Mike

T-Bone You wrote: “I thought that was pretty obvious in the way I put it ‘…who vandalize His church’ – Did you think I meant an actual building made of wood, stone, and such?…come on, Mike!” I wasn’t sure what you thought, but I know some others might have needed my comment to that effect. Even you could benefit from it because that Paul was talking about PEOPLE in that context is crucial. I was emphasizing that context of “people preservation” in my remark. *** You wrote: “Your assumption is that PFAL doctrine is nothing more than an assemblage of doctrines from others. But there's a self-deceptive aspect of plagiarism to think about also. Since it was not by his own intellectual efforts – he lacked the discipline, the skills, the experience and wisdom to handle the material properly. It's like letting a salesman for a chemical manufacturing company go in the lab, play chemist and see what neat stuff he can concoct.” The self deception on the plagiarism charge is that you and many others either don’t remember (or are conveniently suppressing it) that Dr frequently TOLD us he got most of it from other sources. Maybe you didn’t see the following, but this has been discussed MANY times here. It is often conveniently forgotten, but just to make that more difficult I’ll repost it here: (With my re-formatting and truncation in re-presenting the following quotes) First dmiller wrote: Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works, and passed it off as his own. Then oldiesman wrote: dmiller, sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you, and I base my belief on the following: “Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.” Victor Paul Wierwille, 1972 The Way Living In Love Elena Whiteside page 209 The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.” In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that, there it is, right before your eyes. He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own, but rather saying “lots of the stuff I teach is not original.” If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own, he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books, from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read. *** Now, T-Bone, when you mention things like “lacked the discipline, the skills, the experience and wisdom to handle the material properly.” It makes me think of all us grads who did that very thing with the written materials, but not Dr. It looks to me he had what was necessary to run a very large organization that blessed many thousands of people. At the CES Tenth Anniversary they admitted that PFAL was the greatest presentation of the Word in 2000 years. Did you know that? Then you wrote: “It's like letting a salesman for a chemical manufacturing company go in the lab, play chemist and see what neat stuff he can concoct.” Oh WOW! That’s us to a T... no pun intended. In my post to waysider (coming up next) I get into this a lot, that the evil came from our lack of knowledge, thinking that we really knew something.

Yes, the whole lump of leadership is leavened by now, and probably was in 1985. But the written doctrine is a whole different story. That stuff is pure. The TVTs are untraceable except in faulty memory. As far as what actually went on over twenty years ago, I have NO CONFIDENCE in the reporters who have show up here to get the story completely straight, even if they were involved in the first person. I have NO CONFIDENCE in any ancient story reported here being complete in any way. Scads of info is missing from every report regarding context and the complete dialog. The supposed destruction of lives and family due to TWI is, IMHO, wildly exaggerated. People and families get destroyed all the time without any help from a corrupt organization. I don't mean to belittle anyone's pain here: THAT can be very real and needing prompt attention. I just suspect the detailed roots of that pain are long dried up and decayed and gone. Yes, some nasty things did go on at times, but it wasn't the norm. When it was the norm, it wasn’t VPW but the leadership under him. I figure if VPW blew it bigtime twice a year, that would generate at least 40 HORROR STORIES where the fish gets bigger with each passing year. That COULD pretty much account for all the grief mentioned here, while leaving out all the probably hundreds (even thousands) of temptations where Dr successfully walked the Word, and leaving out the many, many thousands of times he walked and taught the Word accurately. Of course the mindless copying of what Dr blew it on, and passing it on as doctrine is the responsibility of the individuals who were our leaders, some of whom have posted here, and still “ministering.” Going after them, like Don’tWorryBeHappy was doing, can be seen as useful if done properly. I find it a dangerous thing to focus on these matters for to long. We're warned against it.

Twi Verbal Traditions = TVT Thanks for asking. There were probably others wondering the same thing.

