Goey

Zix, Not really. In my last post I was talking about VPW's take on figures, not just whether or not God himself intended/knew that figures were used. It is partly a quibble over the definition of emphasis, but more than that it is the error in VPW's logic and exposition of the subject. BTW, © above is debatable. I have looked at definitions from some unversities and none (so far) use the term "emphasis" in regards to figures of speech. It seems that this may be a somewhat narrow definiton. But, assuming that you logic above is not flawed and the givens are indeed true, how do you logically explain VPW's following statement? "...can you imagine for one minute that God would allow any mortal the privilege of deciding what should be emphasized in the Word of God" The question is rhetorical and for VPW the answer was obviously "no". That statement in the context of figures of speech implies that *only* God decides what it to be emphasized, and VPW's lack of any other teaching about emphasis, implies that it is *only* by figures of speech that God makes emphasis in his Word. If it is *only* by figures that emphasis is made, then it follows that where there is no figure, there is no emphasis. It also follows, that if a mortal emphasizes a precept or truth that God did not give by way of a figure, he is doing something that God has forbidden. (I know that this is repetetive, bit you seemed to gloss over this post of my previoius post.) Do figures of speech emphasize things in the Bible - Yes Did God choose to use figures - Yes Did God forbid mortals "the privilege of deciding what should be emphasized in the Word of God? " - No Is it *only* by figures of speech that there is any "emphasis" in the Word? You answer. Goey

Zix, Rafael makes a good case. VPW taught that figures are God's way of telling us what HE wants it to be emphasied. VPW did not teach any other way that God might emphasize something in the Bible. It is safe to assume that VPW meant that if God wants it emphasized, He (God) will use a figure, and that humans are not allowed to decide what it to be emphazized. So then according to Wierwille, If God did not use a figure there is to be no added emphasis. To do so would be human interference in deciding what is to be emphasized, which according to Wierwille , God does not allow. So according to Wierwille, if I were to take a verse of scripture which has no figure employed and emphasize it in some way, then I would be outside of God's will and what He allows. - That is rediculously absurd. To me this clearly makes VPW's take on figures an actual error. Goey [This message was edited by Goey on January 23, 2003 at 10:11.]

Larry, Ouch ! Larry, I'll work the figures in your post to see what is really important. Goey

Statement: The Holy Spirit marked the important things by figures of speech. To rephrase this into a simple A-B connective it would read: 1. If it is a figure of speech(A) then it is important (B). The contrapositive is: If not B then not A, and would read: 2. If it is not important (B) then it is not a figure of speech (A). Using this logic, I would say that this is unprovable. For one, importance is too subjective. Important for what and to whom? I could easily easily find a verse which includes a figure of speech that seems trivial to me and of no real importance, that would seem to make the contrapositive false and thereby invalidate the first connective statement. In defense, one could argue that all scripture is important. But arguing that would contradict the first A-B connective. Wierwille, of course, got his ideas on figures from none other than E.W Bullinger. Bullinger's opinion is that the Holy Spirit uses figures for: 1. For the purpose of attracting our attention to what is said. 2. To emphasize what is said. Note that this is only Bullinger's opinion. While it may be true, it is not objectively provable. How do we know that God used figures for emphasis? Figures are also part of common everyday language, many are simply built in. I use them quite often - sometimes with no forethought. I do not "always" use them for emphasis or to mark what is important. Wierwiille possibly took "emphasis" to mean "importance". Regardless of the pure logic involved, VPW saying that figures mark what is important, implies in the mind of the average Joe, that scriptures with figures have more importance than those which do not - or that the figurative part of a verse is the important part. Important as opposed to what? In any case we probably should be dealing with Wierwille's intended meaning of that statement, rather than from a purely logical standpoint. No one can rightly accuse VPW of using good logic. I seriously doubt that Wierwille considered the contrapositive. Goey [This message was edited by Goey on January 22, 2003 at 16:35.]

Long Gone, I was not offended in the least. I am just being stubborn in public. We share a similar belief about the Bible and revelation. For me though, it mostly concerns the New Testament scriptures. I don't think that Matthew, Luke, Paul, etc knew that what they were writing would hundreds of years later become the "Word of God". But actually I have more respect for it now than I did when I considered it God-breathed. Your thoughts are of great value, whether I happen to agree or not, and it is good having you in the discussion. Your apology is not necessary. Goey

Any diet that does not include some kind of vigorious exercise is domed to faliure. You may shed some pounds, but you will be losing some muscle mass as well as fat, besides, you will most likely yo-yo right back up after you come off the diet. Some women I know have lost quite a bit of weight on diets without any exercise. They looked good in tight jeans, but without the jeans, they looked like they had been sunbathing in a hail storm. Do consider some exercise along with that diet. Goey

