Oakspear

If you have a Companion Bible, look up Bullinger's explanation of the 14 generations. Note that David is mentioned in two of the fourteens. Bullinger can be just as "flexible" as Wierwille in translating and interpreting, but he makes a case that does not require retranslating a Greek word as "father" that everyone else translated as "husband". Most of us aren't, but a good percentage of what we were taught in PFAL can be verified or debunked with a little simple checking that most of us never did.

I started hiring myself out officating at weddings this year. I've done three so far, all low key, low budget and the people were in love...what the heck else matters? Several weeks ago I got a call at my regular job; a couple who I had agreed to do a wedding on June 2nd needed me to come over that night (I was working 'til 10PM) and marry them. It seems that the guy had cancer and they were driving up to the Mayo clinic that night. I married them at 11PM on the front lawn with 3 witnesses. A happier couple I've never seen.

Actually, it does not say he only took part, but that he likewise took part..."Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;" Wierwille was correct in saying that "took part" is μετέχφ, but according to blue letter bible, http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.p...;version=KJV#14 it appears that it is a synonym for κοινφνέφ, translated "partake". The word "likewise" should have been a clue that Wierwille was incorrect: it indicates that there is the two words or concepts being compared are the same, not different. Just one of many examples of Wierwille making up definitions of Greek words to suit his theology.

Can you point out precisely where WordWolf twisted your words?

As a typical 19 year old who knew little or nothing about the bible, I was taken in by the slick marketing and the confidence. I wanted to have the bible make sense to me, and my church didn't really make the attempt. Wierwille seemed to ahve the answers and I didn't have the skills to rebut him.

Many of us who were invoved in The Way have an exaggerated view of how effective Wierwille was at getting his message out. To us, The Way was the center of our universe, but the vast majority of people in this country, let alone the world, never heard of it. Sometimes I'm surprised when I mention that I was involved in The Way International and I'm greeted with the blank stare of incomprehension! I don't know how many people each of those who Wierwille plagiarized reached with their messages, but why assume that Wierwille was more effective just because you heard of Wierwille and not Stiles, Bullinger or Kenyon? Another point is that I believe that most, if not all, of us who sat through PFAL and bought into what was taught, did so, at least in part due to Wierwille's credibility as an authority on the Bible. We believed his made up definitions of Greek words, accepted that there was an "old document" that said that illegitimate boys were bar-mitzvahed at 12 rather than 13, and allowed his views to dominate our thinking despite the lack of evidence, documentaion and simple logic. I submit that if most of us had known from the start that Wierwille was lying, his credibility would have been greatly diminished. To this day many hold beliefs based on what Wierwille taught while deluding themselves that they have actually done research to verify what was taught.

True, but they are the group that we have a common background in and that is the subject of this website.

I'm not Bramble, but I do play her on t.v. You actually asked two questions, or rather one question about two different situations. 1. you are saying that there are no norms? Certainly there are groups that establish norms and standards for themselves. However, usually those "norms" are pretty wide, and can include a variety of beliefs. I have personally "fellowshipped" with two groups: the first was extremely eclectic, the second has a set body of beliefs, but allows others to participate in rituals even if they don't subscribe to all of those beliefs. In the first, there was one woman who considered herself a practicing (observant?) Jew. 2. In other words, a person could be a member of a group (again, coven, or whatever) and then spout Southern Baptist doctrine about witchcraft? And trying to convince others within that group that the Southern Baptist view is the correct view? There would be no sanction against such a person? The person would be able to continue as a member of that coven or whatever? The "sanction" would not be about belief as such, but against behavior. A Christian (at least in my experience) would be welcome, but would not be allowed to continue to condemn the beliefs of the others in the group (that was your point with Southern Baptists, right? "Suffer not a witch to live" and all that?). And trying to convince others within that group that the Southern Baptist view is the correct view? - "Convincing" others of the rightness of one's views is not discouraged, but once the effort is rejected, continued attempts at "convincing" would most likely be frowned upon. In your scenario, we have a person who is not joining a group, but infiltrating it with the purpose of undermining it and "converting" the members.

"Killing the poodle"...sounds like a euphemism for...something

We have free will, but sometimes none of the choices that we can freely make are good ones.

We had a quick back and forth a while back about the Church Fathers being largely responsible for bringing us Christianity as we know it (I'm paraphrasing, excuse me if I'm misrepresenting someone's position...correct me if needed ) Some folks look back and concentrate on perceived errors of the Church Fathers ("errors" of course being a relative term), but they were largely responsible for verbalizing the rough outlines of Christian doctrine as we know it. You think The Trinity makes no sense? How about the belief that Jesus was an apparition, that he switched places with Simon of Cyrene and laughed as Simon was crucified in his place, that the God of the OT was an evil God - different than the God of Jesus, and so many others that were eventually pushed out and declared "heresies" by the "orthodox"? And regarding apostolic sucession: one of the reasons that it became important was that there were multiple versions of Christianity running around. One of the ways that was used to convince people that they were being taught the right version was to claim an unbroken chain backward from the current leader of a church back through their previous leaders back to one of the original apostles. Right or wrong it was a method of establishing legitimacy.

