Mark Clarke

I've heard some "new age" type religions talk about God having a wife, and I've heard about pagan religions having a God and a Goddess. What Jewish oral traditions suggest this?

cman, One thing we must remember is that many languages, including Hebrew and Greek, assign gender to words without necessarily meaning they are masculine or feminine in nature. Second, I would take anything Bart Ehrman says with a grain of salt. There have been a number of rebuttals of his claims by equally competent scholars. Also, while Elohim is plural in form, it most often takes singular pronouns when referring to God. Gen. 1:26 is one of only a few verses where it has a plural one, and they may well be referring to God speaking to His angels. Just because a word has a plural form does not necessarily mean the word is plural. There are a number of other Hebrew words that have a plural ending yet actually are singular. The words for "face" and for "water" are two I can think of off the top of my head. This is a big issue in dealing with Trinitarians who want to claim that Elohim is really plural, implying three in one. But the vast majority of occurrences of Elohim referring to God take singular pronouns and modifiers. To say that "these Gods or elohim were and are two; male and female" would directly contradict the many verses that speak of God as one, singular person. The only time the word is used to refer to plural entities is when it refers to false heathen gods, and then it takes plural modifiers. As I get more into this study, I'll show how in the OT the Spirit of God refers to His presence and power at work, rather than a separate person or god.

I double checked in an interlinear, but I first noticed these discrepancies in Receiving the Holy Spirit Today itself. The appendix has every occurrence of "spirit" (pneuma) and under each one it indicates whether the article "the" is in the Greek. Yet in that very appendix I noticed some verses that did not fit with the "accepted" pattern. Some with "the" (even with 2 "the's") clearly referred to the gift, not the Giver, and some without "the" referred to God, the Giver. The whole notion of this distinction, in fact, is not derived from anything in the Scriptures themselves, but simply asserted, and then read back into the Bible.

Jeff, You're right. VPW's distinction between the bride and the body was based on the ultra-dispensational ideas that he adapted largely from Bullinger. Gentiles are now privileged to be able to partake of the promises made originally to Abraham, and later to the nation of Israel. God has expanded his promises to the whole world through the work of Jesus Christ.

That was my assumption. I probably shouldn't have said "we." This gets into a whole different category of debate. As far as I understand it, the whole discussion was in the context of what a Christian makes his "only rule of faith and practice." If we're talking about the Word of God, the standard doesn't evolve, but our understanding of it grows. And as it does, we grow as well.

What historical record would that be?

As usual, Jesus said it best: "It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!" --Luke 17:1

No, he doesn't believe it's the KJV Bible, he thinks the Word of God is revealed in PFAL and the related books by VPW. Agreed. We do need a Bible to know God. And praise God that He has preserved the Scriptures from being lost as Mike claims. I can't believe God would go to all the trouble of having His message written down and then be powerless against the devil to keep it from being lost.

Be careful you don't fall into the mistake he thinks we all make. He'll tell you his "only rule" is not the statement that PFAL is perfect with no errors, it is the written PFAL material itself, in which there are mentions of the hope, healing, and the promises of God. Knowing God is light, and all that that encompasses, is not the kind of standard he's talking about. I did understand his point, as he said in post #241: We do need a written standard for truth, a sure source from which we get our knowledge of God, to be our "only rule of faith and practice." I just disagree with him about what that only rule is. I don't believe it needs to be, or even can be, embodied in one book that you can state the Library of Congress number for. The overall message that is communicated in the Scriptures is still able to be found (it's not just a pie in the sky goal). Various versions of the Bible communicate this message with varying degrees of accuracy. We determine the degree of accuracy by comparing them with the standard: the overall message. How do we know the overall message? By reading and studying the various versions and seeing what they have in common. And when you read them without reading preconceived ideas into them, one unified message becomes clear. That's why you have to work it and study it, the way Mike works and studies the PFAL books. Also, Jesus taught about being guided by the holy spirit rather than the letter of the written Law. The Scriptures are the written rule for faith and practice and the understanding of them is enhanced by God's spirit, because the Word of God includes the written Scriptures, the person of Jesus Christ, and the guidance of the holy spirit. Mike, in contrast, has chosen to make the writings of VPW his standard, and that's his choice.