Figures... I agree with Rafael's assessment on figures. They do not necessarily point to what is more important and relegate the literal to less important. Actually, adding a figure can sometimes cause the loss of emphasis. Rafael said, "Thou Shalt Not Murder loses no emphasis without the addition of a figure of speech." Hmm? Let's add a figure and see.. "Thou shalt not quench the fountain of another mans soul." or... "Thou shalt not cause another to fall asleep before his appointed time" You be the judge as to which has more emphasis or more importance. In any case, as a side note, I think TWI sometimes employed obscure figures of speech in order to torture scripture to fit into their preconceived beliefs. Goey

LoneGone, Um let's see. You say that "espoused" in Luke 2:5 does not really mean "espoused". That they had a mariage ceremony according to Jewish tradidtion that the Bible does not mention, but they just did not have sex. And of course must have faked the or ommited the "tokens of virginity" part of that ceremony. And then they masqueraded around as if they did have sex, not wanting to give the "appearance of evil" in the circumstances of Jesus' conception and birth. ??? Ok now, let me see now, who was it that is reading things into the bible. ????? :)--> Goey [This message was edited by Goey on January 20, 2003 at 23:42.]

Rafael, Sorry, I took your statement as being decisive. "Cocked-sure" was a poor choice of words. All I am really arguing is the possibility of some folks back then believing that Jesus was conceived in sin. Like you, I am not convinced one way or another on what the Pharisees meant. Goey

IN the NIV, John 8:41 reads: "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself." While this may be easier to understand from a language point of view, the translators took great liberty in interpreting the phrase "born of fornication" to mean "illegitimate children". - It assumes way too much. "Born of fornication" (gk. ek porneias ouk egenn??n) does not directy correlate to "illegitimate children". The words used in the text do however directly correlate to "born of fornication. The NIV can bite you if you are not careful. It is clear that VPW was in error concerning the Bar Mitzvah. I am not contesting that at all. But it is also clear from Luke that, (1.) That Mary was pregnant when she left to stay with Elizabeth for three months and that Elisabeth knew about it. (2. ) That Joseph and Mary had not come together and were still but espoused when Mary was "great with" child. It is also clear that betrothed/espoused couples were forbidden to have sex. It was considered a sin. Anyone who saw Mary's pregnancy and did not know of the divine conception would have assumed that Joseph and Mary had jumped the gun, or that Mary had commited adultery with another while betrothed to Joseph. In either case it would have been fornication. Mary spent most of her pregnancy in Nazareth after returning from Elisabeth's house in Juda. In the time of Jesus, Nazareth was a small agricuktural town of only a few dozen families, and it it not likely that Mary could have hidden her pregnancy from "the neighbors". They would most likely have known about it. It is not unreasonable at all to speculate that Jesus may have been considered to have been "born of fornication" by some folks and that there *may* have been some stigma related to that. Rafael posted: Yea, but what if I tell you, "Look, I know you are the blood decendent of Louis Olmeda, a good man, but your real father is Satan", and you then looked at me, presuming me to have been born a bastard, and said, "I was not born as a result of illicit sex". ??? With all due respect, I just don't see how you are so cocked-sure that this was a self-defense statement by the Pharisees. Goey

Rafael, Question: If the fornication comment in John 8 was not directed at Jesus in some way, then where did it come from? Why did they even bring up fornication? The context in John 8:42 is clearly parentage or "Who's your daddy!" I do agree thgough that there is no evidence of any stigma associated with the presumed sin of Joseph and Mary. But it seems to me that these Pharisees may have been grasping at straws to discredit Jesus, and that this fornication comment was probably the best they could come up with. - to bring up his parents presumed past indescretion. BTW, the Pharisees did not add or imply the "corrected themselves" part - you did. It would be like someone bringing up the past sin of another, even though the person had apologized and repented of it and changed his ways. The one bringing it up is not concerned with whether or not the person has changed or repented - they just use the past as a weapon to discredit whenever convenient. Happens all the time. You should meet my ex-wife. Goey

