Raf

Woah, don't make it look like I prompted this, Paw. Have I really been requesting this for ages? I forgot.

Definitely The Street Corner.

We covered this on another thread, but it's worth revisiting. Three gospels portray Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross to Golgotha, with no mention of Jesus ever touching it. One gospel portrays Jesus carrying the cross, with no mention of Simon. Two possible ways to reconcile this: Tradition: Jesus carried it part of the way (not unreasonable, since the practice was for the condemned to carry their own crosses). When he proved too weak to carry it, Simon was pulled from the crowd. TWI: Simon carried it all the way. The cross Christ bore was not literal, it was figurative. Neither viewpoint does damage to the scripture. No verse says "Jesus never touched the wooden cross until he was nailed to it."

Mike, You are in error, once again, in divining my attitude toward PFAL and my attitude toward the scriptures. This doesn't surprise me, as your idolatry blinds you to the truth in so many areas. But let me make something clear: PFAL has indisputable errors that are not attributable to copyists, as you laughably insist (dodge, distract, whatever). We were able to compile a pretty decent list of errors that are not open to dispute or interpretation. You respond by rewriting PFAL, claiming it doesn't say what it says about the perfection of the written word. Fine, be my guest. But your big mistake is in thinking that PFAL's errors are limited to the indisputable. PFAL is wrong about the law of believing. It's wrong about the abundant life. It's wrong about the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. It's wrong about the nature of faith. It is meekness to God's Word, not antipathy toward it, that led me to these conclusions. It was the willingness to admit I was wrong, not a stubborn refusal to consider the other side of an argument, that led me to these conclusions. So you accuse me of not being meek or willing to consider an alternative point of view. It's rank hypocrisy. In the meantime your claims have become increasingly hysterical. Jesus didn't have faith (pistis) because faith (pistis) wasn't available yet. He COULD have believing (pistis) because believing (pistis) WAS available. But he couldn't have faith (pistis). Do you have any idea how much damage you are doing to the legacy of Victor Paul Wierwille by insisting on this garbage? You claim to revere PFAL, but speaking as someone who got a lot out of that class and those books, I consider your ludicrous thesis (and it is YOUR THESIS, not God's) to be an insult to PFAL and to everyone who took it. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on March 09, 2004 at 17:37.]

Well, if a move is INEVITABLE, then I would place the Mike threads in a forum in the doctrinal section, and I would call it, "Idolatrous Pigswill." Just kidding. Seriously, move it to the doctrinal section, but separate from the docrinal forums that already exist: because they are not the same thing. Just like the General section has "Open," "About the Way," and all the other forums (sic)... The Doctrinal Section should have "Doctrinal," which is what's there now, and a section called "The Way's Doctrinal Legacy," or something like that. This would be the place to discuss doctrine SPECIFICALLY in light of the legacy of MISTER Victor Paul Wierwille and The Way International. Mike's threads would fit there, but it would be open to other threads as well. Would there be crossover? Sure. Trinity threads would be at home on either forum. But if you can have two political forumses (sic), then you can just as easily have two doctrinal ones. note: in the interest of avoiding plagiarism: I stole "idolatrous pigswill" off one of Zixar's posts. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on March 10, 2004 at 13:42.]

Hate to burst your bubble, everyone, but I checked snopes.com and evidently... Well, evidently they have nothing to say about this thread. Where'd I put my glasses?

I know Jesus. I've talked to Jesus. Jesus is my savior. Smikeol, you're no Jesus.

Mike, You're no longer worth arguing with. Your crackpot conclusions are exposed to all but the willingly idolatrous. Your methods are dishonest, your reading comprehension non-existent, and your reasonings ludicrous. Watching you and those who would encourage you discuss The Word of God is like watching Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles compete at a game of darts.

