast used on traffic signs because they are the fastest-spotted contrast. All it was missing was blinking lights. Still, nobody would have heard of it, because nobody was stopping to listen as if vpw was EF Hutton. So, he had to PUSH the doctrine some more in twi so people would trumpet it, and manufactured his own little media event- the one where he tried to anger the local churches and gave away AUTOGRAPHED COPIES of JCING at the same time. (Scroll up for the description.) vpw went out of his way to TRY to make as much fur fly as possible. This is the first I've heard of the book, so I don't have anything to say on it. I've never heard of the author, either, so I've no opinion on him, either. Yes. Yes.

Let's look at the same incident as it's reported in the other Gospels. Matthew 1:18-25. 18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. 20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23Behold,a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." Jesus' conception was "before [Joseph and Mary] came together", "conceived...of the Holy Ghost", child of "a virgin" "that it might be fulfilled", and Joseph "knew her not" until after Jesus was born. So, based on Matthew 1, if one believes Matthew 1, Jesus was unmistakeably the son of Mary, and God Almighty. (Mark and John don't address this incident.) The most detailed answer-as was mentioned previously- as to how this worked was in Luke 1:34-35. "34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Mary got pregnant without "knowing a man". INSTEAD, "the Power of the Highest overshadowed her", and as a direct result of that, the holy one born of her shall be called The Son of God. If one believes the Bible, that's fairly straightforward: A) Joseph was not Jesus' genetic father. B) Mary was Jesus' mother. C) Instead of a genetic father, the power of the Highest overshadowed Mary, and she was pregnant with Jesus as a result. If the specifics are not that God Almighty created the male reproductive genetic material that normally would be contributed by a genetic father, then the differences are so small as to make it effectively identical. Or one can just discard the Bible. "I don't care what it says-I don't trust it. I think otherwise." Which, of course, is anyone's privilege, but it DOES limit one's contributions to discussions like this. The demonstrated EXPLANATION and demonstrated RESULT disagree with you. Only if you discard both the Matthew and Luke accounts, both of which say Joseph andMary did NOT dance the horizontal until after Jesus was born. Which you can choose to discard, of course-but don't expect the rest of us to just follow along. Please supply any verses that support this position- that is, verses that say that Joseph supplied 50% of the genetic material for Jesus' conception. The verses seem to claim the OPPOSITE.

WordWolf in boldface.

I'm ok with them, provided they are tasteful, and small. I don't like the "climbing up the arm" type on men OR women. I suppose even a number of them- discreetly placed and small- work be seen as fine by me. Having stated my opinion, people can do whatever they want. I do recommend not getting a person's NAME tattooed, of course.

"You want a piece of my heart, You better start from start. You wanna be in the show? Come on baby, lets GO!"

You can still participate in "Name That Tune", unless you don't listen to music.

Of late, they've been soft-pedaling it. It's still in the required doctrine, but not as blatant as in vpw's day. If you look closely, it still appears in stacks of books when they advertise, but you can't make out the entire title clearly. (In other words, they're not proudly flying the flag for the strangers and visitors.) I've heard Anthony Buzzard's book and the CES/STFI book both are superior to it. (And I of course am unaffiliated with either and only know them from the GSC.)

[WordWolf in italics for variety.] That's how I see it, too. I've been branded a "heretic", too. Mostly by more conventional Christians, but I presume that some ex-twi'ers have put me on a dartboard by now, if only for the "wonderland" threads.

Obviously a Q/Voyager episode. You'll need someone who's SEEN those.

"MONDAY I'VE GOT FRIDAY ON MY MIND". Used to listen to that song every Friday afternoon. Loved the guitar riff. And that drum changeup towards the end.

I sent a sample of the dress to the lab. They haven't gotten back with the results yet. <_< He's God. ("Who are you, and how did you get in here?" "I'm the locksmith. And, I'm the locksmith.") You have a right to your opinion. More power to you. Except for any "Jesus was an illusion or a spirit projection" types who might be lurking,ALL of us say "Jesus, really a person." Usually, we add something like "and also The Son of God" or "and also God the Son" or something along those lines. Please elaborate. I don't see how you got there. I missed something important in-between the question and the answer. Can you walk me through it?

