Goey

Johniam, You First Posted on this thread: "OK, so VP did good and he also sinned. I have no problem with this concept. What I do have a problem with is that many on GSC have a "string attached" to their attacks on VP. Their premise, in a nut shell, is VP sinned therefore he did no good. They can list his sins from here to the bema and beyond for all I care: PFAL made my life meaningful." CK jubilantly responded with: "You have said it all, this is what I have wanted to say all along and couldn't find the words. I think you have done a wonderful job showing what the thread and post are like around here ..." I replied tomyour post with: "Yours is is a typical example of a VPW/PFAL follower (adorer?) intentionally and unnecessarily misrepresenting what is being said here about VPW/PFAL by the majority of posters and using an out-of-context scripture to make an eroneous conclusion. Jonhiam, where have "many" said that VPW "did no good" ? Provide examples please -- "Many" examples. You won't because you can't. Your adoration of VPW and PFAL has blinded you to what is really being said here by the vast majority. You hear through a distorted filter. My guess is that there are about 100 or so regular posters of 1,694 members here at GS. How many is "many"? -- 1? maybe 2 or 3 ? -- And who are these "many"?" Johniam Repsonds: You speak with forked tongue. You use a phrase like "vast majority" yet chide me for "many". I think the word many is relative, though. The progression climbs from one, both or each, few, several, and then what? If we're talking about the whole population of the USA then you need millions of people to constitute "many", but on GSC I think 20 out of 100 regular posters is a "many". There are at least that many people here who have not one good thing to say about VP AND who act as though it is their moral duty to derail threads every time someone DOES say something that reflects positively or legitimately about VP. You want names? I can't recall ever seeing you yourself post anything positive about VP. On the extreme side, I guess Rascal comes to mind. One time I recall her saying that she thought of VP as a "grandfatherly" something or other, but that's as close as she ever came. Just don't say "eternal security" around her. Ex10 is more likely than not to jump on the bash VP bandwagon, yet she has said positive things about him more than once. And later: "Goey, if you want to "demand" anything from me, get a subpoena. I have no time for your silliness. The only one with blinders on is YOU!" Then to EX10 you said: "That's beautiful! Not disingenuous. VP did good AND VP sinned. That's all I've said. Johniam, you said a lot more than that. I'll refresh your memory: "OK, so VP did good and he also sinned. I have no problem with this concept. What I do have a problem with is that many on GSC have a "string attached" to their attacks on VP. Their premise, in a nut shell, is VP sinned therefore he did no good. They can list his sins from here to the bema and beyond for all I care: PFAL made my life meaningful." You said that. Now if you can't even "recall" what you said, how can trust yoruself to recall what anyone else said? But forget that. What I really wanted to do was show the lengths that "some" VPW defenders will go to to discredit what we are doing here at GS. You have provided some good examples. Make a claim - then refuse to support the claim. Deny the claim - "thats all I've said" Ad hominen attacks Quit and refuse to "argue". This pretty much adds up to what I call intellectual dishonesty. It seems to be a recurring theme among "some" VPW defenders. But, I ask the question, what is that motivates a person to go to such unnecessary lengths to defend VPW Why would someone be intellectually dishonest in defending what he believes to be the truth? It is a paradox. The current poll shows 3 people who think "VPW did no good". But .... not because he "sinned" but becase these 3 believed he was a complete fraud. So far NO ONE has voted for "vpw sinned, and therefore he did no good". which BTW is YOUR premise "in a nut shell" Granted this is a small sampling of the GS population. But don't you think that if so "many" here believed as you say they do that at least one person would have voted for that? If these "many" folks are not ashamed to "attack" VPW for all to see then why wouldn't they vote for what they believed ? They have no reason to lie since the poll is anonymous. The top vote getter was : "vpw sinned a lot, and it affected all aspects of his ministry, in greater or lesser ways" Next was: "vpw sinned quite a bit, and it affected his doctrine, policies, practices, etc, quite a bit" These add up to about 85 percent of those who responded. Johniam, I truly hope you rethink your premise.

Mo, You asked: I will try to answer that. Here is the text: Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. First, the scripture here does not say head-first - it says headlong. "Falling headlong" in the text is prênês genomenos . Prenes means face-down and genemenos means "came to be". -- Genemenos never means "to fall" physically, as from a higher place to a lower one. That would be the Greek "pipto". So what this verse is saying, if I can paraphrase, is that Judas came to be "face-down." It does not mean he fell head-first, although the KJ translation might seem to suggest that.

