Mike

It's a popularization for simplification. Continuing on with the class transcript for Segment 31, Session 6: Take for instance the learning process of a baby. If a baby could be born and live without any of the five senses, now this I know is scientifically and medically impossible. There is no record of any child ever having been born alive without one or the other of those senses. But just to teach, listen. If it could be born without one of the five senses, without any of those five senses that child could never learn. It couldn't learn a thing.

I'm not sure what you mean here, Bolshevik. Can you explain? If any of you other students have questions, feel free to ask. This class is so small we can afford to be casual and informal. I'm selecting the highlights of that segment to show you what we all heard about "only rule" and didn't quite get it or remember it. I bold fonted where AGAIN we were told that this was important. Unfortunately a lot of us were fast asleep at this point because it might have more philosophical than we were ready for. I was ready because I had already studied these kinds of things in math and physics. In Geometry the only rule is the set of Postulates and Axioms that all other things must be derived from and therefore proved by. However the Postulates and Axioms are never proved. They are assumed to be true. In Classical Physics the standards of weights and measures and Newton's laws are assumed to be true and serve as the "only rule" to prove everything else by. I was always on maximum alert at this point in the class because I happened to love this field and had spent many happy hours reading on it. Continuing on with the class transcript for Segment 31, Session 6: The natural man, this man of body and soul is limited to the information gathered via the five senses. The five senses are the only media, the only avenues, the only channels of learning that the natural man has. Everything that ever comes to the human mind of the natural man has to come over one or the other of these five senses. He either sees it, he hears it, he smells it, he tastes it or he touches it. These are the five senses. Everything that this man ever learns he learns by a combination of one or the other of those five senses. You see, to learn anything, (now this is a foundational truth and listen carefully) to learn anything we must have a center for learning which is outside of the individual seeking. Man needs a point of contact which is outside of the man for learning. Truth needs a center of reference which is not the man seeking. You see, if we are going to learn anything we can only learn from an outside source. We either have to see it, hear it, smell it, taste it or touch it. So to learn anything and this law of learning is dynamically important that you realize that every person who learns, learns practically the same way through one or the other or a combination of those five senses. I have bold fonted the phrases "center of reference" and "outside source" because they are the beginnings of the "only rule" idea.

Now you're getting into the swing of it! A little later we heard this in segment 31, Session Six of the film class: You see if you are going to explain something you have to be bigger than that which you can explain or that which you do explain. This is why when I hear the arguments that people give for the existence of God- -all of us have been educated along these lines where they've given us these arguments for the existence of God like the cosmological and the teleological, all of those--they prove absolutely nothing. Because if I'm going to prove God Almighty I've got to be bigger than that which I can prove. I'd have to be bigger than God. Like I tell my people, "old Henry could explain the Ford. The Ford never explained Henry." So, now we'll get into the depth of this thing because to get to the greatness of God's Word we will have to realize some of these fundamental and foundational truths regarding this new birth and the battle that rages between the senses and faith. Remember how I ranted and raved yesterday that I NEVER try to prove something that's bigger than me? Here's where I got that commitment.

He was searching for it and finally realized he could not find it. This I have posted. It was in the class. Here is the beginning of segment 31 from the second half hour of Session Six: "Having laid all of our foundational truths now from the accuracy of God's Word in rather detailed form regarding how the scripture interprets itself, how we got this wonderful Word of God and how we can trust this Word of God when we have it and we rightly divide it. We are now ready to get into the depth of some of the great accuracy and the working of the Word to bring it into fruition into our life and into our understanding. "The subject we are going to be moving into now is one of the great subjects in the Word of God which I'm going to endeavor to unfold and make living and real for you. It is the section that deals with the battle of the senses versus revelation faith in the light of the new birth." See how he introduces this "only rule" section as a very important idea? It goes on. I'll be reviewing what we were taught so everyone can finally get this right.

I do remember because I was a good student.

