WordWolf

So, for those people who want to read previous threads discussing Athletes of the Spirit (AOS), there's several, and I found a few. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/16069-rocky-horror-athletes-of-the-spirit/ Rocky Horror Athletes of the Spirit. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/6753-athletes-of-the-spirit/ Athletes of the Spirit. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/298-bg-leonards-book-foundationsplagiarism/ "BG Leonard's book, Foundations Plagiarism" https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25483-aos-new-topics-same-as-old-topic/ "AOS New Topic's Same as Old Topic." https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24790-are-we-athletes-of-the-spirit-or-soldiers-for-christ/ "Are We Athletes of the Spirit or Soldiers for Christ?"

"Anyway, still trying to figure out which athletic sports have any of the moves shown in AOS - if you know of any, please enlighten me." Obviously, the blocks and kicks (and unassigned strikes) were taken from martial arts. Possibly the only thing lcm added to the moves was the thing they used to represent speaking in tongues- some sort of wind-sprints used in US football practice. Whereas the other 8 moves representing manifestations had some sort of practical aspect- a block, an evasion, a strike- this was the only one that, by itself, actually did nothing whatsoever. (In hindsight, it was accidentally a perfect symbol of what we were told was "speaking in tongues", but that's another subject and you can contact me about that.) In whatever guidebook I read at the time, it said the foot-stomping thing in that move was supposed to represent "the energizing of the holy spirit." So, in later moves, when people did that foot-stomping thing, it was supposed to represent people doing SIT. At the time, I wanted to complain about what moves were assigned to what. In particular, "word of knowledge" - divine revelation of information- and "word of wisdom" - divine revelation of practical application communicated. In AOS, WOK was represented by a block, and WOW was represented by an evasion. Personally, I thought it should have been the other way around- word of knowledge allowing entire events or actions to be bypassed (an evasion) and word of wisdom being a direct interception of information and an immediate redirection of thought- a block. Under the circumstances, it's hardly worth mentioning compared to all the actual errors, ripping off a movie wholesale, rewriting Scripture to pretend it said something it did not (Ephesians 6:10-17 in particular), but I thought it was worth mentioning as a point of interest. Also, lcm had a sequel planned. The first production carried forward through "the Gathering Together" all the way to the "New Heaven and New Earth" in Revelation 21. What was left to do in a second production? (When I mentioned that a bit later, Raf suggested a sequel could have been used to try to correct all the errors of the first one.)

If you like the original version of "The Producers", you'll have little trouble remembering Zero Mostel (who played Max Bialystock) and Dick Shawn (who played LSD/Lorenzo). They both appeared in "the Producers", obviously. They also had a background in live theater. In addition to appearing together in this movie, what odd thing did the actors have in common?

"ON THE WATERFRONT", I think it is.

Was that "ISHTAR" or something?