Confused? Not so much as changed his beliefs. Ehrman was at one time in the "god-breathed" camp. He gradually changed his position as he spent time studying the various New Testament texts. That being said, there is without a doubt disagreement among textual critics regarding the scope and importance of the differences among the manuscripts. Reasonable people are always going to differ over whether the textual variations make any difference in the overall message of Christianity, and the point of view that one brings to the table is going to influence how one interprets the evidence. If you believe that the "originals" were given by inspiration from God, then you will find some way to make it all fit together. If you don't, discrepancies might be viewed as just that: discrepancies. One thing about this book, and some others written by Ehrman that surprised me: Ehrman believes that Jesus did in fact exist and that an historical Jesus is the basis for the gospel accounts; he does not throw out the gospels as complete fabrications. Granted, his view of the gospels as man-made documents that reflect the theology and prejudices of their writers is likely considered blasphemous by some believers, but he believes that one can determine what the "real" Jesus taught by using the gospels and other early Christian writings.

Only one knuckle.

Yeah!

Wow Lingus, that is some story! It reminds me of a similar incident that happened to me when I was visiting New York a few years ago. As an adherant of the Celtic deity Mannanan, I generally make a pilgrimage to the ocean whenever I'm near one (don't have much open water in Nebraska, doncha know). Well, I had packed a lunch on this partricular day, and lo and behold, the sky was white with seagulls. Now one would think that in such proximity to the ocean, as well as mob-owned trash bins, the seagulls would not be lacking for food. So maybe it was sport that caused the b*sta*rds to land in a rough circle around me and start waddling menacingly toward me. I threw my lunch bag, which contained a roast beef sandwich (with mayo and tomato), a kosher pickle, and a bag of Wise potato chips, at the birds and tried to get out of the circle when, in a manner strangely similar to yours, a big honkin' bird came swooping into the circle, grabbed the bag, and took off. (I have no idea what kind of bird it was, other than not a bald eagle, and not small. ) As fate would have it, I was standing directly in the flight path of the avian lunch snatcher. He hit me dead on in the chest and I felt like I had been tackled. I went down in a flurry of feathers and foolishly tried to get my lunch back (instinct...or brain damage) when the big bird bit off the little finger on my left hand. I didn't get my lunch, the seagulls crapped all over me, the cops and the emergency room people had a good laugh, and I hadn't thought about it too much until you told your hilarious story Linga-gee. I'm glad you retained all your body parts. (Now all you GSers who have met me in person and where too polite to pry know why I'm missing a finger on my left hand)

Blind faith it is, LWMcQ. I can see where, if one believes that the bible is inspired by God, that one would necessarily have to believe that God put together the canon and held it together and protected it. It would have been nice if he had taken the protection to a higher level and protected the original wording so that textual scholars wouldn't be necessary.

Yes. And I own a copy.

Let's not forget, while we are condemning the Church Fathers for doctrinal "errors" (apart from the whole "kill the heretics" thing), that for the most part they didn't have a "bible" that they could go back and check to see if they were reaching the "correct" conclusions. True, they sometimes had access to many of the books and letters that now make up our bible, but they also had other books that were often considered on par with our canonical books, and those books often disagreed sharply with what ended up in the bible. It's not like God at any time decreed what books would be canon and which ones wouldn't. So these guys, derided as "losers", not only had to make sense of what the bible meant, they also had to figure out what "the bible" was.

Not trying to be contentious, but why do you feel the manuscripts were preserved? We don't have anything within a century of an "original", and what we do have has numerous inconsistancies and differences.

Looking at the bible as a history book, as you say, is going to be frustrating. I don't think that the bible can be read as a one-size-fits-all manual to be followed in all its minutia (sp?) and details. A person can live a very fullfilling and moral life by following the general principles of Jesus without believing that he literally walked on water or that Balaam's donkey reproved him

Not at all. If you disagree with the statement, that's another matter altogether. The statement in itself is not confusing. True, but that's how Wierwille promoted PFAL: a class on "keys", a way to get back to the "originals". You're right, it is another topic, one that I did not bring up. Not the discussion in this thread.

When that class first came out, people started calling it the "wap" class (like whap! - the sound of getting hit upside the head). Martindale declared that the class was to be referred to as "The Way class" if not referred to by its full name. I always abbreviated it in writing as WayAP.

I scored as Socinianism. According to the quiz, I am a Socinian and therefore deny the doctrine of the Trinity because I think God exists in a simplified unity. Since this makes the Incarnation impossible, you see Christ's work as simply exemplary. Docetism 25% Socinianism 25% Adoptionist 25% Donatism 0% Arianism 0% Gnosticism 0% Apollanarian 0% Monophysitism 0% Chalcedon compliant 0% Monarchianism 0% Pelagianism 0% Nestorianism 0% Albigensianism 0% Modalism 0%

...read an interesting article in the New York Times not that long ago. A couple of studies had been done on crime in areas with a high percentage of new immigrants, including the illegal kind. Seems that first generation folks' neighborhoods had a lower crime rate than might be expected. It wasn't until the second or third generation that the children and grandchildren of immigrants became like that which was around them. If they ended up in an area dominated by gangs, that's what they (in general) became, if they were in an area where educational and advancement opportunities presented themselves, that's what they modelled themselves upon.

Wierwille made the (correct) point that texts were altered, he led us to believe that he gave us the power to retrieve those original words by applying "keys". Ehrman makes the point that there were so many places where errors, deliberate and accidental, could have been made (and in some cases there is no question that changes were made) that it is impossible to come up with an "original" text. It makes it difficult to depend on any biblical text as "the" word of God. I guess that's why Mike reveres PFAL