WordWolf

Presuming your initial premise-that PFAL exalts Christ-is true (which I would argue it doesn't on a different occasion), someone does not have to push something SENSIBLE to push something. The words of Christ are in the Bible. The words of pfal are in pfal. Mike advocates reading pfal to the exclusion of the Bible-if you have access to both. Mike has said "When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand and teaching you from it." 2/2/04, 12:17am Eastern. "Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL. He told me so." 2/3/04 5:22am, Eastern. Those were single-sentence posts, BTW. Adding things that Jesus Christ PROBABLY had nothing to do with to the words of Christ, BTW, waters down/adulterates the word of Christ. === Please also note that Mikean pfal is NOT the same as PFAL. Those of us who studied PFAL studied something completely different than what Mike's proposing. Mikean pfal, for example, is a replacement for the Bible. PFAL says-right in the opening of the Orange Book-that it is on KEYS, and is NOT a replacement for the Bible. (It says "Genesis to Revelation", which is a figure of speech saying "the Bible"-synecdoche, if you want to know the figure.) One CAN read PFAL and learn some useful Bible stuff. The Mikean pfal, however, leads AWAY from the Bible, and the Mikean approach is to throw away all Bibles, all Christian writings by any other writer, and anything else containing print, and reading nothing but vpw books and magazine articles, and listening to nothing BUT vpw tapes. (With occasional supplements from approved sources.)

Good topic. One of the problems in tracking the SPECIFIC sources for plagiarism is finding the source when there's more than one possible source. Scofield, Bullinger and Clarence Larkin ALL wrote on a number of topics that each other wrote on. They were roughly contemporary to each other, and I speculate these were COMMON TOPICS at the time, where each responded to "supply and demand" by addressing the same subject from their own perspectives. To a point, all of them agree. The details and "flavour", however, is their own. Now, if they drew on common source material or each other can be found by checking the backs of THEIR books, since they were aware of copyright laws, and honoured them. Since we KNOW he plagiarized Bullinger, when approaching subjects taught by people we aren't SURE he plagiarized-if someone he DID ALSO covered the same topics- my suspicions are that he just used ONE source to plagiarize other than two. However, that is my suspicion, and simply an approach, an assumption. Reality may easily be that he plagiarized Bullinger, Larkin AND Scofield, (as well as Oral Roberts, EW Kenyon and JE Stiles.) ============= On the subject of "standing and state", for example, Scofield began as follows: "A distinction of vast importance to the right understanding of the Scriptures, especially of the Epistles, is that which concerns the standing or position of the believer, and his state, or walk. The first is the result of the work of Christ and is perfect and entire from the very moment that Christ is received by faith. Nothing in the afterlife of the believer adds in the smallest degree to his title of favor with God, nor to his perfect security. Through faith alone this standing before God is conferred, and before Him the weakest person, if he be but a true believer on the Lord Jesus Christ, has precisely the same title as the most illustrious saint." "What his actual state may have been is quite another matter-certainly it was far, far below his exalted standing in the sight of God. It was not all at once that he became as royal, priestly, and heavenly in walk as he was at once in standing. The following passages will indicate the way one's standing and one's state are constantly discriminated in the Scriptures." Hm. I can't find a corresponding explanation offhand from Bullinger, nor a source of same. The Companion Bible has NO appendix addressing it, which by itself tells me something. So, perhaps he did NOT get that one from Bullinger. Clarence Larkin, however, DID cover this subject in his book, "Rightly Dividing the Word." Scofield was well-known then-and now is MUCH better known than Larkin. However, in this PARTICULAR case, I'm at least partly suspicious Larkin's work here was the stolen one.

Those little titles change periodically with the number of posts you have. Most of them are related to the "cafe" motif of the site & board. If you don't like your CURRENT one, you can go into your profile and CHANGE it. :) A lot of us eventually change ours, AND select or download a pic for our profile as well. You can also add a signature, which you can select to be displayed with each post-or not, at the time you submit the post. In this post, I selected to display my profile. You don't have to come up with all of these at once, and you can change them anytime you like. :) I've previously used a signature that advertised a nonexistent ministry called "Certain Lewd Fellows of the Baser Sort" ("CLFBS Ministries! Join now!") and one that oversimplified the position of excusing someone from committing various felonies and crimes because you were taught-and that you don't care that others suffer, just so long as you were taught. (....."I got mine-who cares that you suffer?") (Actual posts, BTW, inspired and justified that, and my signature was a modification of another person's response to them as well.) BTW, I recommend a visit to "Greasespot 101", and there's an introduction to the forums in the "About the Way" forum, pinned to the top. That may also come in handy.