Mo, The idea that Judas was even crucified is based upon pure speculation. To say that Peter had a hand in it is speculation upon speculation. The apostles had no authority whatsoever to carry out an execution like this. Now wouldn't that been a lovely start for Christianity - Peter and the other apostles having a lynching and illegally crucifying (murdering) Judas. Thats way way out there Mo. Way out there.

Peter crucified Judas? The same Peter that cursed and swore that he didn't even know Jesus just a few hours after Judas betrayed him? Peter's denial was also an act of betrayal, was it not? Now, wouldn't that be an act of hipocracy -- Peter crucifying Judas. . A real whopper. There's not even a hint that Peter did any such thing. Not in the scriptures, not in the Apocrapha, not in the gnostic writings, church fathers, tradition - nowhere.

Here is how I see it. Some teachings were right some were wrong. Some wrong teachings were not influenced by his character, while others were. Some of his wrong teachings along with his ungodly behavior are enough to cause doubt as to his "mogship." The wrong teachings were so wrong that that it leavened the whole loaf.

Think PFAL being the Word of God is something? Wait till Mike explains what really happens when PFAL is mastered. Mike is just piddling around with the milk now. He has yet to get to the meat. Ain't that right Mike?

I find the Gospel of Judas facinating, especially from a historical context. Same with other similar gnostic writings. It was writings like these, along with those of Marcion and his canon that led (drove?) the orthodox church to begin establishing it's own canon. It is helpful in understanding where where the traditional canons came from and what motivated their formation. I ask the questions, was a canon even necessary, and were the largely accepted canons we now have truly inpsired by God, or by the fear of "heresy" or the perceived need to control and establish doctrine and dogma? I have said this many times here. When people accept the "bible" as the infalible word of God... they are also accepting that the men that decided what went in and what didn't - made a perfect and infalible decision. Yet many of those that acccept the bible as the word of God, have no clue how or why the canons were formed. Marcion's canon is interesting. Seems he tooked the books he liked, and deleted or edited the verses within them he didn't like (basically anything OT related) and added his Antethesis. This would naturally appeal to the then emerging gnostics. So then emerged a form of gnosticism with elements of Christianity to it. Or maybe Chiristianity with heavy doses of gnosticism? Danny, are you suggeting that becasue Marcions's was the first canon that it possibly has more authority than others? Or are you simply trying to get the history straight on that - maybe giving Marcion a kudo for doing it first? I have only been studying these "heretical" writings and those of the "church fathers" off and on for several years now , but it seems to me that the orthodox church spent too much time trying to put down these "heresies" and would have been better served attending to other things. But then again, if 3rd century orthodoxy was the real deal ....who knows. Actually, I suspect that Paul would have had just a big of a problem with 3rd century orthodoxy as he would have with the Cainites or the Marcionites. Maybe it's all heresy - eh ? (Of course except what I believe) ...

I am "agnostic" concerning the manefestations as taught in TWI. My suspicion is that this is not the real deal. Especially concerning the "worship manifestations" of interpretation of tongues and prophecy. I remember a WOW that would say the same the same tongue schpeel each time. But the interpretation would change each time. Didnt seem right. Interpretation and prophecy seemed more like a mockery or parroting of what we had been hearing already in others interpretations and prophecy. "My Little Children. This is GAWD talking to ya .. yada yada yada." My best guess is that interpretation and prophecy was just learned behavior. Folks learned some scripture, some PFAL, and learned from hearing others "prophecy" in meetings and fellowships. Then after an appropriate indoctrination time we were allow to do it in meetings. We simply mentally recalled what we had learned and and said it out loud. It many times amounted to a "my little children" maybe followed by some paraphrased scripture or TWI principle, mixed along with some Wayisms. After about a year or so, I saw nothing really special about it - nothing that I couldn't get from reading my Bible, especially since sometimes folks were getting corrected by leaders for the content being wrong.ie "Gawd would never say that" ( as if they would know). So, it was only "real" prophecy if it lined up with TWI's doctrines and teachings.