ckeer, Jun 16 2005, 02:38 PM , "Athletes of the Spirit" thread. "I assume you are talking about the movie Staying Alive and the Show within the movie- Satans Alley. I remember LCM saying he used it as a basis for Athletes- I think I remember him showing clips from it at an explanation/ teaching about AOS." TheHighWay, Jun 16 2005, 11:52 AM, same thread. "Do you all remember that Loy-boy accused Sly of stealing his ideas for this movie from their original Athletes ROA production? Supposedly that was part of the reason Loy wanted to do a full-blown AOS... he stated he wanted to "do it right" and thumb his nose at Hollywood's devil spirits. Oh my... talk about ego." Bob, Jun 17 2005, 11:23 AM, same thread. "Here's what I recall Craig saying about AOS and Staying Alive: Sometime in the late 70's / early 80's, TWI did a skit on the ROA stage about AOS. Supposedly, someone from Hollywood was in the audience watching, liked what he saw, and copied it for use in Staying Alive. Loy got ticked off when Staying Alive came out, said they copied their ROA skit. So Loy copied, verbatim, the Satan's Alley section for AOS. If anyone can be sued for copyright infringement, it would be TWI by the producers of Staying Alive." outandabout, Jun 17 2005, 12:53 PM. "LCM came through San Diego one time around 1984-85. He used a scripture about learning things from "a little bird." In other words, the devil could transmit info via devil spirits. Thus, the original Athletes from ROA was given to the people who made "Stayin Alive." Therefore, TWI could take what they did in the movie and use it because it originally came from TWI. Uh huh... of course it all made sense to me at the time because LCM said it. He also was on his Seed of the Serpent trip. His big example was Steven Spielberg." TheHighWay, Jun 17 2005, 09:35 PM. " I was in-rez the year they were working on AOS, and every time Craig came to town (Emporia) he would talk at great length about every aspect of the production... his thought processes, the reasons behind all the costumes and dance moves, blah-dee-blah-blah... I'm sure I have the specifics somewhere in my notes, but off the top of my head, he stated that Sly Stallone was clearly "influenced" because at the time he and his wife were planning the timing of the conception of their child with star charts and the like. Because Sly was "influenced" he was getting insight into how to put "Satan's Alley" together accurately... ruling spirits, underling spirits, the decadence,writhing, etc. Craig said he wanted to do it from a Godly, Biblically accurate perspective. (essentially showing the devil up, not that he put it like that)." ------------------------------------------------- My list of ripoffs from that thread: "I caught the "Satan's Alley" segment. They could have sued his head off. "Satan's Alley" features: the scaffolding the villianess in red the villains in masks the grasping/writhing the "hero" in white the rising podium section the grunting/yelling sound effects the jumping combat the flying kick the white light representing the presence of God the one-one-one combat towards the end with the guy's shirt off" ============== Rascal, from the thread on the Passion of the Christ, Mar 24 2004, 11:39 AM "This reminds me of the whole athletes of the spirit fiasco.... LCM came to the advanced class ...he was so excited about having seen the *staying alive* movie with John Travolta....there was a scene where in the production John Travolta was doing involving a battle with devil spirits....Lcm was all hepped up about how twi could do it better ....more accurately more skillfully more dramatically...yada yada ...and thus the conception of aos was born...simply because HE, lcm wanted to show the world how twi could do it bigger and better than Holly wood ever could...... You know........even vpw couldn`t dissuade him from it.... That was the way it always was when I was in twi....if they hadn`t done it first....it wasn`t worth doing... Twi`s critisisms are so childish."

Certainly, some of the locals knew vpw's reputation growing up- he was a showoff, a braggart, and something of a bully. He used to zoom his motorcycle around, trying to get attention, All indications are that his own dad had a reputation for being mean and something of a bully as well (big surprise there, right?) When vpw said he wanted to go into ministry, NOBODY thought it was a good idea, starting with his Dad, and the locals certainly didn't think he had the right character for the job, so they didn't take him very seriously. Small wonder his first church was such a drive away from where he grew up (when they decided to move things back to the farm, he lost some of his church because it was too far to travel regularly for services.) During the twi era, vpw didn't exactly work hard making friends of the locals, either. When one neighbor complained of a racket, vpw told the noisemakers to make MORE noise, not less. I doubt that was an isolated incident.

Unfortunately, I seem to be the only other person resembling a Steely Dan fan on this thread, and I don't recognize this song.

I'm not sure what happened here. You're supposed to go to a movie Lou Diamond Phillips was in other than "Stand and Deliver,", then to an actor in that movie other than LDP, then finally to another movie that actor was in (besides the movie you mentioned first.) The first step was correct- LDP WAS in "Courage Under Fire." The next step gets confusing. Meg Ryan, Denzel Washington and Scott Glen were ALL in "Courage Under Fire." OK, so you crossed out Meg Ryan, but that leaved DW and SG. Either is a correct move for the second link, but not both. The third link would be a different movie with Denzel (if you picked him) or Scott (if you picked him.) What was it meant to be?

Something Wordpup said earlier gave me an idea. If you like the original version of "The Producers", you'll have little trouble remembering Zero Mostel (who played Max Bialystock) and Dick Shawn (who played LSD/Lorenzo). In addition to appearing together in this movie, what odd thing did the actors have in common?

