WordWolf

I finally got up to the actual list. Nice list. I have the following comments on the list. (Not corrections, more along the lines of "ruminations".) -I wish you had spent a line or 2 naming the 'droit de seigneur' (or however it's spelled), since the concept frames his state of mind, as spelled out in other threads. It's especially when you consider people's statements that the minister is equivalently "the king" nowadays. A full discussion of this, of course, would get hot & be a debate. However, I think a few words on the concept itself need not be. - For me, the easiest way to see the difference between allos and heteros is in the first 10 verses of Galatians. Paul marvelled that they had so soon moved to "another"(heteros-a different) gospel, "which is not another"(allo-another of the same). If I remember correctly, vpw used both this and the "made up" explanation (one means "other of only two") in his books, but never tried to explain why there are 2 meanings, or when to use which meaning. That was just something I was used to ignoring. ---------------------------------- BTW, Rafael, I distinctly do NOT remember you EVER teaching anything from 'the 13th Tribe', or referring to its contents in any way, at any time in my presence. In fact, the only time I ever heard you mention anything like that was once when I specifically ASKED you about the book (which I haven't read). Your response indicated that you weren't directly saying it was trash, however, it was obvious you were not endorsing it, and were not confident of its contents. You even shrugged at one point when I asked you if its premise was correct. Your response was in the same style as my responses to any questions about the CF & S class. (Slightly evasive, & obviously meant to close discussion on the subject as fast as possible.) If you ever taught it when I wasn't looking, or in the middle-to-late 90's, then I wouldn't know, of course. (I suspect you only got MORE skeptical by that time, not less.) That reminds me.... once we've had a break, does anyone want to pull out their CF & S syllabus and add a few pages to this thread? Imagine all the fun we could have! :)--> But of course, I forgot....... ...you haven't REALLY read the collateral books until you've read them in the original Klingon. :)--> This is WordWolf signing off and heading for the tub. Alert Ted Koppel.

Man! It took me most of the week to finally catch up to the end of the thread! -I don't remember vpw's comment about angels not singing as appearing in any of the books. (Doesn't mean it's NOT there-I just didn't note it.) He DID say it a number of times. Somewhere I have a tape where he mentioned it, during the songs. He said, of why he has people sing "..angels do NOT sing. SAINTS sing. That's why I have you people sing-because none of you are angels. *pause for obligatory audience laugh* Even you ladies.*pause form obligatory audience laugh* Unless someone's willing to pay me a lot of money, I'm not going to sit thru all the tapes to find it. ---- Rafael, I haven't looked at the list yet. If I made the list, please use my screen-name. ----- You did include the "droit de signeur", right? ("every woman in the kingdom belonged to the king") If memory serves, one of the ladies originally identified it by name, on its own thread. (I think she shud b asked about a mention, if you do include it.) ------ Thanks for the reminder you left me a few pages back. I'll doublecheck it, & post a reply as soon as I can (hopefully, 24 hours or less.) ------ Please warn us when you're going to post something that funny. My laugh produced a doppler echo back to me. :)--> Maybe you can post a picture of that river in Egypt. :)-->

I got that one last year for 2002. A few items were on that one that weren't here. Let's see.... -You check ingredients labels to see if your soup contains echinacea. -You page your son to come down to dinner. He e-mails back "what did you make?" -Clearing out the dining room involves throwing all the wrappers out of the backseat. -You receive a list like this and laugh. -Even worse, you're going to forward it to your friends.

Barrax, I remember you. I still haven't worked that business about the "outer darkness" yet, but I have it pencilled in for further study. If you've worked it in detail, I'd love a copy.

Well, that's a whole other story entirely. If someone's refusing to answer clear questions they know the answers to because they can't be bothered, then they're just asking for a pimp-slap. I can't communicate with someone like that.

