WordWolf

Ok, we already saw that one was just silly. This is just plain strange. For Jesus to have been tempted to sin, I can buy. For Jesus to have been tempted to sin sexually, I can buy. For Jesus to have been tempted to sin sexually in a homosexual fashion, I can buy (but it's technically speculation). If Jesus was raped, he wasn't "tempted"-he was a victim. If it becomes a matter of "he had to experience all sins to absolve them", then that means that his brief ministry included all sorts of perversions and crimes that he personally experienced, even if he was only an unwilling victim of them and not a willing participant. Hey, be CONSISTENT in your claim. Therefore, either homosexual rape has NOTHING to do with the account, by that reasoning, or hundreds and hundreds of other things best left unmentioned are included by the SAME reasoning.

A) So VPW DID TEACH THIS. Good to know. B) "set at naught".... Appears in Mark 9:12, and Luke 23:11 referring to Jesus. Also used in Acts 4:11 "This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." Which references Psalm 118:22 "The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner." Acts 19:27, the union meeting. "So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth." Romans 14:10. "But why doest thou judge thy brother? Or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ." I haven't even opened the Greek yet, and it looks like his claim lacks merit for serious consideration.

Good to know. What I REALLY want to know MORE than "did lcm teach this?" which you confirmed and I wasn't sure of, is "did vpw teach this?" Offhand, did lcm use any explanation we didn't cover, that you remember him using? (Which, of course, is no guarantee it's EVERYTHING he said, of course.)

IIRC, they've previously said that people have left, but on their own volition- that there was NEVER a "mark and avoid".

Ok. Well, since the Septuagint was a Greek TRANSLATION of the OT from the Hebrew, we can skip that and go straight to the Hebrew. Which I just did. (Scroll up if you missed the digression, any of you.) Therefore, what the words meant in the OT English, Septuagint, Spanish, Italian, Latin, and Klingon are interesting, but lacking in authority. (Not that I have anything against RD-I'd suspect he's not teaching this one any more unless I had proof he WAS.) Good idea.I'll dig that out later, in the interest of completeness, unless someone beats me to it. (PLEASE beat me to it.) Feh. Can someone break this deadlock, then? Was it on the audio or not? I know the video claimed Peter denied Jesus "three times three times" or NINE times, whereas JCOP makes a case for SIX denials.

The Noah thing was not "the unkindest cut". It's mentioned here: Genesis 9:2-23. (http://www.biblegateway.com) It says that Ham "saw [Noah's] nakedness". What does it mean? Well, read Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 in their entirety, and you'll see. Leviticus 20:11a is the short form. "And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness:" (Or Leviticus 18:8.) So, Ham didn't literally do anything to Mr Noah-he did it to Mrs Noah. Now, the reason Canaan, son of Ham, was cursed becomes a little clearer. (His father was Ham, and his mother...) I wanted to get that covered also. In case anyone's curious, that was covered by one of the corps in one of the "gmir" articles (which stopped around the time PoP was read) and that's where I saw this taught. Further, I lent that article to a guy who had NO connection to twi, and was Jewish-and-when he gave it back, he agreed with the conclusions. We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.