Edward James Olmos Stand and Deliver Lou Diamond Phillips

I'm THREE TIMES the fake doctor that vpw was! They should consider my words 3x as much as his! (I have 3 unaccredited doctorates, making me 3x a fake doctor, vpw only has 1 unaccredited/fake.) I've got one in "Theology", one in "Bible Truths", and one in "Putting My Posts in Boldface to Make them Easier to Read." Or, if mine don't count, we return to "But he wasn't a REAL doctor...."

IF there was such an interpolator, it would do us well to consider who he was trying to convince, and what he was trying to convince them OF. AFAIK, this addition would do NOTHING to convince a Jew to believe Jesus was the Son of God/the Christ/ etc. In the first few centuries following Pentecost, we don't see Christianity continuing to expand primarily as a Jewish group. Initially, it was seen as so by the Roman empire, but Judaism as a whole was only so big. When Christianity increased by sizeable numbers (after Pentecost itself and a few years thereafter), it was generally among Gentile nations, among those who were NOT Jews or converts to Judaism. Among the Roman empire, the obstacles were different than among the Jews. With the Jews, the idea of A Son of God was shocking. Among the Romans, the idea of a god having a mortal son, and the son becoming immortal/some sort of god was COMMON. One of the criticisms of the early church has been that they adopted pagan beliefs all too readily and interpolated them into Christianity (an underworld of the dead, a son of god becoming a god, the mother of a god becoming a god and receiving prayers, etc.) You're quite familiar with any number of those. So, for someone who saw Christianity as another religion competing in the Roman marketplace among all the others, he might see ANYTHING as some sort of "competition" of religions, and try to "OUTDO" the other religions. Remember, we aren't talking someone who said "We have actual miracles every week, the others do not, so that's plenty of proof," we are talking about someone whose ideas of Divine Intervention are secular- not in power, not with angels, etc. So, if he's going to try to outdo the Roman pantheon, he will have to do it on paper, and by outdoing their accounts. With Julius Caesar a dead emperor and thus an object of worship, the interpolator would see direct competition with Jesus, especially as a man who died and became some sort of god. So, if they claimed Caesar's death was accompanied by the dead rising and walking among the streets, then he'd at least claim the same was true of Jesus, whose death was FAR more important and supernatural. This would have been nonsense to Jews, as it would be to me, but he wasn't trying to advertise to Jews nor to me. He was advertising to the average Roman who was used to a temple to Julius Caesar, and so on.

"Mr Kirkland, you are out of order!" "YOU'RE out of order! YOU'RE out of order! The whole TRIAL is out of order!"