I didn't respond yet- mainly because I didn't want anyone thinking I could add anything to that. To Zoltan! (To Zoltan's nose!)

I'd like to take this moment to compliment "a simple guy" again. He may be uncomplicated, straightforward and direct, but this is know way interferes with his ability to see deeply. He seems to have cut to the heart of issues in few words. He's made a heck of a first impression.

Hello. I was not able to find that specific paper on tithing. A quick search, however, turned up these: http://www.bible-truths.com/tithing.html http://www.livingepistlessociety.org/StandardForGiving.pdf This one is a pdf, and will need to be downloaded. There's more on a number of websites, if you want more. (But not the one you asked about. If it's out there, I can't find it.)

Granted, but, that having been said, there is a fundamental difference in your example and what we're discussing about shunning. I've got hobbies. I occasionally "talk shop" with people who have the same hobbies. In fact, I can get so hobby-specific that our discussions can leave normal non-fan(atics) people bewildered by the strange language we speak. However, I don't shun people without the same hobbies. Some of my friends have ZERO hobbies in common with me. Some Christians I respect and associate with are in different denominations-from me AND each other. We never shut the door on learning from each other, even when we disagree. Of course, there are some people who DO. I'm not speaking for them. This is fair, since they're not only not speaking for me, they're not speaking TO me, either. ==== Oh, and, AFAIK, bikers who SWEAR by Harleys are still able to appreciate Hondas and others. :)

See, now, Mike, THIS is what I was talking about. I thoroughly disagree with everthing in this post, doctrinally. HOWEVER, I find that, among your posts, it is of a higher calibre than you normally post. It is straightforward, brief, clear, and to-the-point. You have something to say, and you come right out and say it. Therefore, although this is not a perfect post, it sets a standard for well-WRITTEN posts among your posts. (That means that-were I you-I would attempt to make my posts more like this one from now on. As this relates to your posts, and your posts alone, this is not a recommendation for anyone ELSE to use this post in that fashion. They have their own standards to live up to. So, don't make more out of this than I'm saying.) [Thanks kindly, WTH. I'm not used to a poster refuting HIMSELF on the same page. That will save the rest of us some time. This post here refutes your previous post concerning the irrelevance of good conduct to the Christian. It is appreciated richly. Really.]

Here's another example that "simple" means "straightforward", and is not something bad. The new guy seems to have worked everything out pretty fast. :)

[After reading my comments that BG Leonard has been reported of sterling character (as opposed to men who have been reported addicts to vices, molesters, rapists, plagiarists, and then were held up as examples of leaders, WTH said the following:] [This, of course, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my original point. Someone invented an objection to BG Leonard, and made a meritless claim that he had issues. My reply was what is considered obvious-BG Leonard appears to ALL EYEWITNESSES to have led as spotless a life as it is possible to do at this time. (Technically, at the time he lived.) WTH then went off on an irrelevant tangent about the words people say being important, and seems to suggest that the deeds they do have little or no relevance to God. I find this so fundamentally moronic, so manifestly stupid, so easy-for-any-Christian-or-informed-nonChristian to refute that I'm not even bothering-mainly because WTH still won't get it when it's written. The rest of you may feel free to answer it, however. A little variety in posting is good for us all.]

[WordWolf in boldface and brackets.]

Sounds like you have no communications with this group at present. From whom, then, have you heard they are "really considering" this? Would it be a less-than-objective source known for...alternative interpretations of events, text and people? Do you really KNOW they're considering this?

Don't forget how the "college" rule changed suddenly when bot's teenagers were ready to start college-then "no college" became an "old wineskin"...

My usual rule of thumb is "one quote every 24 hours, no more" and "hints are few, only after the 2nd quote is up, quotes and clues proceed from the obscure to the obvious. If nobody's guessed after 3 days, the pace increases." That's not even a rule for me, though. :)

Did I get it? If not, we need another clue...