If people who sit thru the Rocky Horror Picture Show week after week can recite all the words, and some people can recite all of "Alice's Restaurant" from memory, then after the first 7 times sitting thru piffle, I'm bound to remember something. Besides, that thing about saying "I don't know" rather than guessing was a major point to me. (I still use it.) Actually, I'm surprised I don't remember for sure who spoke after Johnny jumped up. Also, I forget which one said the seed meant what. I think Maggie was the 3rd, & she thought the good seed was the good works of man. I think one said it was the church, one said it was the Word. (I think.) I know it wasn't Snowball Peter or Herman B, because they were only mentioned once each. (Henry B was a different story.) Actually, it was only when I tried reciting the whole section from memory that I remembered just how pompous the followup to "it's no sin to be stupid" was. I would have stopped at his famous "that's right", & leave out the 'stupid' comment. Of course, some people still think of it as the greatness of God's Word in pfal. Not me, but some people. That's right. Bless your little heart.

Yes, Oldies, it was right in one of the early sessions. We were going over the parable of the sower. "What's the good seed?" And Maggie Muggins, Johnny Jumpup, and a 3rd person (Henry B? I forget) gave their opinions, having only heard that the sower sowed good seed. "Then I jump up & down & pull my hair out and say 'no, no, a thousand times no!' " (vpw never lacked for drama). ...He says "if you don't know, say you don't know! It's not wrong to say you don't know, it's wrong to indicate that you DO know when you do not know-when you guess. That's right. It's no sin to be stupid. It's a sin to stay stupid when the greatness of God's Word is available in Power for Abundant Living." ------------------------------------------ Really full of himself, wasn't he?

Even the Advanced class notes on PFAL pretty much repeat vpw's paraphrase from Bullinger. You remember something else being emphasized, Zix? I'm blanking-please pass it along. (Somebody might want to see what the Home Studies say about this. I'm pretty sure that either they, the Advanced class exam, or, more likely, both, asked a question about this very subject.)

I'm leaning towards what's been said about slandering Jesus by "tarring" him with the label "Samaritan". It would make a lot of sense-notably in that same chapter, by those "We're Children of ABRAHAM!" types.

Once again, Mike has successfully written another lengthy post, with complete disregard for addressing any errors of PFAL, while maintaining he doesn't have time to address even one in a small post. I suspect he didn't actually READ Rafael's post about Jesus at age 12. If he did, it sure didn't sink in. ------------------------------ "I said to her 'baby, ain't you got no shame?' She just looked at me Uncomprehendingly Like cows at a passing train."

Here's a little piece of obscure Tolkien trivia you may find interesting. (Or not.) The original version of "the Hobbit" (Bilbo's journey, during which he gets the ring) has that scene done differently. In the original, Bilbo and Gollum DO have the riddle game. However, Bilbo wins fair & square, and Gollum give him the ring as a present. Supposedly, Bilbo's talk of the ring as a "present" was one of the things that got Gandalf suspicious. (Gollum, somewhere in the trilogy, refers to the ring as his "birthday present"- why will become clear when the 3rd movie is released.) Supposedly, the current version of the book is what actually happened, the original is what Bilbo SAID happened. The current one has Bilbo stumble and slip the ring in his pocket unconsciously when he puts out his hands to get up. During the riddle game, Bilbo, trying to think of another riddle, puts his hands in his pockets. "What have I got in my pockets?" he mumbles absent-mindedly. Gollum claims that, since it's not a proper riddle, he should get 3 guesses. He misses, & goes away to get something. :)--> (He's had enough of this-he's going to get the ring, turn invisible, and kill Bilbo.) When he comes up blank, he realizes-too late-what "the Bagginnss" had in his pocket! He comes running back-and past Bilbo, whose finger had slipped into the ring. For those of you who wondered how Gollum knew the names "Baggins" and "Shire", Bilbo introduced himself properly when he met Gollum. I'll have to check the opening of "T2T" for that glow, Zix. Thanks for pointing it out. Anybody know how come the scene in Bree, in FotR was so different in the common room? I thought JRR's original version of what Merry & Pippin were saying, & Frodo vanishing, was a LOT more plausible than the movie version. They're running for their lives, & all day, Frodo doesn't think to mention he's travelling under an alias? Barleyman Butterbur, the innkeeper,doesn't have a note from Gandalf here. It would have helped, I thought. Then again, I thought that the idea of Strider carrying around the pieces of Narsil (in the book) was a stupid concept from the beginning. Guy travels light, & his main weapon is broken? Plus, he brings it on the road, where it can be lost? Anybody know if there's any plan to get special knives for Merry & Pippin, to replace the ones that they were supposed to get in the missing barrow-wight scene? (Sam, too, if I remember correctly.) It DID become an issue in the 3rd book, & I hope that scene stays intact. Frodo's barrow-knife, as you recall, was broken when the King of the Nazgul and Frodo faced off at the ford at the edge of Rivendell.

