Oakspear

Well Goey, some folks use their brains and apply valid biblical resarch skills to come up with answers...and some don't

I am quite entertained at the expense of the metally disturbed! -_- But you're right, many of them are fabricated.

I've never seen any of the phenomena that he mentions in his book, nor have I ever spoken to anyone who claims that they have. I think the point of having us read the book was to impress upon us how powerful "the adversary" was.

dmiller, it's just an example of biblical literalists taking one literally and the other figuratively. mark is looking for an explanation of why.

Or a tricycle!

Mark: I think that you'll find that folks of all denominations will decide what is figurative and what is literal based on what fits best into their overall doctrine. I doubt that you'll find "the answer" anywhere. Of course, since this is just my opinion, other, smarter folks may disagree. :blink: Allan: It would be interesting to see if Wierwille's explanation of "a day and a night" always referring to a literal 24 hour period holds up to scrutiny.

Yes, Spark in the dark was his. He's got a web site with some good "early days" pictures.

The wedding is July 22nd. We'll probably be in the area from July 20 - 24

Why would you think that?

That's sure interesting kmc, on what do you base this opinion? Surely you don't see anything in the bible to support that, do you? And certainly the PFAL book doesn't mention that, does it? Can you expand upon your opinion? And kmc, you sure are good at keeping the threads of conversation straight. ck mentioned Jesus reading out of the PFAL book a page or so back. The last several things he referred to were Greasy Tech's surveillance of him, and an argument about arguing; how one shouldn't argue with a fool. It's amazing how a new poster like yourself could keep that straight.

welcome "KMC"

That was the pic he used on the poster

I'm in a coffee shop with the missus today and I see a poster advertising Billy Falcon and his daughter Rose performing in Grafton, Nebraska...but since it was for 2 days ago, I probably won't be able to attend Falcon grew up in Rosedale, where I also was raised. Several of his bandmates took PFAL with some friends of mine back in 1979. Small world.

My Navy son is planning on getting married during his between-assignments leave in July. His fiancee's parents live in davenport, which looks to be about 45 minutes southwest of Orlando. It looks like I, and probably reikilady will be there for a few days.

Much is made by PFAL and Wierwille fans that Vic "taught us the Word", sometimes as a counter to any discussion of the abuses and evils of TWI. Emphasis is put on how blessed one got, and how TWI followers "put on the Word". But exactly what was taught (other than what any Christian, or for that matter, any decent, moral person would teach) that could be applied in everyday living? Especially anything that would make the "Word" taught in TWI superior to what anyone else taught? Sure, the trinity was rejected, and "the truth" of a unitary God was taught, but what do you do with that information? Okay, the dead are DEAD and not in any way conscious, but how do you fit that knowledge into your everyday business?

That was actually sort of funny.

CK: Do you know what "archaic" means? Do you really think that Wierwille himself would have wanted to be called "lord"? Go ask your dad

That's why most of us have stopped arguing with you...

Are there some that said He would?? :wacko: No, no, no....absence of a verse that said he would doesn't mean he wasn't..c'mon ;) btw...I think the Jesus married Mary theory popped out of someone's foot...but let's not get illogical here -_-

Wow! Once again the height of biblical research!

I've got 34

17...count 'em again ...and Allan, to point out, that no matter how bad TWI lightbulbs were, they were better than Mormon & Catholic lightbulbs 18

There we disagree, Allan. At best, it would have been "new light" to any specific individuals who had heard Wierwille's message without ever having heard Stiles, Bullinger, etc. As far as "taking ribs & jibes", I disagree that he was the one who "initially" took them. Any opposition to the specific doctrine could have been expressed at any point since the information was made available by the original authors. Most of the mainstream opposition to Wierwille was more due to the anti-cult hysteria of the late 70's than anything else. But, back to the original point of the thread: Was Wierwille an apostle? The argument can be made if one accepts Wierwille's definition of apostle, and one uses an extremely broad interpretation of "bringing new light to a generation". But, should we accept his definition? What is it based on? IMHO, it is an example of Wierwille tailoring a definition to further his doctrine. "Cower from it"? People choose to reject Wierwillian doctrine for a variety of reasons, I don't see "cowering" as one of them!

Even if we used Wierwille's definition, he didn't bring new light to his generation. Nothing he taught was new; most had been put into print less than ten years before he taught it.

If you don't know what one is, how do you know that you're not?