Or an exercise contrary to thought. One or the other. Here's a freebie. This is one example where the clear and plain text of pfal says one thing, and the Mikean pfal claims that it's not true. vpw claimed that ALL of time (from "in the beginning" to "forever") falls into one of seven administrations. As claimed in pfal, they are, in chronological order: 1) Paradise. In the Garden of Eden. (Insert Iron Butterfly music here.) This ended in Genesis 3 with the fall of Man, the promise of the Messiah, and the casting out of Man from paradise, in that order. 2) Patriarch. This is the period where The Word still exists in the stars, and as the spoken Word from prophets. This continued until the Law was given. 3) Law. This is the period of the Written Word. This continued until the coming Christ arrived. 4) Christ. This is the period of one year, where God's Christ, the Living Word, completed God's plan of redemption. 5) Grace. This began in the Day of Pentecost, and continues to this day, with Holy Spirit in each Christian. 6) Revelation, or Appearing. This is the period that begins with The Gathering Together (aka "the Rapture") and carries thru all the End-Time events of the Book of Revelation and other places, until the end of Revelation 20. 7) Final Paradise, or Glory. This is events as of Revelation 21, where God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes. That continues to the ages of the ages. Exactly 7 administrations, taking advantage of "number in Scripture". So, vpw claimed all this. Until Mike, it's clear that we've been-as vpw has it-in the Grace administration. Mike, however, is claiming that vpw spoke of a new administration. Since we're not seeing the miracles and global catastrophes of the 7-year tribulation, it's evident we didn't miss the end of the Grace administration, with Christ collecting the brethren (I Corinthians 15 and I Thessalonians 4). So, apparently, Mike has it that the pfal administrations are in some way defective, since we have-not only at least EIGHT where vpw gave SEVEN administrations, but this one pops up out of nowhere, ruining the charts from pfal. Mike's previously been somewhat tight-lipped on this subject when asked. Perhaps now we'll get some details. When did this administration begin? Is it supposedly one of the 7 in pfal? If not, why was pfal's list deficient and in ERROR? When does this administration end? (Events ending it are fine.) What characterizes the difference between THIS administration and the Grace administration?

[WordWolf in boldface & brackets.]

GROSS lie. vpw did BG Leonard a gross DISservice. BG Leonard already had a reputation, and was making a BIGGER one. When he found out about vpw's dishonest dealings with him (lying to him directly and also plagiarizing his work), Leonard was VERY offended and hurt. Christians are NOT supposed to do that to each other. Rather than sue vpw-which was his legal right-he exercised his choice NOT to, then added elaborate copyright notices to his books, AND became much more careful about that sort of thing. In short, if vpw hadn't wounded him, Leonard wouldnt have "closed up" to the degree he did, which limited his exposure to other Christians. And what did vpw do to "publicize" Leonard? He made one or 2 aside comments about Leonard, and specified Leonard was not good with the Word. That was a complete lie, since Leonard was GREAT with the Word. That's why vpw ripped off his work. "Publicize" him? He SLANDERED him by saying Leonard was not good with the Word, KNOWING this was a lie. Claiming vpw advertised Leonard is like claiming Truth.com advertises for tobacco companies! Leonard's class became the first vpw class. The material was all retainedand split into 3 levels. To that was added material from Bullinger and Stiles and other people. THAT's not oversimplifying. Neither is saying that vpw NEVER said that simply putting together the work of those 3 was the sum total of pfal, not counting the jokes. The homileticist in him just HAD to add some jokes. Go ahead- what "bad pieces" did Leonard have in his classes? And what are you basing this claim on? I'm looking for an answer more fact-oriented than "well, they must have, because otherwise vpw wouldn't have done what he did..." And he rarely contradicted Bullinger. Wrong. But they were unable to be offended at being ripped off because they were dead. Except for Bullinger-who was blessed to bless Christians- but hurt specifically because of the actions of vpw. You refuse to admit the felonies and misdemeanors of a man who did much, much bad, while wearing a mask of good. You barely interacted with the man. Those who DID paint a VERY different story than you. What you "experienced" mostly is interactions with the books and tapes. Forgive me for thinking that a man's press is a less-than-objective source of information ABOUT that man.