IF PFAL is God-breathed, THEN PFAL is correct about the characteristics of written work that is God-breathed. IF PFAL is correct about the characteristics of written work that is God-breathed, THEN written work that is God-breathed will contain no errors or contradictions. IF PFAL is God-breathed, THEN PFAL will contain no errors or contradictions. PFAL contains errors and contradictions. One example of a blatant error: "There was no pronounceable name for the true God, in contrast to pagan gods who were always called by name." (from Jesus Christ is Not God). That statement is plain wrong. Period. The true God was called by name, often. Out loud. Which means it was pronounceable. Wierwille was wrong. Contradiction: "All without distinction means all within a certain category." (PFAL) "All WITH distinction means all within a certain category." (Jesus Christ is Not God). SINCE PFAL contains both an error and a contradiction (neither of which is a typo), THEN PFAL is not God-breathed. Dodge, distract, witness if you can but never admit an error or a contradiction is an error or a contradiction. xxxxxx After I posted this, I've been reading some of the items you posted this weekend, Mike. Umm, they're stupid. I mean flat out stupid. Not worthy of the time or effort you're putting into them. How did Jesus get born again? When did he get faith since it wasn't available until after Pentecost (news flash: faith was available before Pentecost. Difficult verses in light of the clear, remember?) Jesus teaching out of a PFAL book? This is madness, Mike. Not worthy of debate. Sheer and utter stupidity. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on March 09, 2004 at 11:56.]

Ah-cause. Good enough reason for me.

Ralph, Your contribution will never be forgotten. $17,343.22. Heh heh. Umm, okay, so that wasn't funny. I'll go back to my corner and shut up now. Meanwhile, you go have a happy birthday. Raf (not to be confused with Ralph).

These lists should be required to come with sources. This list comes out every year. That headline is on the list EVERY YEAR. From snopes, of course.

Victor Paul Wierwille NEVER taught that God had sex with Mary. Here's what he said... Creating a sperm in a fallopian tube does NOT mean God had sex with Mary. JCOP p. 158. I can't find my copy of The Word's Way, but he does not say in that book that God had sex with Mary. Wierwille taught enough things inaccurately without having to buy into the hysterical claims of anti-cultists who wouldn't believe VPW if he said "good morning."

Mike, No one's crying. No one's stomping their feet. You're an idolater. I feel sorry for you. You're missing out on so much by cluthing to your little orange idol. Jesus will be teaching out of PFAL? You've seen this? Yeah, right. David Berkowitz saw his dog talking to him. Doesn't make it true. You can cry all you want, insist the earth shook where Wierwille walked, that he told the truth about snowstorms that didn't happen, that he was a paragon of brains (yeah right) and brawn (yeah right). You can insist that there are no errors in the PFAL materials, and dodge, distract and deny when they are pointed out to you in black and white. Doesn't make it true. You've wasted your life. You're a sad parody of a believer. You've built a house on sinking sand and you're trying to get us to rent a room.

Thoughtful dissent was exhausted? When did that happen? Oh, I remember, it was when we all posted thoughtful dissent and you, rather than address those thoughts, attacked the messengers as unfit researchers, et al. Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

The verses are handled in Jesus Christ Our Passover, which claims verses 52 and 53 are interpolations. A couple of manuscripts omit them, and its a pretty significant event not to be mentioned ever again by the other gospel writers or Acts. On the other hand, none of the other gospel writers or Acts ever mentions Lazarus, so who's to say?

Snootch! I feel like I'm Han Solo, you're Chewie, she's Ben Kenobi and we're in that @#$%! up bar!

Ah, yes, of course. Thank you.

I meant to say that Bilbo was too young to have Ian Holm play him. My bad.

Linda, Can you document that? I'm trying to find the grammatical rule governing that sentence, but can't figure it out. Best as I can see, it should be, "two years are up," unless it's "two year time period is up." The question is, what is the verb agreeing with? If it's agreeing with "years," it should be "are," no?

My bet is Ian Holm would be considered too young to play Bilbo (I know, I know, "you haven't aged a day..." Still...)

A resolution at Isengard was filmed, but it was considered too long for the end of The Two Towers, and not relevant enough for the beginning of Return of the King. Expect the beginning of the movie to be a bit longer in the extended addition (sic).

Excellent point.

I hear he's going to use a farm in New Knoxville.

Another possibility: Three Days A dramatization of (to use the traditional model) the rest of Good Friday (following the crucifixion), the Saturday after, and Easter Sunday. Doesn't have to be "100% bona fide Biblically accurate," just interesting (and try not to actually CONTRADICT scripture, if you don't mind).