...moving right along... In Post #116 yesterday I offered three examples of the “only rule” idea as we were taught it. The first one was an analogy, the second one was a fairly good one but obviously flawed, and the third one was a rip snorting great and good “only rule” but unfortunately, one that’s no longer available for reasons of copy problems, changes in language, culture and mental pictures, poorly known figures of speech, and translations rooted in man’s theology. The first example I gave was the US Constitution as an “only rule” for us politically. It’s like a rule in that it’s relatively unchangeable. It was purposely made difficult for even a large number of people to change. One citizen certainly can’t change the Constitution so it can serve as a rule to line up laws against. It’s big enough to cover a lot of situations, and small enough to be fully absorbed by competent professionals. The second “only rule” candidate was the KJV Bible, not an analogy at all, and some people have literally devoted their lives to it. They don’t dare change any of it, and they cling to all the verses, even the ones that the critical texts and more modern Bibles have deleted. They decry the change in the English language and try their best to talk KJV style and maintain KJV vocabulary. They also love all the italicized words. They don’t dare change any of it, unless there is an obvious printer’s error in one edition. I guess if they keep the Golden Rule they probably do pretty well with this rule, but it also is quite limiting, in my opinion. The third example is the orginal NT scriptures as they were given and understood by members of that culture and who had been prepared for it by extended verbal teaching by the Apostle Paul. That must have been a wonderful time for those who actually could put their hands on such documents. Scholars are constantly trying to “recover” these things in their original languages but they are always disagreeing with each other on the details of this. Even where they THINK they have the originals (and not missed any lost ones), unless you were born speaking those languages you’ll have to rely on many other scholars (who also disagree with each other) to get them translated into usable English. Even still, there are problems you’ll have with Orientalisms, figures of speech, and a lot of other things, like your own upbringing and pre-planted mental images that are darn hard to shake. I have posted that this “only rule” was irretrievable or catastrophically lost and VPW said that it was “buried.” Does anyone remember where he used the word buried to describe this rule? Let's make this a homework assignment, to find the place where he described the state of the written Word as “buried.” Hint: I have posted this many times here, like about 5 times, but not lately. Every grad who was around in the early 70’s has read it, and many who came later read it. So put on your thinking caps and see how good your memory is. The word is.......... “buried!”

My focus in most of my posting is to demonstrate that hardly any of us ever got the details or even the general gist of what Dr was teaching in many sections of the class, and this “only rule” thread is a prime example of this. The “only rule for faith and practice” idea he taught was a crucial central item in the film class. To me, it was the logical beginning of the class, with all the preceding material a long introduction. I perceive that most grads only heard “only rule” as if it were a buzz word or phrase that was connected to loyalty to the one True God. Most confused it with things like the greatest commandment to love God and make Him first. To have only one God, however, is different from having only one rule for faith and practice. There are some similarities, but they are still vastly different ideas. What I’ve seen grads do in almost every case is to present their “only rule” as if it were some kind of homage to God. Their embraced and declared “only rule” seems to whatever sounded nice to them and didn't have to be something of great specific and detailed importance. I’ll be more specific soon as we analyze some declarations of “only rule” that have been put forward. And if it’s truly the case that many grads missed this one MAJOR point in the class, then the next logical question to ask is “How many OTHER points were missed, forgotten, or only partially received?”

There certainly were carry overs from Jesus' earthly ministry to his heavenly one, but there are differences too. One carry over is love. In I John we see this. We also see there that forgiveness from God was made easier. The reason Jesus ended his earthly ministry was to improve on his ministering, and he predicted this in the gospel period. The reason I say this ministry ended is because HE DEPARTED. Of course, he also said that in another new improved way he'd still be with us. Another difference is the mystery. It's not in the gospels, not even in Mark's and Luke's and they certainly knew the mystery being companions of Paul. It wasn't revealed until it was given to Paul so it wasn't in Jesus' earthly preaching. Did you look up the red letters where Jesus Christ is speaking in Acts? It's in Acts 1, of course, but that's before he departed. Then he speaks with red letters in the narrative of the incident on the Road to Damascus with Saul. Then years later Paul recounts this incident and it's in red letters again, JUST LIKE THE GOSPELS. Then there's a second recounting of the same incident, also in red letters. I've found that many Bible believers are totally unaware of this later red letter gospel, this secret gospel, this gospel of the mystery, also named Paul's gospel. All of Paul's epistles should be in red too because he received it by Jesus Christ. If anyone can't find this hidden gospel of Jesus Christ because they don't have a red letter edition, just ask me for the scriptures, or go to a library or bookstore. It's easy to find this (sort of) LOST GOSPEL because all the words of Jesus are in red letters. Well now I did in my citing I John above, but let me ask you this: what is missing (besides the mystery and easier forgiveness) in the Matt/Mk/Lk/Jn gospels that Paul's gospel has?