The problem here, of course, is that the Bible was not given in King James English. Thus, taking the Hebrew word "fill", rendering it "replenish", then ignoring the Hebrew word completely and making a doctrine around the specific meaning of the word "replenish", is wrong, error, and what vpw would have called "private interpretation." (For those who want to follow along without a Bible, you can use http://www.biblegateway.com ) In this case, it is true that the word in the King James "sport" CAN refer to conjugal relations. (Genesis 26:8.) However, it also doesn't sometimes (Proverbs 10:23, II Peter 2:13). That's all a DIVERSION, since all that's based on ENGLISH. Therefore, we check the Hebrew. I've found that, when checking the meaning of a word in Hebrew or Greek, a good thing to do is to find the word in that language, look at the places it's used to mean the same thing (in my trusty concordance) AND to go to the back of the concordance and look at all the OTHER words it was translated into, and the places that is used. Then I know what it meant in the Bible whether or NOT I can read Hebrew. Now, the chapter on Samson uses the Hebrew word "tsachaq" in one verse, and "sachaq" in the other, interchangeably. Now, "sachaq" is also translated "sport" in Proverbs 26:19, where it certainly does NOT mean conjugal relations. "Tsachaq" is used in Genesis 26:8, where it might mean conjugal relations, and I think a strong case can be made for it in the general. So, so far it's about even. Now I check the other usages of both words. Sachaq is used to mean deride have in derision laugh make sport mock rejoice scorn be in sport make sport play rejoice mocker them that make merry laugh to scorn The last one is II Chronicles 30:10. "So the posts passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh even unto Zebulun: but they laughed them to scorn, and mocked them." OBVIOUSLY not conjugal relations. Feel free to hammer that across by comparing the other usages for yourself. For fun,you can look at the coognate "tsechoq", which seems to never carry a meaning of conjugal relations. === Now, let's see, "tsachaq"... laugh make sport mock play sport Genesis 17:17, 18:12, 18:13, 18:15 and 21:6 all have "tsachaq" translated "laugh", and 21:6 has the word "laugh" twice- "Sarah said 'God has brought me laughter [tsechoq], and everyone who hears about this wiill laugh [tsachaq] with me." All of these usages involve the physical laughter involved when either Abraham or Sarah laughed at the thought of having a child when they thought it was impossible. Therefore, I conclude that the usages of the word "sachaq" or "tsachaq" mean to scorn, laugh, make a laughingstock, be silly and -by far the most rare usage- conjugal relations. Therefore, not only does this not INDICATE Samson was molested, the overwhelming likelihood is that he was NOT- he was mocked and humiliated. If anything else MUST be read into it, the verse MUST be clearer on the subject, because one has to go far afield to try to support it. No verse says "here, this is what it means", neither in the verse itself, nor the context/surrounding verses, and the overwhelming usages of the term BEFORE say otherwise. IIRC, "all Scripture" supposedly "explains itself" those 3 ways. Scripture remains silent on whether this word meant exactly this here. As vpw himself said, "Where the Word of God remains silent, he that speaks is a fool." Why he chose to speak on this subject where the Word of God remains silent cannot be told with absolute accuracy. However, using his own rules, the verses do NOT mean that, and he is judged a fool for forcing the meaning onto them. I STILL can't find a verse that MIGHT support this meaning. Anyone?

Ok, I just reviewed all 4 Gospels again, from the garden of Gethsemane before the mob arrives, until after Jesus is crucified. If there's a verse in ANY gospel that even SUGGESTS it, I can't find it. The CLOSEST I can get is the "mocking", which is the same conclusion I came to the other day when I did my FIRST search. If one were willing to completely rewrite the verses, one might try saying that when Pilate told the crowd he was going to have Jesus "chastized", then let him go, that this was supposedly an expected part of the process. However, one not only would have to rewrite the meaning of the word "chastize", but would then have to claim that Pilate told a crowd "He hasn't committed any crimes. So, I'll have him raped and then released," and that's beyond silly. So, I can't find a single verse that can be squeezed to support it.

They were scared of more than "continuing the line". Genesis 19 shows destruction of city after city, and Lot and his daughters went and hid in a cave in the mountains. They thought it was the end of the world, and they were the last 3 people ALIVE. Genesis 19:31 (KJV) "And the firstborn said unto the younger, 'Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:' " Doesn't mean they were RIGHT, but it's a bit more understandable that someone might do something that extreme if they thought the situation was that desperate. And I came to the same conclusion about their morals that you did. My OPINION is that Lot lied thru his teeth when he addressing that mob and claimed his daughters were, um, 'virtuous.' Of course, this is a digression from the main subject. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled topic.