Some Definitions by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language Bold added by me. i·dol·a·try Pronunciation (-dl-tr) n. pl. i·dol·a·tries 1. Worship of idols. 2. Blind or excessive devotion to something. I think # 2 fits some folks quite well. We may have some good example here of blind or excessive devotion to "something" (or somebody). key words are blind and excessive ---------------------------------- wor·ship Pronunciation (wûrshp) n. 1. a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object. b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed. 2. Ardent devotion; adoration. 3. often Worship Chiefly British Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your Worship. v. wor·shiped or wor·shipped, wor·ship·ing or wor·ship·ping, wor·ships v.tr. 1. To honor and love as a deity. 2. To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion. See Synonyms at revere1. # 2 could apply to those who dovote their lives to the teachings of a man, or to that of a book. --------------------------------- bib·li·ol·a·try Pronunciation (bbl-l-tr) n. 1. Excessive adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible. 2. Extreme devotion to or concern with books. # 2 -- bibliotory could be used of someone that exhibited extreme devotion to a certain book or set of books. (book worship - a form of idolotry)

Global warming is real and undeniable. However what is causing it is not completely understood or is misrepresented for political reasons. We have scientists and who say it is man-made greenhouse gasses. Other scientists say it is increased sun spot activity. Some say the combination of the two along with other things , (which seems more reasonable and likely to me.) Sun Spot Link In any case, I doubt that the survival of the humans race is at stake. We will adapt as we have over the millenia. Folks get all sentimental about the survival of species like seals and polar bears and other species that are not really relevant to mankinds existence. I think we should be more concerned with things like the ocean's phytoplankton. It is the source of 1/3 to 1/2 of the earth's oxygen supply. It absorbs much of the earth's carbon dioxide. Without it, we are in peril. According to Nasa Phytoplankton itself can affect global temperature and climate changes. Phytoplankton We gotta look at all posible angles if we are gonna realy understand this global warming, how it will affect us , and what measures we can or should undertake. I am in a pretty dry area right now here in Central Texas. This araa becoming a rain forest wouldn't bother me a bit.

You say I 'speak with a forked- tongue" for using "vast majority" while challengening your "many". Then you exhonorate me with you own inconsistency. You claim 20 out of 100, and then mention only 3 as "many", yet still providing no real examples. -- That leaves either 80 or 97, depending upon how you slice it . I think that both 80 or 97 out of 100 could reasonably be called a vast majority. Do you know how stupid that makes your accusation look? I want examples supporting your "nutshell" argument. Give us posts from these "many" that have said that "VPW did no good". If "many" said it then there should be many posts. What you have done is presume that speaking out against VPW's abuses is the same as "saying he did no good". An errant assumption born of intentional ignorance. I have on quite a few occasions.You can't recall it beacuse you "see" with blinders that prevents it. In any case, I am not here to post the positives. This site it not about the positives, although "many" myself included have and do post positives about VPW and their time in TWI. And unlike you, I can provide examples if I need to. That's it? -- Me, Rascal and Ex10 , who you admit as said positives? -- This is your many? --- This is what you base your sweeping generalization on ? -- So then, your "many" consists of me, beacuse you "can't reacall" me posting anything positive, Rascal as a an "extreme example", and Ex10 (who you freely admit has posted positives more than once)? Johniam, do you know how stupid that makes your argument look ?

Yeah, The infalible Word of Wierwille. Even that is not completely lost due to the presence of a few folks who think VPW got everything right. But you mean the Word of God don't you? This is not a Christian site and as such should not be the place to look for The Word. GS Cafe is here to tell the "other side of the story" concering TWI. All are welcome here not just Bible believing Christians. A laundrymat is where you wash your clothes. You wouldn't go looking for the Word at a laundrymat would ya? Why expect to find it here? Why don't you look in your heart instead and see if you find it there?

Methinks you may be referring to the Marcionites ..... :) They are winked at because they have generraly never been presented to be seen in the first place. At least not by most foks here. Few Christians have any notion as to what Marcion or other early "heretics" taught or that gnosticism and Marcionism were huge movents alongside what is refered to as orthodox Christianity. Danny, maybe sometime you can start a thread about Marcion's Antethesis where he teaches that the God of the OT and the God of the NT are two separate dieties -- The tough Creator God as opposed to all loving Supreme God. Where Jesus serves and reveals the previously unknown Supreme God and not the Hebrew Creator God of the OT. Maybe a Marcionite/gnostic Catechesis?

