Mike

dmiller, You wrote: “What do brain scientists have to do with pfal??? __ I'm missing something here --- clue me in.” The brain scientist context comes from the other thread, T-Bone’s “What does it take to change your mind?” I mentioned my study with them over there and Tom Strange was following Modaustin’s Rule #3 of not baiting me over there, but to bait me here. ********************************************************************* ********************************************************************* ********************************************************************* ********************************************************************* Tom, That worm looks SO good to eat. Gosh! What luck that it was plopped right in here for little old me. I’m hungry! What great timing. This is my lucky day. BUT.... what’s that gleaming flash of light with the gentle curved thingy going through it, with that odd looking thing at the end. I wonder what THAT tastes like? Is it friend or foe? Now what WAS it they taught me about thingies back when I swimming with the school???

What? It just so happens that I DO think about other things, ya know. -_-

Pond, I think your experience is normal. Long ago, in my youth that is, I noticed that I was VERY easily swayed. I’d hear one thing and tend to believe it or want to believe it. Then a short time later I’d hear the opposite thing and immediately switch my preferences. This would bother me, thinking that there was something wrong with me, that I had a gullibility problem. I was greatly relieved when I got into the Word and heard a little bit of teaching on that verse in Roman 10 about “believing comes by hearing.” Being raised strict Catholic I had always associated believing and faith with something extremely exotic and saintly. But with that verse's explanation I came to realize that the brain is a believing machine, primarily designed for Eden’s best case scenario to take in data (especially repeated data) and automatically believe it. With the coming of sin and deception came the need to develop filters. I now still feel that automatic urge to believe everything I hear, and then about a fifth of second later, which is the time it takes for impulses to traverse the brain’s cortex or pattern recognition outer layers, I feel the filters installed as an adult kick in.

How about the steel and velvet method, avoiding use of the word "trick." Jesus used that one. When Peter was bucking him he was hard like steel and tough as nails. Other times Jesus was gentle and forgiving with Peter. This technique was used and abused at TWI, with emphasis on the latter in the latter years.

Tom, If I am insane, then what the heck do you want my answers for?

T-Bone, This is both an fascinating thread and an exceptionally fascinating initial post! I must say Bravo! I’ve had the privilege of literally hanging out with dozens of the world’s top brain scientists for seven years, and I’ve had a life-long interest in free will and it’s opposite of machine-like behavior being solely determined by nature and nurture. With that background in mind I’d say your introduction to this thread is one of the most stimulating and concise works I’ve seen in many years. This may well provide a springboard for discussion on the PFAL thread as to what that set of writings has to say on this topic. As time permits I may contribute here some of what went into the few big changes in my life.

Goey, You wrote: “You have not taken up 'the meek mastery of PFAL'. You have instead taken up the not so meek mastery of irrational thought. The only parts of PFAL you have taken up to master are the ones you have irrationally misconstrued and foisted unintended meanings upon.” But how would you know this is the case since you have, like all the other brains from TWI (including all leadership, current and splintered, intellectually gifted or not) have STEADFASTLY REFUSED to take up the meek mastery of all of written PFAL especially to the inclusion of the magazine articles. Instead you all have allowed your initially partial understanding of PFAL to leak out for over 20 years and you have ploughed it over with a myriad of contradictory information for much of that time. Like I say to all the others who have accused me of distorting PFAL, it’s the distortion of PFAL that you hold in your mind that I knowingly, willingly, and vigorously violate.

Tom, It’s not a matter of worthiness. If you can’t understand the questions I asked you in those earlier posts, or if you simply don’t want to deal with them, then you either won’t be able to understand the answers I give you to your questions or you'll not want to accept them. The reason I can say this is because I specifically designed those questions to you to track closely with the issues you are asking me about. Since you seem unable or unwilling to deal with the issues in my questions, then you will be similarly disposed to deal with my answers. Because you seem unable or unwilling to deal with the issues I feel that we must start with the basics, and build a foundation for understanding these things. To really do that we must dive headlong into the PFAL texts. It is THIS that I really wish to communicate to you and to readers. Those who do not want to do this are free to do so, but I’m also free to not care what they think about me. Look at it this way, Tom, the questions I asked you are hints. Work with them.