It's not dead, it's just resting!

Continuing with "What it is Not" regarding the holy spirit, this excerpt deals with some of the inconsistencies in TWI's doctrine about it. The words "holy spirit" are generally capitalized in most writing, since they are understood to mean a person. The ministry with which I was involved believed that the holy spirit was not the third person of the Trinity, but they had an equally erroneous definition. They taught that The Holy Spirit (with capital letters and the definite article) is simply another name for God, while holy spirit (with lower case letters and no "the") was God's gift that He gave on Pentecost. Like the Trinitarian definition, this view of the holy spirit is read into Scriptures rather than being derived from them. Capitalizing "holy" and "spirit" or "ghost" in the English is a relatively recent device, which was not used in the earliest English translations. There was no capitalization in the Greek or Hebrew texts, so basing a difference in meaning on whether it is capitalized or not is forcing an interpretation on the Scriptures which has no foundation. In actuality it doesn't make much difference whether the phrase is capitalized, and even other Biblical Unitarians (those who believe God is one person and not a trinity) vary as to whether they capitalize it or not. Personally I choose not to capitalize holy spirit to emphasize that it is not a person, but this is a matter of choice, not of doctrine. In addition, the article "the" is used sometimes and not others, and does not define a distinction as I was taught. One can introduce the subject as "holy spirit" and then refer back to it as the holy spirit. In grammar this is called anaphoric use of the article. In the same way I could say an angel appears, and then refer to him as the angel. There are a number of verses where the definite article is used, but clearly referring to the gift and not to God, while Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 state that Jesus Christ was conceived by "holy spirit" (no article in the Greek). The idea that "The Holy Spirit" means God and "holy spirit" means His gift has no Biblical foundation. There are some other cases where the article appears in English but not in Greek, such as Matthew 3:11, as well as all the other verses in which John's baptism is contrasted with baptism "with [the] Holy Ghost." John the baptist being "filled with [the] Holy Ghost from his mother's womb" is another example, as well as several references to being filled with [the] holy spirit in Acts. In these cases it is true that the Greek reads "filled with holy spirit" (no article) and the word "the" is added in English. However there are a number of instances where the article does appear in the Greek, but it is plainly referring to the gift of holy spirit, not to God Himself. For example, when Jesus was baptized, it says that "the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him" (Luke 3:22). The Greek uses definite articles before both words, i.e., "the holy the spirit." This form was supposed to indicate God the Giver according to my former belief system, but it is clearly not God Himself Who descended in bodily shape like a dove. Likewise, John 14:26 specifically refers to God's gift, but uses the double article: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy the Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Use of the definite article when it is referring to God's gift can also be seen in Acts 10:44, 47; 11:15; 15:8; 19:6 as well as Ephesians 1:13 (literally, "sealed with the holy the spirit of promise") and I Thessalonians 4:8 (literally, "...God, who hath also given unto us his the holy the Spirit." Notice the double use of "the" along with the pronoun "his"). John 7:39 uses both "the spirit" and "holy ghost" (no article) referring to the same thing. "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for ... Holy Ghost [KJV has "the Holy Ghost," but there is no article in the Greek] was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." And you can see the same gift referred to, both with and without the article, in Acts 8:17-19, "Then laid they their hands on them, and they received ... Holy Ghost [no "the"]. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy the Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive ... Holy Ghost" [no "the"]. So you can see that "holy spirit" and "the holy spirit" are interchangeable; there is no difference in meaning between the two phrases. According to the doctrine I used to hold to, the gift of holy spirit was the "incorruptible seed" which gave me eternal life. It also included the God-given ability to walk in power. It was given by God, but once He gave it to me it was part of me, and I could do with it as I chose. Thus the emphasis was on "me" and "my" spirit, instead of on "God" and "His" spirit. There were said to be a number of different "usages" of the word pneuma, the Greek word for spirit. Interestingly, hardly anyone in that organization ever looked at how the Hebrew word for spirit, ruach, was used in the Old Testament. If they had, perhaps a simpler, more straightforward understanding of the Spirit of God would have been seen. More to come...