CK, As others have pointed out, VPW is not being "persecuted" here. Persecution is the wrong word. What is going on here is that TWI is being exposed. The past and the present. The lockbox has been opened. In exposing TWI, VPW's actions have also been exposed, as well as those of other leaders that were or are a part of TWI. There is no "IF" about many of the things that VPW did. Many eye-witnesses have provided the facts. They are only if's to those who refuse to consider verifiable facts and eyewitness testimony. I know of no one here that is saying they are better than VPW because they "persecute him". That is what you are saying. You are wrong. You seem to think we are having fun and getting our jollies by lying about or trashing VPW. We are not. It is not fun telling the ugly truth about a man that most of us once deeply respected and looked up to for spiritual leadership. Likewise, it is not fun finding out the truth, when the truth destroys what you have believed to be true for most of your life. It is a hard pill to swallow. No one wants to believe that they have been duped or have been believing a lies for years and years. No one wants to believe that the man they trusted to teach them the Word -- sexually abused (raped) women in the name of God. That he commited adultery with others. That the man they believed to be THE man of God, lied about snowstorms, lied about people, was mean-spirited, or that some of his teachings may be dead wrong. To even consider these things is distastful because, if true , they might shatter the (false) image that we have built in our minds. To accept these things as true means that must also accept that WE were wrong and change our thinking and maybe even our behavior. Some people just can't do that. They would rather hold up their false image and continue in the deception than to accept the truth and change accordingly. You may be one of those people. You are not the first to come here with with accusations of persecution, hatred, and bitterness. We have seen that numerous times since GS has been around. The arguments of those who refuse to believe the facts and make noise here are pretty predictable. Refusal to even look at the facts. Denial of the facts. (Nothing you say will convince me - it never happened) Folks are accused of lying. Folks are accused of being bitter. Belittling the abuse. ( So what? At least he taught the accurate Word ) Blaming the victims. ( They were participants weren't they? It takes 2 to tango) Accusations of persecution. (Why are you picking on me?) And a common one - You should just "forgive" and move on. All men sin. ( What the big deal about VPW?) There are probably a few more. . My point is, that VPW is not being "persecuted" here becasue we are a bunch of angry, bitter, unforgiving, VPW hating liars. And you are not being "persecuted" because you believe VPW's teachings. What is going here is is telling the "other side" of the TWI story. This means the bad side. -- The facts behind the organization and therefore the facts behind the leaders including VPW. People who were there and experienced it have opened TWI's "lockbox" of dirty little secrets for all to see in the hope that it will help folks fully understand TWI, the good, the bad and the ugly. Most are here to help ourselves or anyone else who wants to know the truth about TWI and it's leaders. There may niot be much help for you here. ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ . . Johniam, you posted: Yours is is a typical example of a VPW/PFAL follower (adorer?) intentionally and unnecessarily misrepresenting what is being said here about VPW/PFAL by the majority of posters and using an out-of-context scripture to make an eroneous conclusion. Jonhiam, where have "many" said that VPW "did no good" ? Provide examples please -- "Many" examples. You won't because you can't. Your adoration of VPW and PFAL has blinded you to what is really being said here by the vast majority. You hear through a distorted filter. My guess is that there are about 100 or so regular posters of 1,694 members here at GS. How many is "many"? -- 1? maybe 2 or 3 ? -- And who are these "many"?

The leadership ability and accomplishments of VPW and the others listed is pale in contrast to that of the late Pope John Paul II. Wierwille's accomplishments will be but a speck of a footnote in the annals of history, while Karol Wojtyla will be remembered alongside people like Ghandi, M.L King, N. Mandella and other real leaders. Karol Wojtyla as Pope and before, led millions in his major role in the downfall of the Soviet Union and it's religious and spiritual oppression. V.P. Wierwille wrote a few religious books and founded a small sect where he led (ruled?) several thousand people. As the leader, he appointed a successor who then ran it into the ground harming many in his path. Hardly a comparison (and I am not even a Catholic).

