Raf

Hmm. Reconsidering... Good information. A source that at least seems credible at this point. Still, too many questions prevent this from being moved out of actual error. 1. There's still nothing anywhere to suggest Jesus' illegitimacy had anything to do with going at age 12 instead of 13. Remember, this is the whole point of Wierwille's reference here, as Mike himself noted. 2. One could argue that Wierwille is not talking about Bar-Mitzvah, but implying that the Bar-Mitzvah had already taken place. This still contradicts history, as there was no Bar-Mitzvah ceremony at that time. 3. If the purpose of Jesus' visit was specifically tied to his coming of age, as Karl Coke states, his parents would have known better than to leave him behind. Jesus staying behind, asking and answering questions of the rabbis, is depicted in the Bible as UNUSUAL and unexpected. Mary and Joseph didn't know where he was at first. Surely if the purpose of the trip was even partly to follow tradition following a young man's coming of age, then they would have known about his visit with the rabbis and, indeed, they would have accompanied him. So with due respect to Mr. Coke (or is it Dr. Coke?) the most he can do is state that Jesus was considered to have come of age at his 12th birthday, a half-year prior to Passover. Bravo, it's possible. Still unresolved is the actual error of illegitimacy having anything to do with it, the establishment of age 13 as the year of coming of age at the time of Christ, etc. Sorry, I'm not convinced. But I will acknowledge that it's a lot closer than anything Mike didn't say.

Oldies, That might have been a class coordinator's instruction. My memory is foggy on this point. It's good advice, either way.

Problem is, guys, that Mike HAS considered this viewpoint, and rejected it. According to his view (and I SWEAR I'm not making this up) people who hold this position are fence sitters, and need to face up to the realization that either all of PFAL is true or none of it is true. There IS no middle ground, according to Mike. Wierwille's claims to "God-breathed" status invalidate any position except all or nothing. Here's his EXACT WORDS... That's why EVERY ACTUAL ERROR matters. That's why ONE PREPOSITION out of place, and all of PFAL crumbles to pieces (because that is PFAL's standard for "God-breathed" accuracy). Guys, you need to rightly divide the Word of Mike, or you would not ask these questions he has already answered, thereby taking away from him the time he needs to ignore posts by Goey, Garth and Georgio, and the time he needs to write about how he has no time to get bogged down resolving even one actual error in PFAL. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 17, 2003 at 14:14.]

Oh please. The existence of a handful of idolatrous, deluded people proves NOTHING. GOD has unearthed the last/lost teaching? I'll be darned. I've been reading it on and off for a decade. Dang thing was never EARTHED. Try this one on for size, which you keep ignoring: Wierwille drew vast distinctions between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus Christ drew none. Which one told the TRUTH? And no, you don't have to answer, but I'm not going to start a thread of "truthful" errors in PFAL. One preposition out of place should be enough to discredit your idolatrous stance, but if you want to raise the stakes, bring it on! [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 17, 2003 at 12:40.]

It's an open forum. I neither allow nor forbid your participation. You choose to participate. You choose to withdraw (or decline from participating).

I hope I didn't sound snippy, Sudo. Not long ago, there was a very active thread in the doctrinal section about agnosticism. I forgot the exact name, but it had pages and pages of replies. If I replied ONCE, it's more than I can remember. I just chose not to participate in that conversation. How would the people on that thread have felt if I parachuted in and declared them to be wrong, but then refused, with a GREAT number of words, to answer a single one of your doubts about the Bible? So I stayed off the thread. Nothing personal. No arguments. You respect me. I respect you. C'est la vie. Mike has presented a viewpoint that has implications. If PFAL is what he says it is (the God-breathed Word), then PFAL must fit with PFAL's definition of the God-breathed Word. This thread takes that view and puts it to the test. No one is forcing Mike to participate. If he wants to ignore it, that's just dandy with me. Just as no one forced me to partcipate in "The agnostic table in the corner" (I just remembered the name). But Mike comes in here, mocking the magnitude of the errors we point out while promoting the divine inspiration of a book that declares with confidence that ONE PREPOSITION out of place disqualifies a book's claim to divine inspiration (PFAL, p. 104, first sentence). Maybe the 10 items listed on my opening post don't rise to the level of "dispensationalism v. covenant theology." But they're a whole HAIL of a lot more significant than a misplaced preposition. So again, I apologize if I got cocky, but I hope you really do see my point. --- Meek Master Mike: the word count was from your original post, before you edited. I won't do a recount. I'm from Florida. We stop counting after a while.

Sudo, If I chose to engage you on your religious beliefs, then I can't cry foul when you start pointing out inconsistencies in my own. Like I said, if you want to start an "Actual errors in the Bible" thread, be my guest. Meek Master Mike, CUE THE VIOLINS! You still haven't made a single point, so I'm not going to respond to anything you wrote. 619 words without expressing a single relevant thought. Nice job.

