Oakspear

Initially, the PFAL class had all three Foundational, Intermediate & Advanced combined into one. Later the "Advanced" was separated out. Still later, after PFAL was committed to tape, the "Intermediate" was separated into its own class. Yeah, eventually PFAL became, depite its origins, different than all its "parents", but I believe that the assumption that Wierwille combined or distilled or cut & pasted "the good stuff", or got rid of the "in-acrit" stuff is unwarranted. Many of us who hold this opinion apparently judge the truth or accuracy of what's in these precurser classes and books based on what Wierwille taught, not on an independent analysis and study of either material. ...and to correct what I said in an earlier post. I lumped Leonard's class in with Wierwille's in an "all classes are bad" category. I had forgotten that Leonard's class was just that: a class. It was designed to teach a few things, then send people back to their home churches. Wierwille's class was the very foundation of his ministry: 2 different things.

I too was impressed with the way the grounds were kept and the attention to detail and all that. In fact, much of what I now practice about orderliness and planning I got from The Way...as well as from my parents, especially my Dad. However, does a nice place and a slick presentation guarantee that what is being presented is any good? I would say not. Does a shabby store front and a less-than-professional presentation indicate that anything is lacking? Doubt it.

Regarding the name changes of various holidays: they just never had the balls to simply not celebrate them. They'd go on and on about how "devilish" this observance and that name was; what? it was less devilish because they called it something else? But no, they'd tell you how "pagan" and "off" Halloween was, or Christmas, but they'd do all the same things but label them differently. <_<

I'm sure that WordWolf will be along to clarify, but while the film/video class that most of us took was different in many aspects from Leonard's class, including gifts vs. manifestations, there is much to suggest that the original class that Wierwille taught was actually Leonard's class. OK back on topic then. What does that also say about B.G Leonard's $100-$130 "Full Bible Courses"? (Well - Duh!) I'd put Leonard's classes in the same category

Time for more important issues...The Mets vs. St. Louis!

congrats Tigers!

Do you think that Paul was saying anything different at his new location (the "school" of Tyrannus) than he was at his old hangout (the synagogue)?It seems pretty apparent that Paul was operating within the standard Mediteranean cultural norm, i.e. going to a place where public discourse was allowed and encouraged, like a synagogue or marketplace, and speaking his peace, while engaging others in discussion and debate. After three months in Ephesus, the synagogue wasn't as hospitable a place as it had been, few were believing and were bad-mouthing him. "School" is not necessarily what we in modern times would call a school. It is translated from the Greek word σχολη, which means a place free from labor, where one has the leisure to learn, not not a place with a cirriculum, textbooks and a schedule. Paul was going to a location where he could continue as he had been, without the opposition of the Jewish leaders that he had to deal with in the synagogue. There is no indication that there was a "graduation" or anyone going out formally as "ambassadors", just that after two years of teaching all of Asia had heard what he had to say. By the way, "Asia" is not "Asia Minor", now known as Turkey, as Wierwille stated in PFAL. Asia was a province, centered on Ephesus, that was only a small part of what we now call Asia Minor.

Here's some interesting discussion from the catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm

There's a requirement that we all be negative about Wierwille & his class? :o I think that there are positive things to be said, and that there were benefits to be had, but everything in context: the topic of this thread is that God did not ordain that his Word be taught via a "class". If someone thinks that he did, then it shouldn't be difficult to come up with biblical citations to back up that opinion. I think a better case can be made that in early Christianity, i.e. The Book of Acts, the gospel was learned by associating with other Christians and by observing their example and hearing what they taught, every day of their lives. There was no graduation, no attainment of ultimate knowledge. Christianity was a community, and could no more be learned from a syllabus or sitting in a seminar than a new baby can become a functioning adult part of a culture by a stint in kindergarten.

Sometimes the numbers of people who were supposedly 'delivered' are tossed out. Even assuming that A) The 'deliverence' took place & B) The numbers are accurate - even the most optimistic estimates are just a drop in the bucket to those who claim to have been delivered, healed, born again, what have you, by other minsitries and churches. Not that PFAL was necessarily any better or worse than any other church, but the numbers are meaningless in that context. As far as the 'minimum amount of time' aspect; why is learning fast necessarily learning best?

Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha....foolish mortal!

I never go away bro'....I'm walking up and down and to and fro in the earth...