The reference to God, closing his eyes that CK has referred to comes from PFAL ... It is on page 221. Here, Wierwille is offering his explanation of administrations and in particular how God delt with things in the "patricarchal administration". VPW says God "just closed his eyes to it". To what? --- to the "the times of this ignorance." I am quoting VPW, not becasue I think he is necessarily correct with his administrations, but rather to show were the idea that God closes his eyes to sin came from. But, if we assume VPW to be correct, the eye closing applied to patriarchal administration. --- But, what about now in todays "administration" ? We have to look at all of Acts 17.30, 31. Winked means overlooked, and in the context infers withheld judgment. That was in the past. But now it is different. Now, after God revealed himself through Christ, God no longer closes his eyes to this ignorance, but instead commands man to repent, (to change) and not to be ignorant. Nowhere in this section of scripture is the idea set forth that Christians are to close their eyes and ignore evil, abuse, wrong teachings, etc. coming from Christian leaders. Nowhere does it suggest that Christians close their eyes to evil. Instead, this was a speech by Paul to "men of Athens", pagans, concerning how God overlooked the ignorance of their idolotry and is now giving them a chance to repent and understand the true God through Jesus Christ.

Ck, Ok then, aren't you the one who has said that you will close your eyes concerning VPW, LCM, Geer...? How is that different from Paul Simon's song lyrics that say "still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"?

And that's a good thing? -- Are you following Paul Simon now?

I submit that VPW NEVER taught that the KJV was the ONLY source of knowing God's word. I don't where you checked, but it was never in anything VPW wrote or taught In fact that is the opposite of what VPW taught. VPW himself went many times to the OT in order to add light to the NT. VPW did this extensively in PFAL and his other oher teachings. If you studied VPW's teachings then you should know that. But, for the record, I did not call your "scripture" evil. I certainly did not call the Bible evil. These are absurd misrepresentation. I called your "doctrine" evil and that's a huge difference. Anyone can quote a scripture and then apply a meaning to it. The meaning you applied to 1 Cor 13, is not the meaning that Paul intended. Your interpretation is spurious and clearly contrary to what Paul teaches elsewhere. It is also contray to many, many other teachings in the Bible. Your doctrine of 1 Cor promotes ignorance and abuse. It is therefore "evil" as far as I am concerned. Ok, I won't tell you that, becasue I did indeed say a lot more. However, the rest of this is what is known as a strawman argument or a maybe "red herring"( but not every good ones). This actually helps to show what happens when folks close their eyes to evil. But, to answer the question, many Catholics themselves have demanded that the abusers be removed from positions of leadership - and that the abusers be brought to justiice. Many abusers have been arrested and tried in court. Your doctrine teaches that these folks should have close their eyes, and thus let the abuse(evil) continue. So your argument here here is inconsistant with your doctrine and makes no sense unless you are proposing, that like you, the Catholic people and and the RCC leaders should close their eyes and ignore the misdeeds. It was the closing of eyes, same as proposed in your doctrine, that allowed much it in the first place. So, which is it? -- Should they have close their eyes or not. Was the Church right when they closed their eyes, covering up the "evil" of the abusers. Or should they have taken action against it when they became aware of it? Were the families and victims wrong when they exposed the evil? Your doctrine says that it was. It does not matter to me what version of the Bible someone quotes from. Anyone can quote from the Bible (King James or any other) and then foist an erroneous meaning upon it. This was something that VPW taught very clearly in PFAL. He called it "private interpretation". I thought you learned from VPW? It does not seem so. I am not persecuting you for saying that VPW helped you understand the word of God, he help me in that area too. Instead, I am challenging your interpretation of a section of scripture. CK, the more I read your answers, the more I doubt that you learned much of anything from VPW or PFAL. You contradict the very teachings of VPW, the man you say you learned from - and the man you seem to want to be a martyr for. You don't seem to know anything about him - neither the good, nor the bad - nada. While it is true that I don't believe that everything that VPW taught was correct, I do believe he did a pretty good job with his basic "keys to research". But you do not apply these keys at all. You don't even seem to know them. If you really learned from VPW it seems that you would at least know the basics of what VPW actually taught. You don't. Instead, It seems to me that you may never have opened a PFAL book. In any case, you have offered little to support you interpretation of 1 Cor , except mispresentations of what I and others have said, errors concerning what VPW taught, and cries of fowl and persecution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Todd, I suggest that your implication that we may be somehow "driving driving him deeper into whatever he is into", is misapplied/misdirected. IMO, he is already in about as deep as he can get.