Bingo. I took it on the Beta video tapes. (It was never on VHS-at least hq never authorized it.) So, it was on the audio version, which was a prototype of the video version. That explains where lcm got it, and the others. That's exactly how I see that. Thank YOU, Roy. That was half my question right answered right there in one post. So did I. The "Jesus was raped" thing was from lcm in the early 80s, possibly also the 70s. He mentioned it in his 2-tape rant against homosexuality, "Victorious Unity in One God." (There was about 5 minutes on unity, and something over an hour on homosexuality.)

This topic is NOT meant to mock a serious subject. It's ONLY meant to examine specific claims made in twi. Specifically, that Samson and Jesus were molested, and the accounts of both were included in the Bible. As to the Samson account, the verses used to justify this were Judges 16:25 and 27, when the Philistines had captured Samson. Judges 16:25 (KJV) "And it came to pass, when their hearts were merry, that they said, 'Call for Samson, that he may make us sport.' And they called for Samson out of the prison house; and he made them sport: and they set him between the pillars." Judges 16:27 "Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about 3,000 men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport." The phrase "made sport", here, I was told, meant that the Philistines molested him. I was told this as a partial explanation of a DIFFERENT doctrine. I questioned the claim-made by lcm and others- (lcm did one of his 'you'd know this of you worked The Word' on this)- that Jesus was molested when he was captured and tortured. IIRC, these would be the verses used to explain this one... Matthew 27:29 (KJV) "And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!" Matthew 27:31 "And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own rainment on him, and led him away to crucify him." Mark 15:17-20 "And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head, And began to salute him, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him." Luke 23:11 "And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate." Now, it seems to me that the clear and evident meaning in the verses of these accounts is that both men were beaten and laughed at and made a spectacle of- but to read into EITHER that this included any kind of sexual contact is to insert a meaning where it does not exist. It is what vpw called "private interpretation." Can any of you logically find his meaning in ANY of those accounts? Can any of you find a commentary that supports it? ======== Separate question. I know lcm taught these. Does anyone here remember vpw teaching them? It's all well and good to SUPPOSE that vpw taught lcm this- just as he taught him the "swear" thing- but I'd like at least one person to sing out and say "yes-I heard vpw teach this, really." Thank you again for your cooperation. (And no, this is the last question of this sort that I have at this time. The OTHER question made me think of this one.)

So it's something like the secular branch of the Franciscan order? No formal vows, you train and you just do your best? Or do orders come down thru Opus Dei in specific things? I don't mean "read Acts this week", or "pray for the hurricane survivors", I mean stuff like "proceed to the next town over..."

In other words, the IVP BBC is not taking sides on this one. "Undoubtedly"? I get suspicious when a minority position is irrefutable or unable to be doubted. That usually means that further scrutiny shows it is an unwarranted assumption that someone's trying to avoid defending by claiming it's unassailable. I noticed that he can make no stronger case than anyone for the opposing POV, and they didn't say theirs was "unassailable..." So, he's supporting the minority position-no "grab" was involved. Has anyone found support for vpw's and Victor Hamilton's position other than "this undoubtedly means that"?

Well, that information is all part of the "one possibility." Either the guy swearing did the grab, or he didn't do the grab. So far, that argued AGAINST the grab.

Honestly, it's been on one of my "back burners" for some time now. It came up in a discussion here quite some time ago, and that wasn't the right time to question whether or not it ever happened. However, something about it was particularly bugging me today (no idea WHAT, but SOMETHING) so I gave it my shot, then submitted the question for everyone else. For that matter, it reminded me of something else, but one question at a time. What??? Maybe someone's spoofed my address. Check the GSC'ers who HAVE your address, AND have mine, and have them do a virus test. Can't be many of them-few have MINE.