Actually, he could have gotten BETTER results had he worked with the original sources above-board, rather than hiding them and pretending they didn't exist. And by "didn't exist" I mean "a class of Leonard's that became the entire PFAL class" and "a book of Stiles' that became the entire White Book" and so on. He did his students a disservice and wounded Leonard by demonstrating an UN-Christian lack of integrity. Only dysfunctional families operate with secrets and lies and pretend things are one way when they are not. If that's my ONLY choice for a family, then give me a university where I can at least get HONESTY and INTEGRITY. Of course, I'd much prefer a HEALTH FAMILY that ALSO has honesty and integrity-which is what I insist on now. Or vpw was making a buck and building his organization and fan club, breaking the law and disrespecting his fellow-Christians in the process. One or the other. You like it because that's the way he did it. If he'd done it WITHthe footnotes, you'd be arguing FOR that. If he printed the books on goatskin, you'd argue for THAT. As we all easily saw from books like "Babylon Mystery Religion", it is possible to COMPLETELY cite your sources, give credit where it is due, and STILL have a VERY user-friendly book. Most of us don't blame God for vpw plagiarizing the works of other Christians, and vpw certainly knew how to market "his" classes. Give the man credit for his skills-he was a MASTERFUL marketer. He had no need whatsoever for God or anyone else to show him how to position himself in the market.

Actually, that's called "hedging his bets" or "covering his bases". If someone caught something he lifted, this is his excuse covering it. The truth of the matter-plus the original quote, would read as follows: "Lots of the stuff I teach is not original." Truth: Virtually NONE of what vpw taught was original, nor the product of his own work. "Putting it all together so that it all fit-that was the original work." Truth: vpw took BG Leonard's class, retained 100% of its contents, added nothing, changed its name from "Gifts of the Spirit" to "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today", changed the originator's name to his own, and taught that. Later, he split the one class into 3, and filled in the blanks with material completely lifted from Bullinger, Stiles and a few others. (And changed the name again.) So, from the beginning, it ALREADY fit. vpw changed NONE of it in the early class, and he retained all of Leonard's work in one or another of the levels. "I learned whatever I could, and then I worked the Scriptures." Truth: All the material he picked up, he used in the form he picked it up in. The only changes he made-with one cosmetic exception-were in incorporating each work into one class. The initial "PFAL"/"Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" class was taught THREE MONTHS after vpw took Leonard's entire class for the first time (his initial exposure, he INTERRUPTED a class IN PROGRESS, remember), which is insufficient time to even BEGIN to compare Scripture to a 3-week class. Thus, it should come as no surprise that "vpw's" class was a near-perfect photocopy of Leonard's class, with nothing added nor removed. This was confirmed eventually by people who are now graduates of BOTH courses. "What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept, but what wasn't, I dropped." Truth: In the initial classes, he neither added nor removed ANYTHING. In later classes, his additions from more sources required him to make certain choices to select WHICH source he was going to use for something. (Eventually, sources will conflict.) So, the upshot of vpw's comment was to claim that he had a few sources for a few things, then he went off and overhauled them, and "made them his own" by understanding them in his own way. It was an offhand comment made in one book that some people bought. The truth of the matter was that vpw lifted his classes entirely from the bodies of work of others, and without their work, he would have been NO class at all. (In fact, many people today consider that to be the case.) That there is zero attribution-and a complete absence of their names-in the books that were completely derived from their work, while those same books say that vpw used the Bible as his guidebook and textbook after trashing all his Christian sourcebooks- tells a far different story than this quote is being purported to tell.

Modaustin, since Mike is either unable or unwilling to answer you (or his selective reading is skipping your posts), the relevant comment referred to page 12 of this thread, towards the top, Mike's post as of 1:18am Eastern, 12/20/05, post 223 on this thread, the part after the red sentence. Anything else, Mike will have to answer you more specifically.

That's your opinion. When it came to "Jesus Christ Our Passover" and "Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed", vpw-at most-contributed an introduction/preface to each, plus his name. The research people who wrote the entire contents are not even mentioned. A more honest-although STILL not wholly candid-approach would have been to write "EDITED BY", rather than "by". Most people would view that differently from you. You made the same claim about EW Bullinger, and THAT was disprovenas well. At MOST, any team effort would say "edited by" and the head's name- otherwise, he's vulnerable to legal action. Universities prize intellectual honesty and the reputation of same, so that's a major deal. We're supposed to trust your version of what they said?

[When a post is that size, that's all they come away with.]

I expect many things amaze you, WTH. In this post, this was hardly a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but- how did Gary Gygax put it again? The tarnished kettle's besooted vision causes it to suspect it detects a spot of tarnish on the silver tray it beholds.