I don't understand what you're asking here. Generally, a "redaction" is a REMOVAL of text- like blacking out classified information and things along those lines. I THINK you're asking why someone would add those verses-if they were added. So, I'll answer with that in mind. (If that's not what you meant, please rephrase yourself and ask again, and I'll try again.) What would an inserter think to gain from inserting those verses? I'll imagine up someone like that. First of all, he would not have a view similar to the Jews who formed the Masoretic Text. Their view of the content of the verses was so sacrosanct that the only acceptable thing was to reproduce the text EXACTLY and the one UNacceptable thing to do was to make ANY change, no matter how slight. When making a scribal copy of a book (like Jonah), at the end, they would count all the appearances of each letter and of each punctuation mark (the tittles.) If the count was not exact for the book (it was off from the official list by even ONE single letter,) then they TRASHED the copy as unacceptable. So, this would be someone whose worldview was OPPOSITE that, but still believing. He would, in all likelihood, NOT be a scholar (the more scholarly types would sound more like the rabbis working on the Masoretic texts.) He would be enthusiastic, and he would feel he was IN COMPETITION with the Roman religion- which included worship of dead emperors as gods. He would feel a NEED to OUTDO the Roman religion. The biggest obstacle for him would be something I'd almost forgotten could BE an obstacle- his religious environment was largely SECULAR. If he were around people like those in Acts, he would see lots of miracles and things, and feel no need to compete with the Roman mythos- he would feel they were unable to compete with Christianity. So, his Christian experience was bereft of miracles as a whole. In his case, what replaced them? Well, to have a supposed Christian experience with no miracles, one has to have a substitute. The most prevalent one at the time was GNOSTICISM- where miracles are claimed to be real only in some sort of SPIRITUAL manner and NOT in a physical manner. So, no miracles of healings, no casting out of demons, no angels opening chains or door locks. In fact, this was the type of thing that happened A LOT in the early centuries AD in the Christian church. From about 350 on, we can still find entire "books of the Bible" that contradict the Bible, and push some odd Gnostic doctrine or another, supposed "lost books of the Bible" that were never taken to be such, since they failed to measure up rather obviously- until some modern people decided to toss them into the same category as the Gospels and Epistles despite the Christian church historically refusing to respect them and elevate them as actual Scripture. Some of them were so poorly written that it's humorous and sad to think someone could read them and think that was of the same caliber as the Book of Acts. There's one that claims that Joseph (Mary's husband) was rubbish as a carpenter, and Jesus as a kid used to make miracles all the time to fix his work and even it out. Another time, kids were playing with clay and making clay animal figures, and some kids teased Jesus for making poor depictions of animals....so he brought one to life and fed it from his hand. Then he made a miracle and killed one of the kids who made fun of him instantly. How about the one where Satan and the Devil were having an argument while they waited for Jesus to break the gates of hell open and release the dead souls trapped there? In fact, this dovetails nicely with that OldSchool pointed out about Gnostic influences and Gnostics adding their own writings and trying to get them included in Scripture- largely to advance some obscure doctrinal position of their own. So, the writer would mean well, and would think it was the right thing to do - it certainly was common enough that he wouldn't think it was UNUSUAL.

I think most of us can agree with those ideas without necessarily needing a heavy-handed textual insertion to hammer the points home. As for the veil being rent, and the earthquake happening, nobody's claiming those didn't happen, nobody's claiming those were insertions. The non-Christian, Roman soldier who commented saw those- probably specifically focusing on the earthquake- and came to his conclusion. He had to see SOMETHING, which was in the verses all agree on- an earthquake, the veil of the temple torn, and so on. There was no need to enhance the events by out-doing Julius Caesar. I'm certain the man who did so did not do so out of a desire to be disrespectful- I think his heart was in the right place. Nevertheless, I find it an unconscionable thing to do, and completely unnecessary, as well as counter to the purposes of the Christian seeking to understand Scripture. There's no REAL benefit to FAKE verses, no matter how well-intentioned they were who inserted them.

We ARE having an intelligent discussion on those. However, the GSC has always had problems of such discussions being interrupted by impertinence. It's hardly unique in that respect- on the day of Pentecost, there were scoffers saying the men were drunk on "new wine" (arguably not alcoholic.) I once was trying to have a discussion on a subject specifically omitting what vpw and twi taught- just what we saw from the verses or found from OTHER sources. I requested that specifically, a few times. I gave up because one of the busier posters on the thread (nobody who's posting on this thread, but I forget who it was) kept replying by consistently invoking vpw and generally disagreeing with him- in each and every post. Eventually, I just got tired of making the effort. (Not that I minded someone disagreeing with vpw, but that was specifically off-topic for the thread.)

I was going to try "Phantom of the Opera", because there was a different version besides the Andrew Lloyd Webber version, but you said it was based on a true story. Both versions had MUSIC, you say. The movie has music. More recent than 1776. I'm king of the thread! I'm going with "TITANIC."

Leaving Las Vegas Nicolas Cage Face/Off

"Dancing Queen", ABBA?

Based on the swearing, I'm thinking this was "PATTON", with Patton himself speaking.

That's it. Maverick was suspicious that Annie would steal from him if given 1/2 a chance. She also thought he could quick-draw enough to impress a gunslinger. Chief Joseph was cynical about being able to stay on his land without more settlers pushing him out- and he talked to the Russian about allegedly allowing him to shoot an Indian and kill him.