I think you're confusing two separate things: what was taught to us especially in written form versus what people did at times. We should be looking on this thread at the former and adopting the Golden Rule toward the latter in our hearts. Love means forgiving and forgetting the mistakes of people as much and as soon as possible. God will certainly help you do this IF you want to.

Mark, I am now doing what I often decry others for doing: I am responding to a post without finishing my read of same. This is because of time constraints. I have only a small amount of time, and I see your two part response is huge. I'll do my best to read it when I can, but this may not be today. I have too many other responsibilities, but I'll try. I also have a small thing I have in my word processor that I am nearly done with and was working on before I tur4ned on my browser this morning to see your large response. I may post that if I finish it today, but I doubt I'll get a chance to work on this massive material. I think someone else responded massively after you but I'm not sure. I'm so happy for the moderator support as well. I saw that red post first thing as I clicked on the "last post" button. I don't know what your posting reflects below on that situation, but I'm sure you've seen the record now and the judgment rendered by ModRocker, so I will probably gloss over those sections should they exist below, and let that matter die away. Yes we do disagree. I think that versions, translations, and critical texts are modern man-made attempts to reconstruct the written Word of God. In some passages they totally succeed and in other passages they totally fail. They are man's opinions in essence, and the judgment as to which passages are in error and what the corrections should be are ALSO man's opinions and all are devoid of authority. So I see you as not being able to put your hand to the written Word of God. You put your hand to materials that are approximately that, and then you opine as to what the accurate meaning is. I don't think you can put your hand to a finished work and say THIS is the written Word of God. I don't think you can scan the first page of the written Word of God and post it here. You can post an approximation but not the finished authoritative WORD. I know you can't supply the Library of Congress Number for the written Word of God, only a man-made attempt to re-construct it. I can do all these things. That is because of what God did for us. He made His finished Word available in written form to us, just like He did in the first century. Now I'll read your total posting and take notes, but I have not the time to respond any more.

Thank you, ModRocker, for your intervention AND for letting the record stand to be a reminder to all of what should not be done here. I can take it and have many times in the past. I think it's good to let the record speak as to what is not acceptable. Thanks again to you and to Pawtucket for not only allowing me to post, but for all the work you do to tame and civilize this place.

No, I don't think so. I think this would be huge step backwards. The gospel that Jesus preached was addressed to Israel and it was completed. It's in writing for our learning not for our copying. His ministry on earth ended and was replaced by something better, and that better ministry where he is seated at the right hand of the Father is what Paul's gospel was commissioned to reveal to us. If you look at a red letter edition of the KJV in Acts you will see the places where Paul was contacted to move this better gospel. If you put together all the red letters in Acts it will read a lot like Colossians Chapter One. The mind of Christ was put into the Epistles of Paul for us to absorb. In the first century curriculum God first had the epistles written, and then after this better gospel was absorbed the 4 gospels were written. But first things first. Paul's message was the most maligned of all the NT scriptures, and most occluded by churchianity's focus on the 4 earthly ministry gospel records. PFAL fixes that. There are two ministries of Christ, and you're looking at the old one. The gospel record is Old Testament. We were taught this in PFAL.

Welcome back, Mark.

Thanks Todd! Instead of flagging the moderators on Steve I thought it better to let him keep it up and allow others to see that he truly is acting in the mold that the SNL Church Lady is based on. I think we are viewing a modern day version of what the Pharisees were in Jesus' time. Oakspear thanked me on line not long ago for my NOT accusing or alluding to him being possessed by a devil. We all saw that kind of behavioral a lot in the ministry as certain individuals ran a muck. We all wish we had stood up to accusers like that back then, yet how many posters here allowed Steve to revisit that exact kind of behavior here upon me? My hat is off to you, Todd, for calling a spade a spade, and shame on you others for not doing the same. Yes, dmiller, Todd and I have conversed (in spite of our disagreements) often over the years. We've even done some collaborative work in graphic arts. Some time ago he and pamsandiego and I broke bread together and imbibed in beer. I think you along, with Steve, just failed your final exam in Abnormal Psychology. Mark I hope you learn a much more sound lesson by THIS situation, instead of sheepishly going along with Steve's behavior. Todd, I owe you. Thanks for speaking up, and thanks for not doing it sooner, because I think Steve needed the rope to hang himself most thoroughly. *** Now, I'd like to get back to that topic, which is NOT my state of mental heath (boring as that is), and is NOT Christ formed within as Paul talked about it (exciting as that is), and is NOT working apparent errors in PFAL. Now that we know what is NOT, here's what the topic IS: we've conducting a remedial class in "only rule for faith and practice" for those who want to finally learn what that's all about.

