Raf

But, but, but... you forgot to say if you'll have coffee or not. Well?

Can't say I approve of your religious decisions, (can't say that you asked for my approval, for that matter) but I definitely approve of your sense of humor. Coffee?

Awesome. Is the face slapping done with the back of the hand or the palm? And does it work on idolaters?

I don't recall if that's in the book. As it was stated in the class it was definitely wrong. He said an atheist is someone who doesn't believe anything, but that such a belief is self-contradictory because it IS a belief, and therefore there's no such thing as an atheist. Then he chuckled. I guess he found it very amusing. For what it was, it was amusing. Just not accurate or truthful.

Umm, Hi Greg. Welcome to the Cafe. Is there a reason you wrote that paragraph the way you did? It's very hard to follow. Try throwing in a few periods and maybe a paragraph break or two. Easier on the eyes. You make some good points.

Well, considering that he was more of an editor than the author of JCOPS, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the meaning of that particular word. However, the point is that he never said "God had sex with Mary." That's a false accusation. OMG, I've defended Wierwille twice in one week. I'm going to lose my "I'm a Wierwille Hater" club membership.

Actually, I'm trying to remember the exact wording on this, but in Luke 1, where it says: If I'm not mistaken, Wierwille taught (in JC Our Promised Seed) that either the words "come upon" or the word "overshadow" was used of how a certain male animal got on top of the female during intercourse. It's quite a leap, in my opinion, to suggest that Wierwille was saying God had sex with Mary, but I could see how someone looking, aching to criticize Wierwille could come to that conclusion.

I used to think it was a false accusation that TWI placed Wierwille's writings above the scriptures. Imagine that. Who would be so stupid as to place Wierwille's writings above the scriptures? I mean, only a total maroon would do such a thing, right? Right?

IMF, I agree. Why make someone wait? Could it be, maybe, because the class took precedence over the Word, God, Christ, and deliverance? Naaaaaah.

Ok. It's not so. Salvation was taught, and people were encouraged to publicly announce their belief that Jesus is Lord ("do you believe?") and that God raised him from the dead ("do you believe?") in Session 7. You're confusing salvation with speaking in tongues. I don't know that people were discouraged from speaking in tongues until session 12. I was not discouraged from doing so. But others may have been. I can't say with any certainty. The Way and Wierwille were falsely accused of saying that unless you speak in tongues, you are not saved. they never said this. What they said was that unless you CAN speak in tongues, you are not saved (or, more accurately, anyone who's saved can speak in tongues). The ability to do something and the action of doing it are two different things.

Thanks for the correction, def. Sorry I screwed that up. My point still holds, though. If one gospel says Jesus carried it, and the other three say Simon carried it, then there are two (IMO) equally reasonable resolutions to the apparent conflict: 1. The cross Jesus bore in the gospel of John was not to be taken literally. 2. The cross Jesus bore in the gospel of John was to be taken literally, and Simon was called in when Jesus proved unable to carry it all the way. I repeat my thought: I think each of these resolutions is equally reasonable. And the reason I brought it up was, why should anyone be concerned that a movie depicts Jesus falling from the burden of a huge wooden cross he's forced to try to carry after a brutal beating? The reality is that he might have, or he might not have: neither outcome negates his sacrifice. Neither outcome compromises Biblical accuracy or integrity. Whether he's depicted with the thing or not, he still died. When you see this movie, are you going to get upset because the beating is taking place on a Thursday instead of a Tuesday? Are you going to get upset because the crucifixion is taking place on a Friday and not on a Wednesday? Are you going to get upset because there are three crosses on the hill and not five? Are you going to tie yourself into knots over issues that are essential neither to the gospel nor to salvation? I've come to the conclusion that I do not care if there were three crosses or five: I only care about the one in the middle! And if Mel Gibson has a different understanding of what took place on that day, I'm not going to hold that against him. I'm going to praise God that Christ is preached. If I see Christ stumbling under the burden of the wooden cross, I'm going to be reminded that he held strong under the burden of the cross I placed on his shoulder. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 23, 2004 at 19:57.]