Rafael, Luke 14:33. Seems to me the CONNOTATION of "apostasia" (or the cognate thereof) is positive here-although the KJV has picked as negative a word to translate its DENOTATION into as possible. (Unless someone's ready to argue that being Christ's disciple is of equal or lesser value than all his earthy possessions.) Rafael, I still say that events falling under both a positive AND a negative connotation occur virtually simultaneously, and both right in the context of that verse. So, I still say that BOTH translations are correct in this instance, depending on which event you reference.

"So... ....does anyone know how to MADISON?" The Time Warp also occasionally shows up at dance events. Ever see 75 people on a dance floor all spiral to the floor as a song drains away? :)--> Those who love Yellow Submarine should make sure they see the blue edition. It has a few added lines, an entire missing scene (when the "goldfish bowl" is opened & we meet Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band), and an entire musical sequence ("Hey Bulldog" aka "You Can Talk To Me") which I liked better than most of the other numbers. :)--> Man, Max Headroom was ahead of its time there on net-net-network 23. :)--> If you all will excuse me, I'm getting in line now for tickets to "Underworld", due out later this year "sometime". I don't care HOW much it's going to suck-I'm gonna see it.

About 'apostasia', I think the most literal translation would be "a moving away from". (Those of you who know your Greek, feel free to chime in & embarrass the hell out of me.) The word "apostasia" becoming "apostasy" is, to me, an example of the specialization of language. Over 2,000 years, some definitions drift. Another example is "katabole", which, nowadays, has given a few people the word "katabolism". That word has nothing to do with the meaning of 'katabole' at the time the Bible was written. (It MAY, however, have inspired someone to go into left field on the subject.) Anyway, 'a moving away from', as I see it. Since, at the time that verse is speaking of, both a positive and negative moving away from is current (the Rapture/Gathering Together/ Blessed Hope and the degeneration of society as the man of sins is revealed), I say they're BOTH right, since BOTH happen at the time. *waits for Greek scholars to ram him*

Rafael, Vertical Limit just reminded me of the famous "'in Christ' is a temporary position of the moment" (I forgot which was supposed to be 'standing' & which was 'state' also.) Remember that other fellow who pointed out the 'dead in Christ' rise first? So, those would be the corpses lying in harmony with Jesus, I take it?

Please share, Vertical Limit, as you have opportunity! :)-->

Please check me on this. I'm certain you remember this from the class-was it in the books? He said about Matthew 6:1-2, that those who did their alms before men had no reward. As we so often pointed out (Rafael & I), the verses say RIGHT THERE they HAD their reward! It says their reward was to be seen of men! That's what they wanted, & that's what they got. Also, about Matthew 6:33, he points out- correctly-that if you seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, all those things would be added unto you. Unable to let the verses go without embellishing, he adds, however, that if you DON'T seek first the kingdom of God, all these things will be SUBTRACTED from you! WHO SAYS? That's a gross overstatement! I would say it the way I always thought it-even back then. If you DON'T seek first the kingdom of God, then you're on your own. Happy hunting! I was reading Matthew today. Funny what you find when you're not looking for it. :)--> Rafael, give this thread a little time. I'm sure some good stuff isn't here yet. :)--> Eventually, you may want to rank them, & do a countdown, from least significant to most, or separate them into a list of short explanations and long explanations. :)--> (Most of my stuff is short explanations.:)--> )