Hi geisha, I understand your concern. If it's any consolation to you I have ALL ALONG sought out and employed perspectives from other churches and organizations. It's only in the last ten years that I have focused on one thing. I guess I look at PFAL from a perspective so different than what I saw in the Corps leaders that I feel God has helped me see past the errors that bogged down so much of that leadership. If my present fellowship were anything like I saw in the Corps I'd be out in a flash. I've looked at Jesus from many angles. My Catholic background helped there a lot. What I now look at is how we can become like him. This is the message I see in written PFAL. I feel that what you remember if the ministry is a mix of a small portion of the written message and a large portion of the verbal traditions that grew and grew and deformed as they went. All I can say is that the pure part can still be found in the written record, while the corrupted part has withered away as it should have. Agape, Mike

Some thoughts on “only rule” In some ways the US Constitution serves as an “only rule” for us politically. All other laws have to line up with it or they are thrown out. Some people say that the Constitution is too limiting, but look how power packed it has turned out to be. It’s pretty darn small, yet for over 200 years it’s served amazingly well. *** There is (or was) a group called something like the "Which Bible? Society.” I found a book of theirs when I lived in Ohio. Then years later I noticed the same book in the library of one of my customers here in San Diego who was a member. I had some very interesting conversations with her. This group uses the KJV as their only rule for faith and practice. *** Imagine what it would have been like in the first century if you were lucky enough to be a close friend of Timothy. At the end of Paul’s life there was a meeting at Timothy’s place that included Paul, Mark, and Luke. Timothy was instructed to get ready as many books and parchments as he had been collecting. Just think of the advantage it would be living near Timothy and being able to go to his house to read and digest and assimilate THAT rule for faith and practice: the collection of epistles and gospels Timothy had. There would be no language or culture barriers, and they wouldn’t be copies, but the ORIGINALS! Think how privileged Timothy's friends were! I guess the only difficulty they might have had was recognizing the value of what they had, not having the hindsight we posses regarding those writings. Wouldn’t it be great if God were to bless us with an "only rule" like that? I think He did.

****** Ok, what this means is that you do not yet have a rule. That's fine, and I'm glad you admit it. If you are looking to establish something rock solid in your life then more power to you. If your rule is one in the making, I suggest you look around for examples of others who have established something that is finished. A premature rule would be limiting to growth. A poorly formed rule might prevent the finding of a better one. Searching for a solid rule for faith and practiced was what VPW was doing prior to the 1942 incident. He was discouraged in his quest, especially knowing that as a minister his job was to help others get rooted and grounded in a solid point of view. God helped VPW find a sole rule for faith and practice and He wants to help us. He has made if very easy for us. What God provided is in book and magazine form.

My only rule is not as you suppose. You get most of what I say dead wrong. I only have time to correct you so much, and the rest I have to let slide. I take PFAL in written form, book and magazine form, as my only rule for faith and practice. Any surprise here? It has a Page #1 and it has enough volume to cover every aspect of life. It's available to me to refer to and to build into my life to measure all else by.

Hold it right there. I think the idea of "the mind of Christ" comes up too, and more than once. Let's not leave that out. Remember how we were taught body, then soul, and finalyspirit? Corresponding with future new body, mind of Christ, pneuma hagion The body situation still needs some work. We didn't see completeness there in that category with pneuma hagion. The soul situation also was not made complete with receiving the gift pneuma hagion. Remember how we were taught that the gift of holy spirit does not affect the mind? Well, the mind is in the soul category. These categories do not mix. Our completeness in spirit did not give us completeness in body nor in mind. God first gave us completeness in spirit. We’re complete IN HIM. That total completeness was in the spirit category. BUT, as Ephesians says, it’s still only a token of what was to come. Now we have the opportunity to see the mind of Christ, to fully put on the mind of Christ, in the soul category completeness is now available. In the first century no one had a complete set of the epistles. They were still being written. There were vast distances separating believers. There were no Xerox machines, no printing presses. The revelation was being lost as fast as it was being written, and soon all would forsake the man whom God had chosen to co-ordinate the mystery revelation. Now, this revelation has been mass printed and distributed around the world in the most common of languages. We still look forward to completeness in body category. It’s coming. Praise God for His gift of holy spirit. Let's now look into the idea of Christ formed in us, not a spirit category item, but a new spiritual mind that replaces the old man natures dead mind. Let's put on the mind of Christ. Now let's resume:

Still no page #1 from your "only rule" Mark? Do you mean you FINALLY realize that there IS no page #1 from your "only rule" to post?