You would think that this applies to Satan, but do we think that because we already know this verse? If we take this verse literally, then the only ones literally in Eden would be God, Satan, Adam and Eve. But could it be a figurative reference to the King of Tyre? No matter who this is talking about it's figurative. Someone pointed out that no man is ever called a "cherub". But is Satan called a cherub anywhere else. What exactly are the cherubs? Are we predisposed to think that this refers to Satan because that's what we were taught?

Isn't that attitude what got you put on moderater queue last time? Wordwolf gave you some good advice a while back on how to conduct arguments, I'd take it if I were you. So...anything to contribute? Or are you just gonna sling mud?

Why is that a problem for you? I, for one, don't always have my bible in the same room as my computer. Dancing & I see things very differently (usually), but give him credit for using specific verses to back up his opinion. Better than your usual smart-@ssed comments that assume that everybody either accepts your interpretation of the bible or is an idiot. Yeah, so? Allan...PFAL tinted glasses...again, what's your point? Have anything to contribute?

The section in Ezekiel is a little harder to dismiss as not referring to the devil: but look at this context It may or may not be talking about the same person here, Tyre & Tyrus are the same, but Prince & King are 2 different words in Hebrew, so we may be talking about 2 individuals in Tyre.However, the prince is accused of thinking that he is a god, but God emphasizes that he is a man. No more time right now, but this could argue for the following section not referring to satan at all, but to the puffed up view of the King of Tyre about himself, hyperbole again.

Okay with me I was looking at that section in Isaiah again, where the name "Lucifer" is used. If I recall correctly, Isaiah was written just before Israel was defeated and carried off to Babylon. A prophecy of the future: God's not going to allow the captivity to last forever. Up to this point, I don't see where there is any reason to suppose that this is anything but the king of babylon we're talking about. This is where (IMHO) one has to decide whether this section is literally talking about the Babylonian King, or Satan. One way or another figurative language is being employed. This could be referring to how lofty a spot the king of Babylon fell from by way of hyperbole, or literally to Satan. Although at the time that this was written there was no other verses to to back up Satan falling from heaven (In Job he still has access to heaven) There is nothing that I can see in these verses that solidly indicates that this is talking about Satan. When was it decided that this did refer to Satan? Was it ever viwed that way in pre-Christian times? Did the Church Fathers view it that way? In short, was that section always looked at as obviously referring to Satan, or did that position evolve?

You get extra husband points for that one

Sunesis, that's uncalled for. First, who is calling those who believe the bible idiots? It's not a large thread, and about 1/3 of the posts are jokes about the devil in a blue dress or playing a fiddle in Georgia :blink: so they shouldn't be hard to find. Bramble and I gave our opinions from a pagan POV, Abigail from a Jewish POV, Wordwolf gave some good reasons for his POV. Everybody appeared to acting civilly Speaking just for myself, I don't consider the bible believers idiots, I just don't believe what you do. But you chose to paint other posters as those speaking forth flowery (do you imply emptiness with the floweriness?) And no, I don't, from my POV have a decision to make. I don't have to decide to follow either a god or a devil that I don't believe exists. This doesn't have to be a fight, it can be a discussion.

From a non-God-inspired bible POV, when the different books of the bible were written, what was going on at the time, who Israel was in contact with, and what points the different writers were trying to make is all important. Throughout most of the bible evil happens without any help from a devil. In Job you have the aspect of the tempter/accuser, who is evidently on speaking terms with God, then a couple of sections in books, one which immediately precedes the captivity and one that is deep into it, that are just kinda thrown into the mix, then all of a sudden he's all over the place in the gospels. I'm sure that my fellow posters who subscribe to biblical inerranct can make it all "fit"...somehow, I find cultural influences and attempts and reconciling different aspects of theology just as reasonable.

By who? (whom?)There's a variety of opinions here. I myself don't believe in a literal devil and believe that the biblical references to him (it) are an attempt to reconcile conflicting attributes of God. But that's just me. That being said, I think if one were to take the view that the bible is inspired by God, then it is clear that not onlly are the verses in Ezekiel and Isaiah referring to literal flesh and blood men, but they are also figuratively referring to the being known as Satan/The Devil. You give some good reasons for thinking that they refer to the Devil, and I mostly agree with you. You've thought it through. I can't speak for any other poster, but I ask questions from a skeptical POV to encourage people to THINK. This may be a stupid question, but is there an actual Dictionary of Misinformation or are you poking fun at someone?

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus!

Thanks for the panties...and btw...I am from Southern New York

Maybe the "obnoxious New Yorkers" got sent there as WOWs and couldn't afford to leave. No, you said That "rudeness" - part of our culture Where's my panties? I want to wad 'em