Under "More Blatant PFAL Errors" I pointed out, among other things, how VPW's distinction between "holy spirit IN" in the NT and "holy spirit UPON" in the OT was not a Biblical concept. I've been thinking about how most of us were told that VP's "specialty" or "field of expertise" was the holy spirit field. Besides the fact that he took most of his Receiving the Holy Spirit Today from the works of others, especially Stiles and Leonard, I maintain that the ideas he presented were not even accurate Biblically. The following are excerpts from the article about the Holy Spirit on my website. (The full article can be seen here.) I'll post them in small chunks for easier reading. First of all, in PFAL tradition, I deal with "What It Is Not." There has been much misunderstanding about the holy spirit. The King James and some other versions of the Bible most often use the phrase "Holy Ghost" but the word "ghost" carries different connotations today, and most Christians generally prefer "Holy Spirit." Most of mainstream Christendom believes that the holy spirit is a person, specifically the third person of the Trinity. I deal with the Trinity in relation to Who is Messiah in a Closer Look article. Historically the belief in the holy spirit as the third person was even later that the belief that Jesus was God. The deity of Christ became official doctrine in 325, while the holy spirit was not established as the third person of the Trinity until 381. Most Christians think of the holy spirit as a person, partly because it is used with personal pronouns, such as "He," "Him" and "Who" in most English Bibles. The words "he" and "him" are used because the Greek pronouns are masculine in gender. Greek, like many other languages, assigns gender to many inanimate objects, so the use of a masculine pronoun does not automatically make the noun a person. Since we don't assign gender to inanimate objects in English, the masculine pronouns would be translated as "it" unless it was assumed that a person is referred to. Even in the King James Version, Romans 8:16 refers to "the spirit itself." And the word translated "who" can also be translated "which," as it is in a number of verses referring to "the spirit." Grammar aside, the Bible nowhere presents the holy spirit as a person. For one thing, it is never given a proper name. God's proper name is given as Yahweh, and His Son's name is Jesus. But the holy spirit is simply called the holy spirit. The epistles frequently include greetings from the Father and the Son. However, never do they give greetings "from the Holy Spirit." Why would this be so if the holy spirit were a co-equal, co-eternal person? Jesus instructed his disciples to pray to the Father, and to do it in his name. He told them to ask God to send His holy spirit. Never are we told to pray to the holy spirit, and "ask him to come into our hearts" as many do today. The spirit is poured forth by Jesus (Acts 2:33), and we are baptized in it (Acts 1:5). One cannot pour forth a person, or be baptized in a person. The spirit is described as the spirit of God or the spirit of Christ. Furthermore, Matthew 11:27 says that no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son. Matthew 24:36 says that no man knows the hour of Christ's return, not even the Son, but only the Father. John wrote in his first epistle that a person is antichrist if he denies the Father and the Son (I John 2:22-23). In his second epistle he wrote, "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son" (II John 9). If the holy spirit is a third co-equal person, why is there no mention of him in verses like these? I believe VPW had it right when he taught that the holy spirit is not the Third Person of the Trinity. But I think what he said it was, is just as incorrect. I'll continue in the next post.

Mike, do you have any answer for my question?

"Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge." --Proverbs 14:7

Apparently you don't "see" it, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Unless we agree with you, we must have missed it and don't understand what you're saying. You don't seem to be able to accept the idea that we do know what you're saying and simply disagree with you. This is evidenced by the fact that you still throw out the same generalities about what we know, even though they have been responded to and debunked.

Truth and doctrine is certainly beneficial, but a church should not sacrifice helping people and reaching out to the community for the sake of doctrine, any more than it should sacrifice doctrine for the sake of helping people. It is, after all, what the Lord told us to do. And it's more the job of the church than of the government, although too many people think it's the government's responsibility.

That's kind of how it was for me. It was in an offshoot group that I started learning about the Kingdom of God, the error of dispensationalism, and a number of other things that differed from TWI doctrine. Had it not been an offshoot with an ex-Way leader, I might not have accepted what was taught, because I had been so indoctrinated. Later, when the leader and the group showed more signs of being like TWI, I was marked and avoided, and I am the better for it. But the "new" doctrines I learned from them, I still carry with me, and share with other groups who also hold them, that were never associated with TWI.