I've been only trying to show what Corinthians says in general. I've stated that this is useful for forgiveness in general, and not specific to Dr. If your mission is to expose the old man nature of VPW you're a little late. It was exposed in Romans 7 2000 years ago, and it died over 20 years ago. My mission is to show forth (to those who have not had the chance to see it yet) the Christ in VPW ministering to us by revelation. When Dr walked God was able to teach him His light, which he taught to us, especially in written form. That written form is here still, for many to be blessed. Dr's old man nature is not working any more, so I see little to no profit in what you're doing. *** I can see value in distancing myself from surviving top leadership that drifted from the written doctrine to the TVTs. Those TVTs are very nasty, and still doing dirty work. But the collaterals are pure!

rascal, Have you been following the treatment of I Cor 3 here? Just wondering.

Let it be noted that rascal thinks Bullinger, Kenyon, Styles, Leonard, etc... are crap and sand. Yeah, I was feeling a little cruel allowing all the empty criticisms against me to pile up in the record. If I had just stated it weeks ago, though, it would have come and gone and been forgotten by now. Thanks again, though. Do you have any documentation on that word? I have a little, but I'd like more. What do you have as the proper Greek word there and its proper translation?

The evil is all in the TVTs. Better researchers than us have tried to find darkness in the collaterals and couldn't. If the books were contaminated this website would have thousands more page references pointing this out. All the evil was in the TVTs and those who didn't do their homework with the written materials, relying on winging it from listening, were broadsided bigtime. *** THAT'S the WORD! Thank you White Dove.

Lots of twisting DID occur, but it was always outside of the printed materials we were supposed to master. If we had done our homework the twisting would have been arrested. For some of us, who did do some homework, some of the twisting was spotted and halted at least locally. No one has been able to point out poison doctrine in the written collaterals. It was all in TVTs. *** Just a little above, in Post #811, I had an exchange with T-Bone that went thusly: T-Bone wrote: “It seems verses 11-15 addresses the quality of workmanship and making wise choices of what we build upon and what we build with. Verses 16 & 17 hit me as what God thinks about those who vandalize His church.” Then I wrote: “Yes, but remember, His church is the PEOPLE not the building. It's an act of "vandalizing" THE PEOPLE that God will not tolerate.” Seeing that the temple here is PEOPLE is a key to unscrambling the problem with verse 17. That God will not tolerate the desecration of His called out PEOPLE is an idea that comes up repeatedly in that chapter. The people are protected by God, so SOMETHING has to be wrong with the first half of verse 17 where a person seems to be in grave danger of being destroyed. Just fix one little word and that verse fits seamlessly with all the rest of the chapter.

T-Bone, You wrote (facetiously): “...Watching ‘the adversary's tricks’ lest I should think vic's oil to be that of snake...” I think it’s odd how often the doctrine taught in the class and collaterals is treated in some contexts (like you did here) as poisonous. Then the same posters can turn around in a different context on a different thread (or even the same one!) and bemoan how vpw “stole” good doctrine from good teachers like Bullinger, Kenyon, Styles, and Leonard. So which is it? PFAL is poison doctrine, or stolen good doctrine? I’ve noted this before here (without serious reply), like in Post #463: This is why I could say to rascal in Post # 479 I’m just bringing it up this third time now to show how desperate the criticisms of VPW here can be. The Poison Doctrine Theory contradicts the Stolen Light Theory!

GOSH! I didn't know I even HAD credibility here! Thanks! :) You also wrote: "It seems verses 11-15 addresses the quality of workmanship and making wise choices of what we build upon and what we build with. Verses 16 & 17 hit me as what God thinks about those who vandalize His church." Yes, but remember, His church is the PEOPLE not the building. It's an act of "vandalizing" THE PEOPLE that God will not tolerate. *** So, maybe my treatment of verse 17 needs a little more work. Of course, that was not only a tongue in cheek translation I gave for verse 17, but it was also a quite common traditional and SERIOUS handling of that verse. How many of you folks smoke cigarettes and ever tried to go to a fundamentalist church? I might have overdone the ridiculous parts, but I've seen preachers and congregationalists who DO maintain that verse 17 is an anti-smoking verse. I've heard it quoted out of context just like I did it up for laughs, only they were dead serious. I think I have shown how the traditional (and also the humorous) translation of that verse violates the context in which it resides. If no posters here want to admit that, I will find sufficient comfort in seeing the steady stream of visitors who can read without such egotistic blinders. Yes, doojabble, the temple is "you" plural. That's not an issue here, though, so I didn't divert there. The context of I Cor 3 is one of safety and comfort. Constant re-assurances are given that God's reward process does not involve human like retribution against the PERSON, but only a loss of rewards, even though that can be a substantial loss. Verse 17 violates that and needs help disparately. It's a sore thumb in the flow. Doojabble, do you have the one word from Walter in verse 17 that is mistranslated in most of the texts?