templelady, You wrote: “...1) two of those scriptures are not applicable...” Not entirely. It’s just in the TIMING of them that I would differ from you. They apply to a later time and a different group of people. They are still very useful and applicable in that context. *** You wrote: “...2) that the interpretation of them is incorrect because VPW says so in PFAL” Not entirely. I’d put it: “the interpretation of them is incorrect because God says so in PFAL, which was delivered to us by VPW, his team of editors and researchers, and the many others who had gathered various truths and even received revelations before VPW. *** You wrote: “Mike, don't you see that you can't prove the truth of PFAL from PFAL. YOU can't prove the truth of anything by its existence. You prove truth by OUTSIDE corroborating evidence” I agree. That’s why I don’t try to prove it. If PFAL is not God-breathed, then what I say falls to pieces. But if it is, then think on this. How could any outside testimony/evidence verify it? If it’s of God then nothing can be looked to that’s bigger than it. We cannot say with logical integrity: “PFAL is true, because I looked at something outside it that ALREADY has established veracity, and this outside testimony/evidence vouches for PFAL.” If this were said, it would be a contradiction. Here’s a more simple (but crude) example of this contradiction. “I know this guy is the absolute King of our land, ruler over all, because this OTHER guy says so.” In this contradictory sentence the OTHER guy is really ruler over all, and not the first. I don’t try to prove PFAL because only God can do that. Dr told us to literally do something very specific at the end of his life, just like he told us at the end of the class to do literally what he asked us to specifically do down to the most minute detail. We all did what he told us to do at the end of the class and we all received. None of us did what he told us to do at the end of his life class and we all lost. When we become the first batch grads to LITERALLY do what he told us to do at the end of his life down to the most minute detail, and take up the meek mastery of written PFAL, then we will see that PFAL is of God. The outside agent will be God Who does the proving. *** Here are the exact words Dr spoke to us at the end of the class and they apply well to what he told us to do at the end of his life. They were all filled -- nobody got missed, just nobody. And, in my classes on Power For Abundant Living, nobody ever gets missed, because, if you're in this class, you've heard the Word, you've believed God's Word, God is always faithful. And nobody ever misses, if you'll do exactly what I tell you to do, right down to the minute detail. It's like, in I Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 13. Remember where the Apostle Paul said: "I thank my God, that, when you received the Word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the Word of God." Now, if you'll be as honest with God as that Word of God says, you too can walk into the greatness of the manifestation of the power of God. But, if you think this is just V.P. Wierwille talking, you'll never get it. But if you know that what I am saying - It's V.P. Wierwille saying it, but these are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is utilizing and speaking to you through my ministry and my life, then you too will manifest forth the greatness of the power of God. If you will literally do what I tell you and ask you to do, and show you why, then you can walk into the greatness of this power, like all the rest of us have, and manifest forth the greatness of this abundance of God, the wonderful power of God.

Tom, You wrote: “Mike... are you ever going to give a simple answer to my simple questiongs?” Truth is simple, but clearing away error for simple answers to be received can be quite complicated, especially on this topic. So, the real question here is are YOU ever going to sit down and work WITH me on the error clearing process so that this subject can be discussed properly. I will give you an answer to this latest question of yours, assuming you refuse my proposal above. The answer is: No, probably never. Not while you're committed to interrupting and badgering. *** You wrote: “Or are you just going to continue to "rant on"? If so, it doesn't help your credibility with anyone... not just me.” I’m daring to take on some super sacred cows in religion. I don’t consider it ranting that I’m doing. I consider it hacking a rough trail through a dense forest. It may be rough now, but it will make it possible for others to build it into a road later. *** You wrote: “If your credibility is lacking your message won't be believed. It's really very simple.” Only to a simpleton. For you to assert that other people here are going to turn around, take note, and start to believe me because I give you simplistic answers must make it very difficult for you to hold a straight face. I can see you bursting into guffaws right after you wrote that last sentence. I joined you when I read it. I’m only just now wiping my eyes. *** You wrote: “I'm really trying to help you here... else your message falls upon deaf ears...” ENOUGH! I can’t take it any more. My sides are splitting. You and I both know perfectly well that there's little hope any help you offer will sway posters here. If you REALLY want to help me (smirk) the most effective way is get your books open and celebrate the treasure with me as you re-discover it. We can do it in private so you don’t even have to think about saving face here. Now since you don’t really want to help me win converts and can’t either, if you WOULD like to beef up the conversation (half smirk), instead of totally shutting me down, then how about YOU answering MY questions to you that are above. In Post #6, after the previous thread's RECAP, there are about 8 questions, and Post #9 has two in the middle, excluding the other trivial ones. They generated a response by templelady and then a longer post of details by me. Please don’t make me fashion a paste-job from them to deal with your future badgering.