You can only have the original understanding of the scriptures as a GOAL you seek, not as a rule you use. It's not available in a bookstore. You need to do research to recover it. The only reason VPW could have that as his only rule was because God offered it to him. You were not offered to have God's special assistance at using that kind of only rule. It was revelation guidance offered to VPW only. For you to try and take that as your only rule you must first FIND it, and you can't. You can try a lifetime to recover it, but you can't do it. It requires revelation. The reason you wont get that kind of revelation in your recovery research is because it was already given to VPW and he gave it to us in written form, which you've rejected. I'm not getting bent out of shape over this, I'm just going to match your challenges. I don't trust your ability to work within PFAL because you have not demonstrated an understanding of my posting. If you go back and read them all with this in mind you'll see what I'm talking about. There's OODLES of things you have missed because your idea of a rational discussion is to prove PFAL wrong, and that doesn't require you to get my posting down accurately. I do require it if you want to discuss these things with me. I will continue to show you that you don't get it, and that's the reason I refuse to participate in a discussion style suited to your goals. You assume I have no message of substance so you skim my posts and don't digest them. I've shown numerous instances of this. I will continue until you get it right. So far you show me that you aren't paying attention enough. A long time ago Oakspear and Abigail were the only ones who got it, that Dr's only rule for faith and practice was revelation based, or at least that's what he claimed. No other posters got it. You don't yet either. Until you can give me a printed text or texts that is your only rule you don't have one. If you say your rule is revelation based then I challenge you to minister it to people and stop wasting time here. WHEN will you at least get it, what Dr claimed and what I am reporting? If you say the printed Bible is your rule, then I say it's a multiple bending rule, If you say the original content of the scriptures is your rule, then I say it's not printed and it's not in usable (able to rule) form. So, give me your single rule that's absolutely finished and unbendable; give me the Library of Congress Number(s). If it doesn't have one scan and post the first page and tell me how I can get the remaining pages. Otherwise I say you don't have one.

Mark, My Post #166 in the “snow” thread contains the following addressed to you: Now I’ll cut you some slack here. There was a computer glitch in that post and it’s not entirely clear that I wrote the above. Still, I made it clear many times here that I do not belive that ALL the Word was lost in the scrambling of the first centuries, just the crucial part. This should be obvious. You didn’t seem to credit me with the obvious when last night you wrote: You see I never asserted that the OVERALL message was UTTERLY LOST, just the CRUCIAL part. You failed to understand that I was just talking about the parts that were the most threatening to the adversary that he really obliterated. This has always been the context of all talk of things being utterly lost: not the entirety of the message, just the crucial parts. See where you missed understanding my posting AGAIN?

No, it’s not the very same thing I’m doing; it’s merely similar in some few regards. I will explain. WHAT YOU DID: You read my old post of 3 weeks ago, and responded to a portion of it. The other portion you did not read with understanding or retention. Then 3 weeks later you asked me a question that was answered 4 ways in the unread or non-understood portion of the old post. It’s this non-reading and non-understanding that I am complaining about, not the non-responding. WHAT I DID: I read your entire post with understanding and responded to only a portion of it. The rest is waiting on my getting around to a reasons. There's a difference between not understanding and not responding. I don't have time to respond to all of your most recent post, but I did understand it all. One reason I was waiting was to give you a chance to repent or the question you asked me. I think it was a VERY LAME question that AGAIN shows me you have not been reading my posts (or PFAL) with any understanding other than what you can take pot shots at and impress your friends. Now as to that IMO lame question I’ll repeat my question regarding it that you ALSO seemed to ignore, though I don’t (yet) have evidence that you ALSO did not understand: Now you have more clues (if you read and understand THIS post) as to what portion of your post last night I was talking about. It’s the lame question. Can you search the board for where I answered that many days ago? I know you can’t search your memory, because it obviously did not get deposited there, otherwise you wouldn’t have asked such a telling quesion.