I know this is about T2T, but there's something bugging me about both movies, & it's very petty. Those who read 'the Hobbit' know that Bilbo Baggins got "Sting", an elven knife, when Gandalf got "Glamdring" (aka "Beater") and the dwarf Thorin Oakenshield got Orcrist (aka "Biter"). All 3 weapons were magical, and glowed when orcs were present, the brighter the glow, the closer they were. At the door to Moria in FotR, I pointed out to someone Gandalf's sword, which he shifts when he sits on the rock to think. A few scenes later, Frodo sees "Sting" glow. I said "Wait a minute! Why isn't GLAMDRING glowing?" I don't remember it glowing at the beginning of T2T either. (One fan in the theater behind me said, of the beginning, "Glamdring did all the work!") C'mon, Jackson, would it really have been too much to ask to make it glow whenever Sting glowed? And, yes, a bright light from Gandalf as the Rohirrim charged at Helm's Deep would have gone a long way into making the rout more believeable. :)-->

Mike, I'd like to pass along something for your consideration. This isn't for debate, just some free advice you may appreciate. (Although you probably won't, but I'll try.) There are Christians out there doing God's will & seeing power from on high, who have never heard of vpw. If you want to glorify God as a Christian, and do your utmost for His Highest, you CAN do it without vpw or twi or pfal or any other letters. It won't end your world, Mike. Many Christians live like that. Please think that over for a minute. It won't end your world to be a Christian without vpw or twi or pfal.

Mike, I've seen people been attacked online, here & elsewhere. I've been attacked online, here & elsewhere. You haven't been attacked. The other posters believe you've provided extensive evidence that you are trying to subvert the body of Christ. Considering that, they've been very nice to you. Unless you count disagreeing as 'persecution'. Please stop playing 'poor persecuted one.' Supposedly, your time is limited. However, you've got plenty of time to complain. Whatever.

BTW, I was wondering... for the purposes of this thread, are we counting things like vpw's mistaken use of the word 'anabolepto' in the class & the correct usage of "eidon" in the later editions, when talking about Enoch not 'seeing' death? What about Paul imprisoned in Jerusalem, where the closest anyone ever comes to getting born again was one man-"I don't remember if it was Felix or Festus"-who said "almost you persuade me to be a Christian." Well, doc, the reason you can't remember if it was Felix or Festus is because it was Agrippa. :)--> Of course, the entire statement that "the closest anyone came to getting born again" during the time Paul spent in jail completely ignores Onesimus (Pilemon 1:1-10), and whoever else is not named like Onesimus is. I find it hardly credible to think that Onesimus was the only one. However, the fact that one can be named specifically discredits this statement directly taken from pfal. Hey, this is fun! Rafael, you going to make one concise list of these when we're done? It would look great as a hanging from the bookshelf I keep my old collaterals on. :)-->

During PFAL itself, vpw says that "Peter denied Jesus 3 TIMES 3 times"-a total of 9. In Jesus Christ Our Passover, vpw wrote that Peter denied Jesus 6 times. (This bugged me.) I'm unsure if the book has it as 6 or 9. --------------------- Here's one Rafael used to wince at in PFAL... vpw said that "atheists" contradicted themselves because it means they don't believe...but in doing so, they believe that they don't believe." As anyone who sat thru SESSION ONE OF THE SAME CLASS should have been able to tell, "atheist" does not refer to "believing". That class (& this thread) talked about 2 words: "apisistia" & "apeithia". With the prefix "a", or "not", these words could loosely translate into 'no belief' and 'no pathos'. As in "is it apistia, or apeithia'? I don't know & I don't care." Atheist can be loosely translated "no god." "Theos" means "god". All students should have been able to tell that, since they learned that "theoponeustos" meant "God-breathed". ------------------------ Here's my personal, all-time favourite. We've NEVER discussed it, AFAIK. Get your pencils ready. Ready? Here we go. Every person who sat thru pfal should be able to remember vpw talking about how different people told vpw how God told them to tell him to go to different places, telling him to do stuff. Eventually, he figured out the problem. The next time someone told him something like that, vpw told him that God had told them nothing of the kind-that God didn't tell them to tell him to go-God told THEM to go. God tells you what YOU need to do, and if you are supposed to tell someone about it, God will tell you that, also. ------ In fact, this lesson is a very hard lesson Joseph learned in Genesis 37:5-19. God gives Joseph 2 dreams, but does NOT tell Joseph to tell anyone. He tells his brothers, and they hate him enough to kill him or sell him into slavery, either one. It's a very, very important lesson to learn. ------------- Supposedly, however, God gave vpw revelation that he was "some great one". Why, then, did vpw go around telling EVERYONE that, when the rule was that if God wants you to tell someone, He'll tell you to tell them? In all the accounts of that happening, never was it mentioned that God said to pass it around. In fact, if He did, that's especially peculiar, since it would not have been profitable all thru the years. :)-->