Finally! We get to the seventeenth verse. Now brothers and cisterns, let me tell you that if you smoke cigarettes and defile the temple, God is going to destroy YOU! So have FEAR of the Lord and His destruction! Have FEAR when you tithe to me! Have FEAR when you read the holy scriptures! Why it says it right here in the holy book. I’ll read it to you, you don’t have to go there yourselves. It says as plain as day in I Corinthians 3:17 “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy!” And the context, folks, is loaded with FIRE! I didn’t write the book! There it says that God will destroy YOU if you don’t line up with me in this church. And now we'll take up a collection for the work of the Lord.

More review: What I shared has to do with forgiveness in general, and is not at all confined to forgiving Dr and leadership. The Corinthians had to apply what Paul taught on forgiving amongst themselves, and so do we, all the time. When forgiveness is difficult, then we learn the most about it IF we press on and TRY to love and downplay the urge to “get even,” as if that has ever happened. Have you ever gotten even with someone? What happened the NEXT day, though? It seems to disappear with time and more must be sought. Revenge seeking is an addiction. *** Way back in Post #548 I mentioned that a lot of I Cor 3 is warming, EVEN the part where Paul calls them babes. At least that meant they were in the family and loved. Nowadays some may take that as an insult, but it’s usually still true. Hardly anyone has grown up in Christ. Those who do are not struggling with whether to forgive or not or how. In many areas we all are babes... don’t like that? ... grow up. Back in Post #548 I mentioned the warming areas of I Cor 3 as being important, so I painted those fonts red, while the more difficult reproof parts are blue. The warm areas tell me I have something to be thankful for. I received pneuma hagion so it has benefits that the warm portions remind me of. This helps me handle the carnal accusations at the beginning, which I know still apply to some areas in my life. It also helps me with the fire coming later in the chapter. Paul is saying that after teaching pneuma hagion to them, there was still more for believers to advance towards. He was leading them and teaching them. Again, for review here’s what we’ve covered so far with a few more verses added and a few liberties taken with formatting punctuation and translation: I Corinthians 3:1-16 1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat, for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3 For ye are yet carnal, for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? 5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. 8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one, but every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. 9 For we are labourers together with God. You are God's husbandry, you are God's building. 10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 then every man's WORK shall be made clear, open, public, and obvious. for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire. And the fire shall try every man's WORK of what sort it is. 14 If any man's WORK abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's WORK shall be burned, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, like narrowly escaping from a housefire. 16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? Notice how Paul is so tender with them, reminding them that they are special, all the while letting them know how some heavy stuff was going to come down in the future. Notice how I put “work” in ALL-CAPS to help US distinguish between the man (Christ within) and the work (from the dead old man nature). Paul talks about these two competing entities waging war within him in Romans 7. Notice how in verse 8 the oneness we enjoy in some things does NOT extend to the rewards. This is why the “de” needs to be translated “but” in that verse. If we all got the same rewards, there would be no righting of wrongs in I Cor 3 to enjoy and no rewarding of extra effort as well. Sometimes I think this is where our heads go if we are having trouble with forgiveness. We think God will NOT even the score, so we have to do it for Him. God says He will reward with justice. "Vengance is mine saith ther Lord, I will repay," is just not believed. Are you afraid your God will not re-pay properly? Maybe it’s time to go God-shopping. Notice verse 13. It’s in the same line of thought, that no one is going to hide anything from God or exposure at that time. Remember how I showed you in I John 2:28 the shame that some can have at the Return. I think many here have trouble believing that one too. I’ve had feelings like that before, many times. It’s like I want to see that shame NOW! Impatience is not a fruit of the spirit. Take heed how you build.