Ex10, Did you read my post thoroughly (or is that throughy?) ;)--> How then do you handle Luke 2:4-5 where Mary is great with child, yet it says clearly says that Mary is still Joseph's "espoused wife". There is no record of a comming together ceremony or a honeymoon night. Also, it pretty clear from Luke 1:42 - ? that Elisabeth also knew of Mary's conception. Are you suggesting that Mary and Joseph lied or were intentionally deceptive to family and friends about this devine conception? After both had been visited by an angel of God? Why would they do that ? Try a few commentaries. Of those I have read, none have made this kind of specuation. What folks believe and practice today in the US bears little on what folk did in Jewish culture in those days. As for me, I kind of doubt that Joseph and Mary were too concerned about the neighbors at this point. It seems they may have stayed for the "days of purification which" according to Leviticus 12 would have been 40 days after the birth of the child. Everything was done strircly according to the Law. The Magi finding them in a house indicates that they moved out of the stable which was only temporary. They would have been in a "house" (okia) already if there had been room elsewhere. The arriving of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem coincides with the Feast of Tabernacles( according to many), which all the men of Israel were required attend. Bethlehem is only about 5 miles from Jerusalem so every room for miles around Jerusalem would have been already taken up. The Feast of Tabernacles lasts 8 days, so after this there would be have been room available elsewhere. Ex10, what you are saying here is all based on the presumption that Mary and Joseph were somehow inclined to conceal Mary's pregnancy - That they were ashamed or so concerned about about what the neighbors thought, that they would leave town and be deceptive to friend and family to hide Mary's conception and pregnancy. I see no real evidence to suggest that at all. What you think you may have felt or done in Mary's situation bears little on what Mary & Joseph may have felt or done. Mary was a Jewess who had been chosen by God to give birth to His Messiah. These folks lived in another time and in a completely different culture and very likely did not think like us Texans. :)--> Goey

Rafael, We are using the terms "illegitimate" and "bastard" in a sense that may not be biblical. As you noted, all folks are "legitimate" but acccording Deuteronomy "bastards" are not allowed in the Temple. Clearly this not the case with Jesus. Jesus was not considered a bastard in the biblical sense and was therefore *legitimate* according to the law. He had to be. So, is the real question is whether the Pharisees thought Jesus was "legitimate", or whether the Pharisees or anyone else believed that he was "born of fornication"? In Luke 1:36 Gabriel tells Mary, "thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived..." - "Also", implying that Mary had indeed conceived before she left to visit her cousin Elisabeth for three months after which she returned to Nazareth. Then some time later, in Luke 2:4-5, Mary is "great with child" yet the record says that Mary is still Joseph's "espoused wife". As I understand it according to Jewish tradition, a man and his espoused wife have not yet consumated the marriage. It is also forbidden for a esposued couple to have sex until after the marriage ceremony. According to the Matthew Henry Study Bible: Jesus was presumed to be born of a union between Joseph and Mary. When was this union then presumed to have taken place? I suggest that it likely that the Pharisees as well as others who knew them, presumed that union took place while Joseph and Mary were espoused and not yet officially married - according to the source above, an act that was strictly forbidden. Might this presumed act have been called "fornication" by the Pharisees in John 8:41? Rafael Posted. Yes, but only assuming that you mean legitimate according to Biblical laws and terms. He may have been presumed to have been "born of fornication" or whatever they called the call the "sin" of an esposed/betrothed couple having sex before the official marriage. The presumption of Joseph having been Jesus' biological father is irrelevant to Jesus so-called legitimacy. According to Luke, they were still only "espoused" when Mary was "great with child". I see no evidence in the Bible to suggest that Mary and Joseph were anything other than espoused at the time of Jesus' birth. What ramifications this may have had in biblical times is uinclear - it may have meant little. But in modern times in certain strict areas, it may have been considered a big deal. This may be a case where confusion is caused by mixing biblical and modern terms modern, or by attempting to correlate biblical situations in modern terms according to modern ideas. Goey [This message was edited by Goey on January 19, 2003 at 22:08.]

What the Hay, Am I reading this right? Does this mean that it is only because you have not read "some" of VPW writings that you cannot say that you agree with "all" of them - implying that you do agree with "all" that you have read? In any case, this thread has nothing to do with, "bringing up VPW's words just to have something to strive over..." A claim was made by one poster that the PFAL book is/was God- breathed, and by covenant in 1942 it supersedes the scrptures which are horribly impotent. He further claims that it is only by "mastery" of PFAL that anyone can truly walk with God - implying that no person anywhere who does not "master" PFAL cannot really know God. In other words PFAL is Divine Truth and the God-breathed word and the Bible is a powerless approximation of the Word. In response to these claims, this discussion is on the vein that if PFAL is indeed the Word of God, then as VPW taught, it must be error free, yet many have doccumented some errors. The one poster claims that these are only "apparent errors". We are attempting to have some dialog concerning these errors in PFAL. So this thread has little to with anyone "attempting to stand approved before men" or simply to prove VPW wrong just for the sake of argument. The implications of what the one poster has claimed are serious enough that these errors, whether apparent or real, warrant debate and discussion. BTW, Welcome to GreaseSpot. Goey