I wonder if I really WAS the only person, upon hearing that answer, immediately heard "Mighty, mighty, Mighty-Man!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_Man_%28Television%29 http://www.hbshows.com/site.php?c=./mightymanyukk.htm

I agree about checking what the actual verses say. In this instance, I think Bullinger (and thus vpw) was correct. Matthew 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. The Matthew lineage is 3 x 14. 1) Abraham 2) Isaac 3) Jacob (aka Israel) 4) Judas/Judah (& his brethren) 5) Phares (& Zara) 6) Esrom 7) Aram 8) Aminadab 9) Naasson 10) Salmon 11) Booz (Boaz) 12) Obed 13) Jesse 14) David (the King) this completes one set of 14. 1) Solomon 2) Roboam 3) Abia 4) Asa 5) Josaphat 6) Joram 7) Ozias 8) Joatham 9) Achaz 10) Ezekias 11) Manasses 12) Amon 13) Josias 14) Jechonias (& his brethren). Then the carrying away into Babylon. This completes the second set of 14. 1) Salathiel 2) Zorobabel 3) Abiud 4) Eliakim 5) Azor 6) Sadoc 7) Achim 8) Eliud 9) Eleazar 10) Matthan 11) Jacob 12) Joseph the husband of Mary 13) Jesus who is called Christ. As written, the count is clearly ONE SHORT of 14, 14, 14. Matthew 1:17. "17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." So, is the COUNT wrong? Or is one of the VERSES wrong? I believe the answer given was correct- the counts are correct- 14, 14, 14. Luke 3:23-24 "23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph," So, that lineage ends Joseph Janna Melchi Levi Matthat Heli Joseph Jesus. Those are obviously not the SAME generations as the first list. Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan Jacob, Joseph, Jesus. Joseph, Janna, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli, Joseph, Jesus. Doesn't take a Greek degree to see these are 2 different lists. This means there's at least 2 possible answers. A) the lists are guesswork and error, and the Bible can't be trusted. Some of us (not me, but others) find that the acceptable answer. B) the lists are correct, but mislabelled. Obviously, there are 2 family lineages, one of Joseph Mary's husband, one of someone else. What is what? Well, the Luke account says Jesus was believed to be ("as was supposed") to be Joseph's son, Heli's grandson, etc. The Luke account appears to be Mary's husband's line. What about the Matthew account? If the account is supposedly Mary's husband, then there's 2 problems. 1) the lists don't match 2) the NUMBERS don't match- a generation is MISSING. If the Luke account is Joseph's line, and the Matthew account is Mary's line, then the numbers in Matthew should go 7) Achim 8) Eliud 9) Eliazar 10) Matthan 11) Jacob 12) Joseph 13) Mary 14) Jesus That would mean the Joseph in step 12 was Mary's FATHER, and the word translated "husband" SHOULD be "father". Is it possible that Mary's father and husband would have the same name? Joseph was a common name in Judaism. If you look at the Luke lineage, there's 2 Josephs in that one, as well. So, it's certainly PLAUSIBLE. And it explains the count. And it explains why there's 2 lineages, if one thinks Scripture is in any way reliable. On the other hand, I'm open to alternate answers that say 1) the Bible is correct 2) the lists in Matthew are 3 x 14 3) Matthew correctly depicts a lineage, as does Luke I posed this to some Christians before, and nobody was able to present an answer that worked equally well with those 3 postulates. (This is not the case with other ideas I've done that with.) So, if you've got such an answer, I'd be interested in reading it.

Let me see if anyone can fill this one without hurting themselves.... The Three Musketeers Julie Delpy An American Werewolf in Paris

Right. That's what vpw said, and Oakspear explained the meanings without being shackled by relying on archaic meanings from the KJV, where some words have changed in usage since 1611, but vpw pretended they didn't when convenient.

Most likely spoken by a non-biped. That probably means a Q, or a changeling like Odo or an elasomorph or something. Odo's rarely snarky like that, and the others of his race LIKE bipeds scurrying about. So, I suspect this was a Q, probably Q himself, the snarkiest Q there is. At a guess, this was when Q lost his powers and spent an episode as a mortal human male.

Glad to hear that you and your ear are alive and well!