Allan, I'd say (knowing sarcasm when it's THIS obvious) in playing along that maybe you've gone too far into the OTHER extreme. How about backing half way off the humble acceptance and just dialog as an equal? But I'd suggest we do it in private, because too many people here don't like BOTH of us. We do agree on a lot. Maybe we could help each other on the manners thing too, because I know I could use some improvement there as well. And I accept far more than one third of what VPW taught, which I think was the percentage you thought would be acceptable for attending CES. If I am aiming at becoming an Internet guru I am failing at it spectacularly.

CM, Could we PM a little? Or talk by phone? I hurt for you to see you so intense this way. I think you got me wrong, and maybe we can fix it.

CM, April Fools Day! Right? Am I right? I hope I'm right.

templelady, Usually when I ask grads about the common assumption that everything happens in sync to everyone and everyone sees Christ at the same time, the answer I get is from I Corinthians 15:52 where it says “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump....” The logic then is simple; if it takes zero time, then everyone experiences it at the same time. But we grads have been taught different in PFAL, only we often don’t remember it all. Some parts we do remember, often the parts that line up with the common cultural teaching on this topic, but many details get lost in the shuffle, either to memory or to not absorbing them in the first times we went through the material. Here’s what Dr wrote in the last chapter of GMWD, “The Final Victory,” on pages 227,228: “The great hope of the Christian Church is the return of Christ and our gathering together unto him. There are aspects of Christ’s return which we find most clearly explained by God’s rightly-divided Word. In order to understand the coming of Christ, we must also understand “the mechanics” of his coming. Jesus’ first coming began with his conception and birth and ended with his ascension, over thirty years later. There were many significant phases and events during this time. In this, the second coming is similar: it will also cover a period of time and encompass several significant phases and events. “There are four basic events included in the times of the end, when Christ returns. This is their order: (1) Christ’s coming for the Church, the Body of Christ, to gather them together and meet them in the air; (2) the events of the Book of Revelation with Christ’s coming with the Church; (3) the first and second resurrections; and finally, (4) the very end, the final point [telos], when death is destroyed and all things are subdued to God. Having this background, we can now turn to the Word of God and see its clarity.” I’m advocating that we pay closer attention to these paragraphs, and to the many more that are written in PFAL. When we do, many more details will emerge that are not part of the common cultural picture of the Second Coming. Have you ever noticed how few scriptures we have on OUR gathering together? You supplied two scriptures that pertain not to us but to others. The scriptures that teach us about our gathering together are rather slim in number and detail. I’m convinced that PFAL supplies more detail on these events that affect us because it’s now time for those events to take place. I’m convinced that PFAL will show us more. In the Old Testament the mystery, the great secret that was later revealed to Paul, was kept a tight secret by God for strategic purposes. (Or is it tactical? I could never get those two words straight.) God kept it a secret to trick the devil into helping Him, in a sense. I believe, and it’s because I was shown these things when I came back to PFAL, that God had (and has) other secrets up his sleeve, and this is why the Epistles have so little about our gathering together. When we spoke in tongues we were speaking divine secrets, as 1 Corinthians 14:2 describes “...in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.” As we master PFAL these secrets are revealed. This is why PFAL was given and this is why we were told to master it. The people who are bugging me for answers here need to go to written PFAL and spend time looking deeper into what we were taught there. Much treasure there awaits to be discovered. Late Edit: The very first word in this post was just corrected from "Unusually" to "Usually." It was all the fault of my spell checker. BAD spell checker! (swat) BAD spell checker!

WW, "As to JC being 'VERY interested in PFAL'" is the easiest to explain. PFAL is the Word of God. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. There's cause for Jesus Christ taking interest right there. And it makes perfect sense WHEN one believes that PFAL is God-breathed. PFAL is the mind of Christ when it's assimilated in us. PFAL is the means by which we recognize Jesus Christ. That's why I said he is VERY interested in PFAL. It's the means by which we become like him. And there's more, but that's the simple-to-explain-to-an-antagonistic-audience part. *** Here's another simple angle on Jesus Christ being interested in PFAL. If he appointed Dr his spokesman, then PFAL is from the mind of Christ. I know you and others want an answer that doesn't depend on believing PFAL, but you can't always get what you wa-ant. *** I didn't mean to insult you, in fact I mentioned that you seemed to be mellowing out a little, at times, and being more civil towards me than in previous years. I just thought it was funny how you miss what I say and latch onto trivialities, both due to an overzealous goal of snuffing out my message.