It was an Aramaic word. Mike's image preserved a printed explanation: "GMIR- from the Aramaic gmr - means "to perfect, accomplish, mature, complete; arithmetically to be divisible without any remainder." Even without an article, the 2 verses draw my attention for very plain reasons- they CLASH. We have verse after verse for chapters before and after this that exposit things in a very linear fashion. A happens, then B happens, then C happens. Then for 2 verses, that changes COMPLETELY, and we look at things that happen then and WEEKS later. Then, in the next verse, we pick up again right where all the other verses were, in a linear account. It LOOKS like it was just dropped in there. That's not a guarantee of anything but that something would make me suspicious. My second problem with that is that it is ANOMALOUS. In the remaining accounts in this and the other Gospels, in Acts, and in all the Epistles, this is NEVER mentioned again, this is never REFERRED to again. The "MANY" people they appeared to all seemed determined never to MENTION it again. I'd expect that most people I've met or who post here would have a lot to say if somebody DEAD was face to face with them- either bodily whole, or as an insubstantial ghost/phantasm, or as a walking zombie, or anything else. Certainly lesser events inspire discussion. That's not even getting into all the theological problems they raise, if they're legit. Finally, any fans of Shakespeare's play "HAMLET" may get suspicious at these verses. William Shakespeare was NOT a scholar. (Some people claim it makes him ineligible to have written his plays.) However, he had a general education, and that matches with certain anachronisms and so on in his plays. (Don't read them for historical accuracy, read them for entertainment.) They represented the best he knew with the limited academic resources at hand. (No Encyclopedia Brittanica or Americana, and no internet.) Why in the world do I bring up this play? Early on, Hamlet muses (WS wrote) that- when Julius Caesar was assassinated, the dead were seen to have left their graves and wandered the streets. It's a moment that's always left out of performances of Hamlet, but it's in the play. At the time WS was writing, it was taught that people in the time of the Roman Empire claimed that this happened when Julius Caesar died. In specifics, the 2 incidents seem the same. Do I think that happened at Julius' death? No, I'm confident people came along later and tried to jazz up his death by adding more dramatic elements. Do I think that happened at Jesus' death? Do I think people came along later and tried to jazz up his death by adding more dramatic elements- especially ones that make his death on par with the supposed overly-dramatic death of Julius Caesar? I have an opinion on the subject.

I think it's the difference between a post that's a lot of text typed in- there may not be a limit on that- and the limit on a file size for an image file of a page, or other document format. When trying to keep the files small, an image file of any type is wildly INefficient. Document formats vary in capability as well as how big the corresponding file ends up. (I prefer to use txt files for personal use for that reason- they're tiny. If I have some professional or other use, then I generally go with something bigger and less tiny.)

For those of you to whom this is actually news (I sometimes forget that this still true...) the death certificate for vpw states vpw's death was caused by "metastatic and ocular cancer." For those who need that explained, the body normally filters toxins and tries to keep going. This can be impeded by certain practices, or exposure to toxins. (If you breathe a lot in asbestos-filled rooms, your lungs are going to be in a lot of trouble.) In the case of vpw, he drank a lot of alcohol, which strained his body's liver and other defenses, and he smoked a lot of tobacco- a known carcinogen. DECADES of both are what set up vpw to die, Now, vpw liked to claim that his eye was damaged- not by exposure to carcinogenic smoke for hundreds of hours, but rather got cancer when he spent a few days a long time ago, filming pfal under bright studio lights. Now, bright studio lights DO NOT CAUSE CANCER. The closest report to that was that if a WIELDER uses his WELDING TORCH for long periods without his welding mask, he risks cancer. vpw was not exposed to welding torches. Furthermore, thousands of people a year spend extended periods working under bright studio lights. Those people don't drop dead of cancer upon spending A YEAR under those lights. So, vpw's claim about the 2 weeks is completely without merit. He lied- which, by now, should be no surprise. His vices and his addictions, over the long run, are what weakened his body and prepared it to die fairly young. All the talks about who made him want to die, why he "stopped believing", and so on, were all just a smokescreen.