Oh, but Hope, didn't you know? The original notes are not God-breathed. The spoken class was not God-breathed. It's only the published book that's God-breathed. And not the published book on your shelf either. Only the original published book is the God-breathed Word. The one on your shelf has proofreaders oversights and errors that might result in apparent contradictions. Once we apply the principles of PFAL to the substance of PFAL, then we can get back to the original God-breathed PFAL. My God, what a bunch of pseudo-faithful gibberish.

Mike, I'm not going to answer any more of your points until you actually make one. The Living Epistles Society

Mike, One of the reasons I called this thread "actual errors" is to differentiate between theological arguments and outright mistakes. The perfect word of a perfect God will, according to PFAL, have no errors or contradictions in it. The existence of ONE error, no matter how small, invalidates PFAL's claim to be God-breathed according to the standard ESTABLISHED IN PFAL. Wierwille himself said and wrote that if any word other than "pros" were used in John 1:1, the WHOLE BIBLE would fall to pieces. This proves two things. 1. That even the tiniest word discrepancy matters. 2. That Wierwille, UNLIKE YOU, did not believe the Bible had fallen to pieces. Now, if you're going to call these ACTUAL ERRORS unimportant, then you are contradicting Wierwille and PFAL. On the other hand, if you would rather move this discussion on to LARGER matters, rather than little indisputable mistakes, I say BRING IT ON! Because Wierwille made some DOOZY errors throughout PFAL and the collaterals. DOOZIES. (Steve can probably do a better job of tackling these than I can). But you can't even address the little ones. How can you even begin to address the big ones? The massive errors of interpretation. Why did Wierwille say the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven were two different things when Jesus CLEARLY spoke of them as synonymous? Is that big enough for you? It was on my original list. I noticed you didn't answer that one either.

Thanks Hope! Do you have a link for that article so we can check the source?

Steve, I'll make it easy. The complete phrase is "What we require now is a feat of linguistic legerdemain and a degree of intrepidity." One of the all time great sentences. Mike, I left out an option. I basically said answer now or answer later, but don't give a half answer or long non-answer and expect us to be satisfied with it. I will be completely satisfied if you just say, "I'm not going to answer." No one's forcing you to answer anything. My only complaint is when you come here and say "I;ve already answered many of these, I just haven't posted my answers, yet you still don't post. I'm not going to read your mind. If you're going to answer, answer. If you're not, don't. But enough with the "I have the answers I'm just not posting them" nonsense.

Mike, What's the title of this thread? If you want to start an "Actual Errors in the Bible" thread, be my guest. But YOU're the one doing the sidestepping here, and I will NOT see you derail this conversation and drag the Bible down just so you can have youuuurrrrr preciousssss PFAL. No sir, nice try, but no dice. YOU'RE the one claiming that PFAL exists to correct the Bible's errors. You're the one who's going to have to explain why PFAL has documented and documentable ACTUAL errors.

Thanks Zix. If I may add: To support Wierwille's finding, one must also produce evidence that the section in Luke is even TALKING about Bar-mitzvah (a ceremony, as one poster noted, that did not even begin for centuries after Christ).

Another so far, incomplete, I'm not done yet non-answer. Mike, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER, TAKE YOUR TIME. I'll be patient waiting for the answer, but I won't be patient with longwinded, non-answers, evading the question and calling it a clarification of the charge when in fact it is nothing of the kind. Do you know what linguistic legerdemain is? You use it so well, I thought you might want to know that there's actually a term for it. 2 points to the first one who tells me where I first heard the term.

Ok, Mike brought the pretzels. Who brought the beer? Mike, you don't know what time of year Luke 2:42 takes place? Honest? Really? Are you literate? Can you show the Bible just a FRACTION of the devotion you're showing PFAL? Luke 2:42 takes place during Passover. It says so, right there in the context. Remember how PFAL taught us that in order to understand the BIBLE, we have to read VERSES in their context. Do you remember that in PFAL? It's about how to read the Bible you reject. I ask you for proof that Wierwille is right, and you SPECULATE that God must have told him to trust an "old piece of literature" that none of us gets to see or read? HOGWASH, sir. Do not pass Go, Do not collect 1/10 of my income. I told you, if you don't have an answer, don't write. This drivel you've provided is not an answer. By the way, didn't I specifically say you can't quote the PFAL book as proof? It's the only thing you quoted as proof. That's rich. The proof that Wierwille is right is that in other parts of the PFAL book he talks about related things. HUH? Your reply is logically, practically, scripturally and rationally flawed.