They don't need to abandon the Scriptures in order to love individuals with the love of Christ. As Geisha and Skyrider pointed out, there are some churches who study the Bible without "Selling" or "Cramming down unwilling throats" or any of the other techniques TWI practiced.

When God has selected a man to make His Word known, He has backed that man's ministry with specific signs that were seen by many people whose eyewitness testimony was recorded. The primary sign that supposedly validates VPW's ministry was the Snowstorm phenomenon (coming full circle back to that thread topic!) which NOBODY BUT HIM saw! People that have confronted him have testified that he denied his sins and never repented. But you will probably not accept their testimony. David wrote in the Psalms of his repentance. Could you please give me the reference in Studies in Abundant Living or other books, where VP admitted his drinking, sexual sins, etc., repented of them, and asked for forgiveness? BTW, what's wrong with how I spelled 'Wierwille'?

Not a bad idea.

I've already responded to all of those claims, and you miss them as much as you claim I miss the points of what you write. There doesn't seem to be anything either of us can say at this point that won't sound like Monty Python's Argument Clinic: "No it isn't... Yes it is... No it isn't!" One thing I have to comment on... The big difference is that David repented when he was confronted with his sin, and some of those Psalms reflect his repentant heart. The same was not true with VP Wierwille.

Do you want me to count the number of times that I and others have responded to that point by saying that I/we HAVE in fact studied PFAL in great detail and found it full of errors? And when we enumerate those errors you refuse to address them and continue to say they don't exist or don't matter. Well, errors may not matter, and in fact for many years, to me did not matter, as long as PFAL was presented as a class on the Bible, since man's works are imperfect. But when you now make the claim that PFAL is the perfect God-breathed Word of God, then you automatically open yourself up to a higher level of criticism. Nothing that has the amount of blatant errors of PFAL could seriously be considered the God-breathed Word and therefore one's only rule for faith and practice. This is what I have been saying all along, and you have been blowing off.

Mike, First of all, your description of first century church history is plainly from the VPW/TWI spin on it which I also was indoctrinated with. Since reading "real" church history I have found out that it was far from accurate. Since your mind is made up, I won't bother correcting the many errors in that one paragraph. You asked, "Who said I want ANYbody to take me seriously?" One would assume, since you continue to post here, that you want at least SOMEbody to take you seriously. You said, "I only expect the hungry and meek to take me seriously." Well that would be included in "anybody." I still maintain that if you want "the hungry and meek" to take you seriously, you're going to have to deal with questions like how you can accept PFAL as God-breathed when there are demonstrable errors in it. Not just what I or some people think are errors, but plain demonstrable errors, like every source of information proves that a simple statement of fact that VP made is completely false. And it seriously hurts your credibility when you won't even address them. But that's your choice. You say, "I see that you are hopelessly biased and unable to hear what I say." Most everyone on this board has said the same thing about you. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and see if you would actually engage in honest discussion of real issues. You have demonstrated, and now admitted, that you don't wish to do so, and so have proven them right. So be it.

That's not the point. IF someone wanted to, they COULD dig it up, because BURIED is not IRRETRIEVABLY LOST. But that's going on the assumption that no one knew where it was buried. Bullinger, Stiles, and Leonard, and more importantly, Bible scholars that knew how to translate the languages and didn't try to push their theology, knew where to look for the buried treasure - in the MSS of Scripture that have been handed down for hundreds of years.

That reminds me of the Monty Python sketch about the Piranha Brothers, Doug and Dinsdale... "At the age of fifteen Doug and Dinsdale started attending the Ernest Pythagoras Primary School in Clerkenwell. When the Piranhas left school they were called up but were found by an Army Board to be too unstable even for National Service. Denied the opportunity to use their talents in the service of their country, they began to operate what they called 'The Operation'... They would select a victim and then threaten to beat him up if he paid the so-called protection money. Four months later they started another operation which the called 'The Other Operation'. In this racket they selected another victim and threatened not to beat him up if he didn't pay them. One month later they hit upon 'The Other Other Operation'. In this the victim was threatened that if he didn't pay them, they would beat him up. This for the Piranha brothers was the turning point."