Zix, Thanks, I did look at the Septuigant. In Deut 23: 2 the Greek used is "pornes" and is translated by Brenton as "one born of a harlot". porn?s Greek for harlot or prostitute. Goey

Rafael, I am not really saying anything. Just looking at some evidence. No conculsions here either. But if bastard in Deut. means something else than just a child conceived out of wedlock, then the stigma may not have been as great as has been assumed. In Luke 1, though it would seem that Elizabeth was also privy to Mary's conception. After her visit from Gabriel, Mary left Nazareth and went to a "city in Juda" to live with Elizabeth for three months. She then returned to Nazareth when she was about three months pregnant but only espoused to Joseph. Then in Luke 2:4-5 we see Mary and Joseph leave Nazareth for Bethlehem and Mary is "great with child" yet is still only epsoused/betrothed to Joseph. Wouldn't folks in Nazareth have known? Is is possible that Joseph though to "put her away privily" to save her honor, the antithesis to that was to stick it out with God and accept the stigma that his "son" would be considered by the community as having been conceived before he and Mary were legally married. ? Just some thoughts. Goey

Rafael, According to Strongs Hebrew Lexicon, "bastard" is from the Hebrew 'mamzer' mamzer {mam-zare'} 1174a from an unused root meaning to alienate Outline of Biblical Usage 1) bastard, child of incest, illegitimate child a) bastard b) mixed population (fig.) c) born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother or visa versa Is it possible that 'bastard' here in Deuteonomy is referring to a child of incest or a child of conceived a Jew and a heathen such as an Ammonite or a Maobite ( See Verse 22:30 and Verse 23:3) and not just an illigitimate child conceived out of wedlock between two Jews? Possibly 'bastard' in English does not fully correlate to "mamzer" in Hebrew. Just a tidbit worth considering. Goey

What is the history of Bar/Bat Mitzvah? " TARGET=_blank>http://www.milknhoney.co.il/torah/barmit_history.html Although it was not Bar Mitzvah as is practiced today, according to this source, there was "probably" some kind of religious confirmation of Jewish boys at the time of Christ. The age of 13 is not set in stone - it is probable. According to another source ( Rivkind) Moroccans boys Bar Mitzvah at the age 12. Karl D. Coke . PHD, like VPW, also believes that Jesus was in Jerusalem for "Bar Mitzvah" and he builds a plausible case, yet makes no reference to 12 years as being the age that illigimate boys celebeated this in Jesus day. Here is the link: http://www.restorationfoundation.org/6_126.htm So, it is "possible" that Jesus could have participated in some kind of comming of age ceremony at the time in the record in Luke 2. More evidence of this "possibility" is the record of Jesus having dialog with the the "doctors" in the Temple, which could be seen as similar to the custom of the boys in the Middle Ages making a speech or giving a lesson. However, I can find no reference at all that the age of 12 was reserved for illigitimate boys in regards to any ceremony. At this point I will move Rafael's point # 1 out of the "actual error" category in regards to PFAL. It now becomes a doctrinal isssue at this point, IMO. Yet there is nothing to support that PFAL is correct on # 2. I count that as speculation without any legitimate supporting evidence. So you see Mike, it is not too difficult to search these kinds of things. This took me less than 1 hour to do the work on this, and I did not have to do a song and dance routine. Goey [This message was edited by Goey on January 17, 2003 at 14:45.]

I have seen enough now. Steve's post does a very good job of summinng up Mike's methods and position. Mike is not here to discuss and exchange he is here to anounce. Mike has made it pretty clear that he is not interested objective examination and dialog concerning PFAL. God knows he has had opportunity. Mike, you have either ignored my posts, made excuses, or repsonded with little more than mindless blather and rambling twaddle. You have done the same with others. Mike, with that being said, I will no longer waste my time attempting any kind of dialog with you. Count Me Out Goey

Mike, Rafael asked you to deal with two specific things in regards to Luke 2 that VPW stated without basis or proof. These are: 1. That they were in town for bar-mitzvah. 2. That "illegitimate" children were treated differently than other children for the purpose of bar-mitvah. You did everyting except address these specific claims. As for me, I am not interested in how many months or years of study it will take or how germane is is to the story. VPW thought it was germane, because he used these to prove his point. Is this your answer? That: 1. VPW found, but then lost an "old piece of literature" about illegitimate boys being taken to Bar Mitzvah at 12. 2. God gave revelation to VPW confirming the accuracy of this literature, saying, " You can trust the lost, "old piece of literature" and the 13 year old shame deal." Mike, you have got to do better than that. You can't expect too many to take you and your "data" very seriously if you respond to legitimate questions with, "God gave him [VPW] a revelation..." Is this going to be your pat answer? Goey