What do you mean, Lorna? Do you mean you hope they don't show him carrying it, falling three times, and having Simon take over? What's "accurate" on this subject? Three gospels depict Jesus carrying his cross. One of them mentions that Simon of Cyrene carried it. While this "discrepancy" was presented to us as a flat out contradiction that could only be reconciled by spiritualizing the meaning of "the cross Christ bore," I contend that there's at least one alternative: NONE of the three gospels which depict Jesus carrying his cross indicate that he carried it the whole way. They only say that he was led to Golgotha, carrying his cross. Doesn't say he ARRIVED at Golgotha carrying his cross. The idea that he might have fallen once, twice, maybe even three times is at least AS plausible as the idea that he never touched it at all. No? CORRECTION: as Def points out in a later post, I got this backwards. ONE gospel depicts Jesus carrying his cross. The other three depict Simon doing it. Thanks Def! [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 23, 2004 at 19:03.]

NO!!!!! This thread was supposed to die! You maniacs! You moved it up! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!!!!

call your first witness. See, alfa, you're illustrating my point: Price either made public admissions about this, and thus could easily draw criticism from folks who don't like what he has to say; or this is a "guess who took the class" rumor (which doesn't mean it's untrue). I'll say right now, it would take a lot more to get me to believe it than what's posted so far. Not that getting me to believe this story is a worthy goal. Don't waste your time on it: you've no doubt got better things to do.

I have no doubt that you heard that story, and that whoever told you probably believed it. Best response I can think of is: produce a witness. I know, easier said than done. But there's a far more logical explanation for the similarities between Price and Wierwille, one that doesn't involve clandestine classes and secret admiration: Both teachers studied and echoed the teachings of EW Kenyon. So did Copeland and Hagin.

I've read several critical pieces against Fred Price. I think if he had taken PFAL or been associated with TWI in any other way, these articles/pamphlets (which were not friendly to Price) would have exploited the connection. That's not airtight proof, but it's worth notning at the least.

That was my instinct, too, alfakat. I don't know Fred Price, except that he's a believingequalsreceiving word-faith type of preacher. I don't know nearly enough about him to say with certainty that he would NOT teach from a book written by (ha!) a man Price would consider a Godless Christ-denier. It just strikes me as unlikely. WB, were you reading along in JCOPS? If not, Wierwille and Price could have been relying on the same source, which would account for the similarities you observed.

WTH: These things that the plagiarism accusers have allegedly ignored have been discussed and debated countless times here on GS Cafe. That you would bring them up again shows that you haven't the slightest idea what plagiarism is, nor have you given us the courtesy of reading our responses before arrogantly dismissing us as "idiots." For the record, if I plagiarize, and later tell you I plagiarized, that doesn't absolve the plagiarism. Second, if I plagiarize, and later tell you that I used other sources in developing my paper, that doesn't absolve the plagiarism. Third, plagiarism and using sources are NOT synonymous. We all have a PFAL background, but very few of us have committed plagiarism. For example, I do not believe someone who is genuinely speaking in tongues will curse God, and I reject the account someone once presented to me (that a Way believer had spoken in an "evil tongue"). I don't think that's Biblically accurate. I have now expressed the same basic thought as Wierwille did in Question 8 in the frequently asked questions chapter of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. However, I have not committed plagiarism. Wierwille, asking and answering the same question, committed arguably his most flagrant act of plagiarism, as the question and answer are lifted almost word-for-word from JE Stiles, WHOM HE DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE IN THE BOOK. That's the difference between plagiarism and expressing the same idea. So do me a favor, before you call me and others who agree with me "idiots," at least make sure that you are not, in the process, establishing your own claim to the title.

Research Geek's Top Ten List. Consider it interesting reading, teknon. Raf

Oops. thanks for the correction.

You don't have to be silent at all.

I'm with Goey on this, to an extent. I'd need to refresh my memory about exactly what was said and/or written. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 11, 2004 at 16:39.]

Ah, but Oldies, we can't control what anyone else does. That's the point. You can only control what YOU do. So I ask again, are you really game?

Don't get me wrong, oldies. You're free to talk about him all you want. I'm just getting tired of it myself.

Are you really game? Are you game enough that when someone says something about him, you're not going to jump in and say, "well, some of the women were willing." Are you really game?