Ham, I don’t take that as malevolent at all. The answer is "yes." Of course I have thought that through, and many times. In fact, it was a PREVALENT thought for many years. Now, may I turn the non-malevolence back? Have YOU thought through the possibility that YOU have left some crucial stones unturned? Have you thought through the possibility that the adversary’s tricks (and with those unturned stones) are better than your intellect, even the collective intellect of GSC, and that you’ve been talked out of the treasure in PFAL? *** In review, we looked at both Corinthians epistles and how one situation in their fellowship was dealt with. A certain man was acting way out of bounds. Paul told the young and still somewhat uneducated twig that they had to get rid of that guy, Old Testament style or face bigger growing problems. Then later, after the Corinthians had absorbed and digested the first epistle, Paul told them in the second that they could now better distinguish between that one man and his actions. They were told to bring that guy back into the loving arms of the fellowship after some temporary shame to him, and some temporary protection for the rest of the twig. This more mature form of loving that they were instructed to show to the man who sinned forms the context for the often heard phrase “we are not ignorant of his [the adversary’s] devices. Part of the teaching in the first epistle (the third chapter) was to show the Corinthians how God recognizes this difference between the man and the action. The real man was the Christ within that man and his tripping out was the old man nature. Before getting to that third chapter, let’s look a little closer at the second epistle and exactly what was said. II Cor.2:5-11 But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him. For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. This is one of God’s contributions to “A note on forgiving.”

Do you really care?

We were urged in the class to study the epistles which were written to us, even to spend three months on them exclusively. It seems not everyone did their homework. This is my constant theme here: that we cannot blame the teachers for our lack of knowledge if we did not do the homework. IT seems that BOTH the collaterals and our KJVs did not get as thoroughly and throughly researched as things get researched here.

Hang in there folks. When the time is available to me I will post on the second half of I Cor 3. When the weather is good I must work. When it rains I have a lot more posting time. Maybe tonight. Meanwhile, since the material in I Cor 3 seems to be new to so many here, I suggest reading that chapter in as many different versions as possible. Get a feel for how Paul was feeling as he wrote it and how the Corinthians might have received it. You might even try blocking out verse 17 for some readings just to see for yourself how it contradicts and disrupts the flow of the chapter when it's traditional translation is allowed.

So, is this thread simmering down enough to hear the last half of Corinthians? I can hardly remember all that I covered earlier, so I imagine the context loss is even greater elsewhere. I know there's a checklist out there ready to be pasted in, but does anyone remember my truck-stop apt-daptation of the two Corinthian letters and it's relationship to I Cor 3:17?

It's been noted here long ago, but it begs repetition here, the red drapes were removed from the book version.

Waiter, I'll have what he's having.

rascal, maybe you should think twice about oldiesman’s question... after all it WAS asked twice OF you. ******* oldiesman, Look at this Post #362 of mine where I asked of rascal the same kind of thing you’ve been asking rascal. Oh my gosh, I forgot that I mentioned in Post #362 that ALSO way back the days of other threads I had asked rascal that same thing. Most TV and Radio Stations know that if x number of people go to the bother to say something in writing, then there must be 1000x number of OTHER people thinking the same way who don’t write. I think the pressure is on rascal to disclose her rating system's methods, the names of all the other people she has files on, what she has found out on them, and when she found it out. ******* Hi Exy, Finding these posts wasn’t so hard. It’s finding my way BACK to today’s posts that’s difficult. :wacko: If it weren’t for this little “Add Reply” button at the bottom next to "Preview Post" ...BOING!... I’d never find my way back to “Today.” Oops, I’m right in the middle of something.

Here it is:

How did I do with my checklist? So far...?

Ditto in my memory. It was during that allowed time that Pawtucket set up GreaseSpot, or am I the one now mis-remembering?

I can take it sometimes, but "The Love Boat" and/or "Fantasy Island" seemed to rely TOTALLY on that gimmick. So what sub-episode are we in here, now, on this thread?