Apostasia Forsake - Acts 21:21 (KJV) Fallng away - II Thesalonians 2:3 ( KJV) Rebellion - Flavius Josephus, Josephi vita (ed. B. Niese) section 43 (KJV) Rebellion - Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico libri vii (ed. B. Niese) book 7, section 164 Rebellion - Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico libri vii (ed. B. Niese) book 7, section 82 In the Vulgate Jerome translates apostasia into "discessio" which is mostly translated into 'division' from the Latin Classics, as in political divisions. However, In Acts 20:29 Jerome also translates the Greek 'aphixis" into 'discessio(nem) in the Latin. Aphixis is translated "depart" in the KJV. Aphixis is only used this one time in the NT. In Classical litreature it can mean either arrive or depart. Acts 20:29 "For I know this, that after my departing..." Refering to either Paul's departing to Jerusalem English ----------------- Greek --------------------- Latin Falling away ------- apostaisa ----------------- discessio Forsake ------------ apsotasia ------------------ discessio Depart ------------- aphixis --------------------- descissio If we look at the words translated 'depart' rom the Greek NT. Apochoreo - Depart - 3 Aperchomai - Depart - 27 Metabaino - Depart - 7 poreuomai - 11 Ok, that enough. (There may be more.) The only language evidence that I see that might suggest that "apostasia" be translated as "depart" is Jerome's rendering of both 'aphixis' and "apostasia" into the Latin 'descessio'. But this is a very weak linkage. The Latin may have had several meaning for 'descissio', but it seems pretty clear that in the Greek that 'apostasia' and 'aphaxis' are not synonymous. Apostasia in every other ocurence I can find outside of the NT means rebellion. 'Forsake' applies in Acts 21:21 in that these rebelled against Paul's teachings and thererfore forsook him. It would be an exception and departure in usage for apostasia to mean 'departure' in the sense of a gathering together. There are other words in the Greek that would fit much better if 'departure' were the intended meaning. The context strongly suggests rebellion. If we are to build or support a doctrine of a premillenial rapture, we need to find other verses. Wordwolf, literal translations of Greek words are nice, but they quite often do not convey the common usage and meaning. TWI made a lot of mistakes by doing this. - In French, a potato is called a "pomme de terre" . This translates to "apple of the ground". But it is certainly not an apple. Greek is much the same. Goey

I have had several dogs, but the best one I ever had was a mutt - Toby. He was 1/2 Golden Lab and half Australian Shepherd - about 60 lbs. He loved the water and took naturally to both hunting and herding. He was gregarious and extremely good natured. I got Toby from the animal shelter in 82 when he was 8 weeks old. He died last November at the ripe old age of 19. He was active until just a couple weeks before he died. He was a loyal friend. I miss him. Goey

Thanks for the birthday wishes folks. Special thanks Kit for keeping up these things - and to Wacky Funster who took me out to a fine steak and shrimp lunch in San Antonio. Goey

You have repeatedly demonstrated your ignornance, closed mindedness and hipocracy more than anything. In PFAL itself your "master", VPW, taught keys to research so that we could "get back to the Word." In light of this, VPW also taught that "The greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the revealed word and will of God" - the same Bible that you say is "horribly impotent". Why it is that VPW himself failed to plainly tell us in PFAL that PFAL itself was greater than the Bible and that God "reissued his Word" in the form of PFAL? After all, if this was true then VPW already had this "fresh revelation" in print and on film for years. Why did he not plainly tell us? Why did it take God 50 years since PFAL was first taught and, 17 years since the death of "the master" for God to send someone to reveal this to the world. I'll tell you why. Because it is a damned lie - that's why. Pure fiction. Totally absurd and baseless except possibly in the mind of one person - Mike. Mike, you must feel very privledged to be the only human-being in the entire world to know these "hidden truths" and to have been chosen by God to reveal these things that have been "buried" since VPW got his "revelation" in 1942. It must be also be very humbling to know that of all the folks in the whole world that you and you alone alone know the real truth and that everyone else in all of Christianity and the world is in error. You have taken the concept of false prophet to new heights. Goey

Dr. Wierwille taught that the OT was only "for our learning" and that the NT was for "doctrine", distinguishing between the two. He used Romans 15:4 for his proof text. Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. However what VPW failed to tell us was that "learning" in Romans 15: 4 is the Greek - didaskalia. This same Greek word is translated "doctrine" 19 times elsewhere in the Bible. This is the only verse where it is translated "learning". Goey