. . No problem Todd, and I liked your edit too.

I agree. But you did anyway so let's get this over with shall we? There is a difference between fighting and debating, - or between fighting and challenging. But understanding that may be "over your head" Todd. Paint it how you will. And what "manner" do you suggest one use with Roy. Should we just let him post his "words from Jesus " without question or challenge? Maybe I should just ignore him like most of the folks here - eh? Write him off ? ...Hold his hand? Tell him he is doing fine? Tell him it is nice, while really believing he is deluded? Sorry, I won't do that. Your idea of "wisdom" and "biblical" seem to be quite different from mine. And I wont take your suggestive digs to heart either Todd. One difference between you and me is that my "digs" are out in the open for all to see, while yours are more subtle and sugar coated. I am not afraid to call a spade a spade. I dont think you have any idea what I understand or don't understand. Admittedly. I do have difficulty with Roy's language and grammar, and I would not pretend to understand his experiences. I only know what he claims to be his experiences - an one is that the words he posts are "words from Jesus" which I highly doubt. However, I do not doubt that Roy believes they are. And I have little doubt that he is sincere. Answer this Todd, do you believe that Roy's prophecies are "words from Jesus" as he claims? -- Yes, No ,. Maybe? Dodge or ignore this question if you want to as many other GSer's here have done. Because Roy is a nice and loving guy, lets not hurt his feelings. Let him go unchallenged. Write him off. I have chosen to challenge Roy on occasion and not let the fact that he is a nice guy influence my choice. This is my choice, not yours. Roy doesn't have to respond to me if he doesn't want to. But understand this, I haven't written Roy off like many others here have.

Care to expound on that Todd? If you have something to add here, I am all ears.

Roy, I see the scriptures you post, then I see your commentary afterwards which simply looks like your personal interpretation of what you think it means. Some of your commentaries look more like a re-write of the scriptures than anything. Roy, that is not what I wanted at all. I wanted you to show, from the context who the "dead in Christ" are. I don't want a scripture re-write or a new translation Roy, this sentence absolutely makes no sense the way wrote it, but I will ty to fix the gramatical errors for you if I can so we can be on the same page. I will paraphase. If it it wrong then correct me. OK? "Goey, you are missing part of the context. Them that are asleep or dead which [with] no hope....( incomplete sentence) ..... [Know] understand the time that Paul wrote this to the Thessalonian Church." ( historical context) I think you are saying that I wasn't taking in to account the time in which this was written. Not so. I just didn't expound on it as it is not really necessary for understanding the "dead in Christ ". Roy this is called the "historical context". In any case we need to get Paul's grammar correct. It is not the "dead in christ" that Paul was refering to as having or not having hope. (V13) It was the living. Paul was comforting the "brethren" (Chrsitians) living with words of hope concerning the dead. Look at it again. "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope." That YE sorrow not, as others as others ( non Christians) who have no hope. Paul told them that as Christians they had hope concerning them that sleep ( the dead in Christ). If you want to talk historical context, consider that these folks were living in a pagan world, most of which were former pagans themselves. Pagans held no hope for an afterlife. Below is a commentary by J. Hampton Keathley, III , that explains it pretty well. As we look at this passage, it is also important that we understand something of the beliefs of the pagan world from which these believers had been redeemed. As verse 13 states, the pagan world had no real hope of life after death. There was an inscription in Thessalonica which read: “After death, no reviving, after the grave, no meeting again.” Paul was saying the the brethren in Thessalonica that "you are not like the pagans that have no hope". Concerning Verse 14 you posted: "I see no parallels here but I see false teaching misslead us." The parallel is clear as a bell Roy. Look again. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. Roy, what do you think "even so" means ..... Paul is comparing Jesus ressurection to the ressurection of the dead in Christ. Is it possibly that you don't want to see the relationship? Now, what "false teaching" are you referring to ......and who teaches it ? If you are gonna claim false teaching on this then you had better do your homework and prove it wrong with more than you have offered Roy. Roy said: "Paul not alive in the flesh now but me and you both see that Paul includes himself as a alive in Christ So either God lie or there a error in our understanding". That's an absurd argument Roy. It seems to be your fallback. It is like the old TWI false dilema that basically says, "if you dont see it my way, you are calling God a liar. ... Unacceptable tactics Roy. You can do better than that if you try. When Paul wrote Thessalonias, of course he was alive. He was "in Christ", And certainly he is now dead. When he was alive he was one of those who "was alive and remained". He alive an he was "in Christ" When he died, he then became one of the "dead in Christ". He sleeps "in Jesus". This is easy to understand and flows nicely with the context and the grammar that Paul used. Roy we don't have to use false dilemas to make our case. Roy posted: " ..as he has descended from heaven at the last trump of God the last breath of Jesus when he said it is finish the second he won over death when he came down to be seen and that why the apostles saw Moses in the clouds because Moses was one of the ones asleep or dead in Christ which rose first. Roy, have you got the order of things confused a bit? I could be mistaken but I don't think the last trump sounded when Jesus was on the cross and said, "it is finished". The last trump in 1Thess referrs to the second comming of Christ. AND the apostles NEVER saw Moses "in the clouds". Roy, show me one verse of scripture that even suggests that the apostles saw Moses "in the clouds". Where did this stuff come from?