How about this. In PFAL, Wierwille states that in Luke 2, Jesus was taken to the temple for bar-mitzvah at age 12 instead of 13 because he was considered illegitimate. Wierwille made two statements that are without basis or proof. 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. Prove it. You casually dismiss this as an "apparent" contradiction or error. I call it an actual error. It is flat out on its face wrong. Go ahead and show me that Wierwille was right (and no, you don't get to quote the PFAL book as "proof"). And don't tell me that you have the proof but you're waiting for the right time for me to step up to your telescope to see it. I'm not asking you to start another endless Mike thread. Just address one of the errors we've posted here. No more "I have the answers, trust me, I just haven't posted them yet." Just post already. It's hard to be patient when you always manage to find the time to post about how you have no time to post. You always find the time to post that you have the answers we're seeking from you, but you never have the time to post the answers. It's tiring, and it's wearing thin. Actually, it starting wearing thin weeks ago, but when I told you then to put up or shut up, you called me a cruel taskmaster. So I waited. And waited. You disappeared. You came back. And how much progress? Not an inch. Why? Because you're too busy to post anything other than that you're too busy to post. You know what? No one demands anything from you. But when you keep coming on, saying we're wrong, providing ZERO documentation to even STATE your case, much less back it up, it gets tiring. So I'll say it again. Put up or shut up. If you don't have time to type out the answer, then shut up until you do. I promise not to claim victory. But if you have the time to tell me you have the answer, then please have the decency to share it with the rest of the class. We're waiting.

Put up. You know the other option. -->

That's great, Mike. Now, if my calculations are right, you have about 12-15 other actual errors to address.

I don't know if Wierwille KNEW that Ouija boards are a recent invention. But if he did, I think it's a fair teaching tool. Yes, you got the word right - pedagogical. By the way, I wouldn't rely so heavily on Gamaliel if I were you. Wierwille's movement came to nought. But then, we already agreed on another thread that Gamaliel was wrong.

WordWolf, you disappoint me old friend. The word in Luke 14:33 is apotasso, not apostasia. It is therefore irrelevant to this discussion. Acts 21:21 contains the only other NT usage of this word (besides II Thessalonians). I see no evidence of positive usage. The Septuagint, while not necessarily authoritative, will offer help regarding the usage of this word. George, I did not know that. Very enlightening. In my opinion, it's fair game to use modern anachronisms to make a point (ie, the prophet Elisha doesn't come out to meet Naaman because he's having tea and chocolate chip cookies). It's a device. Maybe they didn't have Oija boards. But they had other stuff.

There is no Two Towers extended version, yet. The still photo you posted is from Return of the King.

WordWolf: You know better than anyone how long I've given thought to this subject, so I'm going to turn it around and place the burden on you: Can you find, historically, a single usage of apostasia that is positive or neutral. It's always a rebellion, far as my research has taken me. The question then becomes, if I'm right, what is the context of its usage in II Thessalonians? Is it a rebellion in God's favor? Or is it a rebellion against God? I don't know that the context is that clear, but I will say this: it does not mean "departure" any more than "overthrow" means to throw a basktball over the net. I think this is where Plots' discussion of ekklesia comes in handy: no one reading "apostasia" would break it into its composite words to come up with a technical meaning. Except, of course, Victor Paul Wierwille. Am I right? Am I wrong? Carry on.

Hmmm. Rastafari in you? Italy in you? Rael in you? Antidisestablishmentary in you? Trinity in you? The suffix "ian" means "follower of" or "subsrciber to a viewpoint or position." Wierwille's etymology of "Christian" is ludicrous. Excellent catch. ***** Christ in you is sonship. You in Christ is fellowship. This distinction is horse... never mind. Vertical Limit, I think you nailed that one right from the start: it's an interpretation error, not a "2+2=5" error. But I agree with you wholeheartedly that it IS an error. A few verses might persuade me otherwise. I'll study it if you will. I wouldn't worry about parroting the doctrinal threads, though. The point of this thread is to sort out actual errors in PFAL. Of necessity, there will be some overlap. WordWolf: I always chuckled at that observation. If only "the dead in Christ" will rise, then those who are NOT in fellowship at the time of their death will not rise, and that goes against a MAJOR TWI and PFAL doctrine. I don't think this is in PFAL, but it's in Are the Dead Alive Now: Wierwille's definition of "apostasia" ("a departure") is simply incorrect. As Inigo Montoya would say: you keep using that word. I do no sink it means what you sink it means. Apostasia means "rebellion." It is always a bad thing. It is NOT a reference to the rapture or the gathering together or the first resurrection or any other good time will be had by all Biblical prophecy. It's a BAD THING, and we don't want to be a part of it. Wierwille's definition is fictional.

Mike, According to you, PFAL is a more pure form of the Word of God. Therefore, it should have no contradictions at all, much less a long list that can be broken up into errors of interpretation and actual errors. Very nice try, but it contradicts your whole rationale that PFAL is needed because the Bible has been corrupted. Dang nice try, though.