Raf

On "the four crucified" and the gospel of John, Wierwille's point was that the word "one" (on either side one) was not in the text. On that he appears to have been correct, from the few interlinears I've seen.

So, here we go. Here's the list of hurricane/tropical storm names for 2006. You'll note that my name is on it. :) Alberto Beryl Chris Debby Ernesto Florence Gordon Helene Isaac Joyce Kirk Leslie Michael Nadine Oscar Patty Rafael Sandy Tony Valerie William

Mark, In fairness to VPW, I don't recall him mentioning the punctuation difference in the gospel of John. That was just me. The use of the five crosses pic always bugged me. After telling us not to rely on art to prove our points, TWI relies on art to prove Wierwille's point. Now we know the truth: the monument was never intended to be a representation of the crucifixion. It's not even one monument! Good catch. By the way, on the heteros v. allos issue: has anyone ever found any scholarship indicating heteros means only two involved while allos means more than two? I mean, aside from Wierwille? Genuine question. I'm just curious to know where he got the definition from.

Happy Birthday, Tom! And God Bless Texas!

I'm actually not sure where the singer is from. It's a song that had very little staying power. It was a huge hit while it was a hit, but since then you almost never hear it. It's from the 80s It's from a movie It's peppy Just give me a chance to let me show you how much...

The theorems of PFAL have also been proven false, repeatedly. Mike, you're exalting a flawed document about the Word of God that document is trying to point you to. You've been doing that for years, to the point that it's seared your brain. You're now unABLE to consider that you might be wrong. If that's your position, fine. To say what I want to say next would be a shot too cheap even for my feelings toward you, so I will stop here and not respond to any more of your nonsense.

Amen. My note was tongue in cheek, so no, I definitely do not recommend sending it, and yes, a little more tenderness would be appropriate. :)

All I have to do is adopt your point of view for a little while and I'll see things your way? No thanks. I haven't actually taken you off ignore. I simply read when there's the possibility that you're responding to something I said. Your postulate has already been proven false. To continue to try to prove it true when it's already been proven false is known in science as futility, and known in rhetoric as insanity. I'm sure if YOU would adopt the objective approach for which you compliment ME, you would see that.

Mark, I'm saying ... that is the discrepancy pointed to by Wierwille: In Matthew the two are crucified after the passage of some time. In Luke the two are led with him at the same time. Unless there are four people, there appears to be a discrepancy. I'm not saying that is my position. I'm actually undecided on it. I am saying that this was Wierwille's position. Right. I left that out. Thanks, Mike.

Because I want to be good to you. I didn't mean to be bad.

Mark, The discrepancy in the four crucified is, if I'm not mistaken, that in two gospels, two people are crucified at the same time as Jesus, while in another gospel, two are crucified well after Jesus is crucified (I could have this backward, but the point is that the discrepancy is in the timing). If that chronology is correct, then there must be a total of five people crucified (three at first, then two joined them). John says "two others with him on this side and on that side." Without a comma, it's pretty clear that four are crucified with him. WITH a comma ("two others with him, on this side and on that side"), it's pretty clear that there's only two. Acceptance of four crucified with Jesus entails acceptance that the chronology of the others crucified as presented in PFAL (and How to Enjoy the Bible) is significant, and that no comma belongs in the verse in the gospel of John. Whether a comma belongs there or not is unprovable, according to PFAL, because the oldest existing texts contained no punctuation (has anyone verified this?). So it comes down to chronology.

Can someone else jump in?

Who said this? When did anyone say this? For the record, when confronted on this very point, here's what I said:

I've answered your question many times before, and as I said, I refuse to entertain your play at ignorance. You've asked this before, I've answered it before, and you keep asking as though it's never been answered. Enough. I only brought this up to show that your definition of "idolatry" conveniently changes when it suits your purposes. WTH: Interesting post. I would go a step further and say heteros has nothing to do with whether two are involved or more than two are involved. That's the error there. Nonetheless, whether or not it's footnoted and whether or not it's accurate are two separate issues. Why would anyone complain about the footnotes that ARE present in the PFAL series (incidentally, you flat out lie when you say there's no concern there: I've applauded those footnotes, as have others). Complaining about footnotes that are present is like getting a traffic ticket for stopping at a stop sign. Your point is flawed, your example is flawed, and your example is a non-sequitir when it comes to your point.

Dear ____, I am so glad that you remember the things I taught you, and that they helped you in your search for the things of God. Allow me to share one more thing with you. "God's ministry" is not The Way International. It is the ministry of reconciliation (II Corinthians 5: 18), and it is something I am still actively engaged in. I love helping people reconcile to God through Christ, and will continue to do so for as long as I have breath. The things that God commands me to do through Jesus Christ, I do. They do not include participation in any particular earthly organization. The Body of Christ does not respect such affiliations, so I see no reason why my decision to avoid a particular organization should translate into an inability to see you. I was sorry to hear of Mrs. Wierwille's death. I will be sure to send my condolences to her family. You might want to reach out to them as well. I hear many of them can be reached in care of Christian Family Fellowship. You can look them up on the Internet. You can look up lots of things on the Internet. Feel free to call me or come over any time. Sincerely, .... I double dog dare you. :)

So Catholics don't practice idolatry, in your view?

Oldies, If you don't see it now, you're not going to see it, and I'm not going to entertain your request for me to prove that the sky is blue.

Ladder 49

Oldies, Mike's idolatry extends beyond considering PFAL God-breathed.

Just because you have eagerly embraced idolatry and refuse to see your way out of it doesn't mean the rest of us should.

You're welcome. I mean... Thank You Led Zeppelin And now... These empty arms are getting stronger every day.

Steven Segal/Shirley Jones 5

Vivien Leigh was in Ship of Fools with Lee Marvin Marvin was in Delta Force with George Kennedy Kennedy was in Cool Hand Luke, in which Harry Dean Stanton had a bit part.

Umm, Grave Croissants is not the answer. Most people here have seen this movie. Hint: French for Bread is...

I don't even want to think about it.