All quotes by Penguin from the opening post. It was alive an well in the 70's /80's also. Heard that more than once. But. In TWI, trusting the Bible for the most part meant trusting VPW's or LCM's or TWI's changing and evolving interpretation of it. VPW/LCM/etc played by one set of rules, we had to play by another. In order to keep this up, scriptures had to be "interpreted" within that framework then "doctrine" estabished. Like maybe the idea of MOGFOT or that "leaders" get revelation first. Stuff like that. Pure hypocrisy. All of the above and then some. If Wierwille./LCM were actually hearing from God (I don't think they were) why would they want to stiffle anyone else's experience or relationship with God? If they weren't really hearing from God, then they were frauds and would not accept anyone else's experience as authentic or valid. To do so would undermine the deception and diminish their power and control. All experiences must go through the TWI filter,. whatever it happens to be at the time.

Roy, I was more interested in the immediate context of Chapter 4, verses 4-17, not the whole epsitle really. And particularly, anything that can shed light upon who the "dead in Christ" are. You are saying they are NOT the Christians that died after Christ ascended. I am saying that they ARE. I suggest that the immediate context helps us understand who they are. I suggest the the immediate begins in verse 13. 1 Th 4:13: "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope." Paul is discussing "them which sleep". That is the topic at hand. --Next Verse 1 Th 4:14: "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." Paul parallels Jesus's death and ressurection with them "which sleep in Jesus". This parallel implies that "sleep" in this verse refers to a physical death like Jesus physical death. "Jesus" is the same as "Christ" and "sleep" is the same as "dead", so then we can say that "sleep in Jesus" is the same as "dead in Christ". Can we not ? 1 Th 4:15: For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. We which are alive and remain (Paul includes himself ) as opposed to those who are alseep [in Jesus]. It would follow then that Paul was refering to the believers then living - the alive [in Jesus]. We could call them the alive in Christ if we wanted to. 1 Th 4:15: For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Now we have for the first time (and only time in the Bible) the term "dead in Christ". The context above clearly tells us that these are "them that sleep in Jesus" same as in verse 13. But what does Paul mean by "in Christ" ? It means those who believed and were converted. Paul uses the term in Christ in the following verse in Romans. Rom 16:7: Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. These cousins of Paul were in Christ before Paul. "Before" inticates a time line. There was a point in time when Paul was not in Christ. Paul was converted to the Christian faith some time after Christ's ascension. Adronicis and Junia some time before Paul. "In Christ" is used at other times to describe people. In each case, the contexts suggests that it refers to Christians. I can see no evidence that "in Christ" refers to anyone other than someone in the Christian Faith, or to anyone who died before Christ. In summary the "dead in Christ" are Christians who have died, and "we who are alive and remain" are the Christians who are alive now. As far as "dead spirits" go it is confusing to me because the terminology is not familiar. I haven't read of "dead spirit" and "dead spirits" in the Bible. I did a search of the King James and found no match for "dead "spirit" or "dead spirits." But I suppose if someone does not have the spirit of God in them, you might could say they have a "dead spirit". But that's not the same as them actually having a spirit in them and the spirit itself is lifeless (dead) But that is still confusing.