I think you confused this account with the OTHER account where he talked about those evil "establishment" ministers. The Paul was a puh-vert one, he stood up, said 'shut up!" and left. End of story. The OTHER one was where he AND HIS FAMILY attended a church that had a guest speaker. The guest speaker basically said the Bible was full of fiction and so on.. His son (Don) had more sense than he did, since he excused himself not long into the sermon, saying he couldnt sit and listen to this. Afterwards, vpw and mrs got up to leave. An usher or whoever stopped him, and said they were sorry he had to leave. vpw supposedly replied "Sir, it has been a DISGRACE for me to have been here today. Then I gave him one of my brochures for power for abundant living." Two different stories. I'd agree on that...

No, that's not what was said.... Here's what happened... vpw made a claim during the taped pfal. That claim was one of the references to how bad Christian ministers are. It was when he was covering Paul's thorn in the flesh. He said that the conclusion he made was that whatever affliction the minister had, he claimed Paul had-if it was a foot injury, he would say Paul had a hurt foot. vpw claimed he once attended a sermon where the minister said that 'Paul was a sex puh-vert--that he had a physical weakness for women.' vpw claimed he stood up, said "Shut up!" and stormed out of the room. So, vpw never said HE thought Paul was a sex puh-vert.

I'm requesting the assistance of all those here who have their own Bible resources, commentaries, and so on. Genesis 24:2-3 (KJV) "And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that rules over all that he had, 'Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: And I will make thee swear...'" Genesis 24:9 (KJV) "And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and sware to him concerning that matter." ==== Now, vpw taught that this meant that the man swearing put his hands on the external reproductive organs, as many of you are aware. (He said the guy grabbed the other guy's nuts when swearing.) I've been doing some checking. I can find references to the thigh ITSELF being symbolic of the 'power' of the reproductive organ. (That is, that the actual, LITERAL thigh has that connotation- not that the word "thigh" MEANS the reproductive organs.) I can find a notice that a "few" (no names) modern readers think that the word "thigh" should be translated as vpw did. I can find a few anti-Christian websites that translate the verses this way. I can find a note that John Calvin said (contemporary to his lifetime) that-in the East- they STILL swear with the hand on the thigh in a few places. (I can't find the references to it in use now.) I can find references to people thinking that the word "testify" or "swear" is connected to the word "testes", when the truth of the matter is that the word "testari" is the origin of "testimony". ("Testari" meaning "third", as a "witness" is a "neutral THIRD-party".) So, having exhausted most of my own resources, I turn to you guys. What do your resources say? Is there actual merit in this claim? Is this another case of "I found a secret which is the truth-we all have secret knowledge!" Is it another case of a man's obsession with his own reproductive organs?

[i'm sure we didn't, and as a gesture of niceness I'll translate it into simple English for you. If you care, you will learn something. (If not, then not.)] [Wrong TWICE in ONE sentence. That's pretty economical.Error 1: Your "opinion" was not attacked. There was no "I THINK that..." You posted "This is simple dr wierwille was an apostle." That was the ENTIRE content of your post. That was a statement of fact. So, your statement of fact was challenged. What made it worse was that there was an intelligent discussion, where positions were supported, in play at the time- "This is my opinion, and here's why I hold it"- and you just dumped a statement as if you have divine fiat to end discussions with a flat statement. Surely even a LITTLE attention would have shown there was a discussion and people supported their positions. Error 2: Your statement of fact wasn't "attacked" because it's disliked. Your statement of fact was challenged because you failed to support it in any way whatsoever. Furthermore, the opposite position had been ALREADY presented AND SUPPORTED. Thus, your post said, in effect- "I don't care what logic and evidence say, I claim the opposite position is the truth." If you spent some time among normal people on the internet, you'd see that just making bald assertions usually invites everyone to point out that you failed to supply any justification for your claim. That's HARDLY unique to here, and there's plenty of boards where they would have been a LOT harsher on you for pulling that. ] [You failed to demonstrate that this was THINKING. You presented an opinion as FACT and provided NO reason for anyone to think that it had ANY chance of being true. That made your statement as strong as if you'd claimed the earth was flat and didn't explain your reasoning. There's a difference between THINKING and REASONING, and DOGMATISM and BLIND OBEDIENCE. Your own idol, vpw, claimed that most people have been tricked, and only THINK that they think. If anything, you've demonstrated that you fall into the category he was referring to. Mind you, if you could have actually SUPPORTED your position, that would have been a different story.] [As anyone can clearly see, your "theory" (which was a SUPPOSITION,not a "THEORY" at all) was NOT proven. Form a hypothesis, and prepare and execute a double-blind, and THEN maybe you'll have a real "theory".] [Another double play! Two errors in one sentence! You've proven NEITHER that you were "hated" nor that what you believe is the truth! The facts actually are that you have no idea how to reason and debate. IF YOU PUT IN THE EFFORT, that CAN be changed. We might even help. (This here post can be considered "help", in that it's breaking down the flaws in your process, and you can apply this to later posts and make more logical posts.)] [You STILL haven't offered any support for your position, but at least you're phrasing yourself correctly there. This is your belief.]