A) If you meant to say we should examine what vpw taught & wrote, & see what was in line with Scripture & what wasn't, well, then, that's something almost ALL of us agree on. In fact, many of us have been doing that for MORE than 5 years, which makes you a latecomer to the party. :)--> (You cited 5 years.) B) You said we don't really have Scriptures, "only the tattered remnants." That's not what I learned in pfal. With the exception of a tiny handful of verses deliberately forged to promote a doctrine, it's been fundamentally unchanged. The main problems, as pfal said, were in man's not READING the Bible, and not UNDERSTANDING what the Bible says. Virtually all notes I make on an English version are directly from the Greek-the Stephens Text or the Nestle Text. Supposedly, that's what the translators worked from when they made the versions. I'm just proofreading their work from the Greek texts. Inasmuch as I virtually never need to exit the Greek texts (on the New Testament) & wonder where something came from, it seems obvious to me that the GREEK is nearly 100%. So long as the GREEK is translated correctly, so long as the Bible is actually read, and so long as one is reading with comprehension, there should be few problems with understanding Scripture. "Tattered remnants"? I think NOT. ------------------------------------------ C) You offered 2 possibilities: 1) the Christian tradition-'churchianity' 2) "Mastering" vpw's books. I choose 3) Attempting to "Master" the Bible, irregardless of what vpw or anyone else said about it. If their teaching holds up, great, if not, I trash it. None of us was suggesting the denominational structures offered the answers vpw was also lacking. Suggesting we did was intellectually dishonest, & possibly quite revealing.

I'm still mildly surprised that you honestly think that God's resources on earth are so meager, and his plans that poorly-thought-out, that ONLY vpw could have gotten the job done, that ONLY vpw could teach the Bible to all those people, that ONLY vpw could have accomplished anything of value in his generation. (Ignoring even Stiles & others, who were already getting the job done.) Of course, once you get past the hurdle of 'he was unique & extra-special and absolutely necessary", it becomes a short trip to 'we can overlook ANY shortcoming so long as he's still functioning'. That's pretty much what I get from your last post. I say, that if God could have a backup plan ready that scrapped the 12 tribes completely & restarted with Moses (as He told Moses He was ready to do), then I find the idea that God can't reach His people if one person's injured or dead to be a silly one. God will reach them from another direction, with another person. Simply put, in the eternal plans of God, we are all precious & loved, but we are also expendable-none of us is the be-all and end-all, summing up the wisdom.

I would like to thank certain posters at this time-not by name, but by category. I'd like to thank the ladies who were sexually used by vpw for not jumping all over Mike for calling into question whether they are telling the truth or not. I REALLY expected one of you to get indignant about it. Congratulations on controlling your responses. ------------ Of course, Mike, you DO realize it's easier to dismiss charges of sexual molestation, sodomy 3, rape, etc, if they don't impact directly on your life, don't you? I might imagine your perspective on that issue would be somewhat different if something had happened to your wife, sister or daughter. (If your perspective would NOT change with it impacting so close to you, then 'shame on you'.)