Oops. The correct link I meant to provide is http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

I wasn't going to go there, but you asked..... I've read your posts so far. They reflect a lack of experience in communication online. (I don't know what you communicate like offline, but few communicate very differently when switching media.) They reflect a lack of understanding of basic "netiquette." That can fly here, where that's true of more than a few people, and may work in a twi-type environment where communication with the outside world is verboten. It wouldn't fly on most boards I attend, where people your age are expected to communicate better than that-and they do. You also have expressed a lack of understanding of admin and moderator duties HERE. That means you don't understand them ANYWHERE. When I got here, I understood them. That means that I've disagreed with the mods, but never questioned their suitability for their tasks, since I understood what they were doing. All of that-lack of online experience, lack of moderator experience and pathos- add to that that it's highly unlikely you'll be appointing moderators who HAVE such experience, since you'll have to basically hand over the entire board to them- and that means you've some life-lessons coming up. Thank you and have a nice day!

Technically, GS is not "the haters" of twi. We have compassion towards the people who are currently in, and many have pleasant memories of positive interactions we had when in-with each other, not the framework or its executors. Further, sounding the alarm on something is hardly the same as "hating" it, just as refusing to sound an alarm is hardly the same as "loving" it. ======== Further, vpw-love is hardly a "middle-ground" between -the group that pretends vpw is a distant memory at best, but was great once and -the people who were tricked into thinking that he was great once, but know better now Finally, as to whether a "middle ground" is necessarily any less "correct" than either, I offer this: http://www.nikzor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html Thank you all so much! :)

[WordWolf in boldface as normal.]

Good point. I wasn't even paying attention to the number, there. I'm expecting that the "100,000" was a number based on the number of people SIGNED UP for pfal, not the number of people who FINISHED pfal. When I first took it, 8 were signed up, 7 appeared at Session 1, 3 completed Session 12. The best rule of thumb I've heard has been that membership in any year (or whatever you want to call being their thrall) could be figured by taking the number of attendees at the ROA, then doubling that number. That meant attendance at the ROA increased and decreased proportionally to the regular attendance at fellowships. Oddly enough, I came to the same conclusion without checking with anyone. (About proportions, not doubling the number.)

My count was that 80% of those active in twi as of ROA '88 had left as of ROA '89, and some people (unsure the numbers) left before that (as a result of PoP) or after that (needed to finish something up before leaving.) One statistic I saw was that 18% of attendees remained after about 1991, so my numbers matched pretty well. The people who left 85-88, IMHO, left more due to PoP than other reasons, and the people who left 88-90, IMHO, left due to lcm's line in the sand. However, that might have been "the straw that broke the camel's back" if they were thinking about PoP already. Of course, if lcm hadn't been thinking about PoP, he would never have drawn his line in the sand in the FIRST place (IMHO.)