Well you could have said so earlier. I am highly motivated to bring to grads attention many items that we either forgot or that slipped by us unawares. Even if I am a nut, it might be in your best interests to examine not so much my words, but the words of VPW that I present and see if they were forgotten by you or if they slipped by you unawares. If my reminding you of many lost words of VPW blesses you, then maybe I'm not so nuts. You seem to have such a chip on your shoulder that everyone (not just me) is wrong and you are right. Ok, many people think that of me, so I produce the lost words of VPW and then they have more to go on. Lighten up a little, man. We used to be a family, and cared for each other. Basically, the biggest and easiest thing I’m saying is that opening up the books.... Oops, I’m on the wrong thread. Come visit us sometime, and look at the lost words of VPW over there... and try to remember that family love we all used to have for each other.

But Tom! What about the questions I had for you? I still think they’re important, and I’ll just have to repeat them if or when you do your next paste-job. I wouldn’t discount, either, the physical aspect totally. To do so reveals two hidden assumptions you and many others make regarding the Return of Christ. The first hidden assumption is that there is total synchronization in seeing Christ, that we all see him at the same time. The second is that we’ll see him physically. I think these need to be thought through as part of that theological make-over Dr called for TWICE in his final contribution to the Way Magazine. Remember I quoted those two places from that last issue? Both his main article and his Our Times article warned of dark clouds over us, and both also urged us to re-think everything we believed. Where did we come up with the idea that the Gathering Together would be a synchronous event for us all? Where did we come up with the idea that the Gathering Together would be seeing him physically? Then add to these theology make-over questions the ones I challenged you with above. Do you want to walk away from all these greater issues things just because you think I claimed to have seen him "only" or "merely" spiritually?

I had a strong eree feeling you thought I was paranoid.

Well I’m done unpacking, now that we’ve moved into this new thread. Let’s let the readers in on what happened before. RECAPPING THE PREVIOUS THREAD On the Round One thread of this PFAL series titled “The Official, the Ultimate, the Amazing PFAL Thread, Come Back to PFAL, but watch for the land mines” in Post #1009, just before it reached such a large size that it was locked down (probably to prevent slowing down the server’s hard drive from the weight), Tom Strange had asked me a question after pasting in some lines where he quoted me. That thread’s last page can be found here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...00entry228278 Tom Strange wrote over there in that thread’s Post #1009 the following: So then you're talking "spiritually" here??? Mike 2/2/04, 12:17am. "When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand and teaching you from it." Mike 2/3/04 5:22am. "Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL. He told me so." Vickles 2/3/04, 7:51pm. "So, Mike, you weren't kidding about JC coming with a PFAL book in his hand." Mike, 2/3/04, 7:53pm. "Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once." ...you haven't actually physically seen him? just spiritually???” Then I responded to Tom in that thread’s last Post #1011 with: What do you mean by “...just spiritually”??? Is that like “merely spiritually”? Is there something lacking with spiritually? Is there something less than “actual” with spiritually? I think we got a lot of background work to do. *** Let me ask YOU a question to get you prepared for some answers. When you see Jesus, how will you know FOR SURE that it’s him, the REAL him and not a counterfeit? You wouldn’t want to bend the knee and swear loyalty to the wrong god accidentally. Have you ever thought this through deeply? I used to do this all the time in the 60’s. I saw all kinds of things then. From those experiences I would say the counterfeit is much more possible than most people think. This is related to your questions to me, because how are you going to tell if what I saw was counterfeit or not? What criteria can be used to discern the real Jesus? Finger prints? Iris scan? DNA? One guy I know used touching the holes in his hands feet and the gash in his side to tell, but he got scolded for that. How much thought have you put into things like this? I’m serious. Before I’m allowed to bring you on a tour of the limits of the universe, I have to make sure you can take it. It’s a liability issue. My hands are tied by insurance regulations. You have to be fit to survive the ride, doncha know. In an unorthodox translation (hence the name of this thread) Tom Strange’s response to me was then transferred over to this “Round 2” thread and can be seen in Post #1 above. So now I’m ready to continue the discussion. ******************************************************************** ******************************************************************** ******************************************************************** ******************************************************************** Tom Strange, Not so fast. If you don’t know whether “actually” physically seeing isn’t better than spiritually seeing, then why did you phrase it the way you did with “actually”? If you don’t know whether physically seeing isn’t better than “just” spiritually seeing, then why did you phrase it the way you did with “just”? You’re going to have to answer my questions better than that or I’m going to have to make a paste-up rubber stamp for you until you do. *** I’m not sure I understand this from your last post: “The way you phrased it earlier didn't really make any distinction between the two...” “It” what? “Earlier” where? Which “two” I deal with a lot of parameters and references here, so please expand this sentence out so I understand it. *** You wrote: “I'll ask you the same question back: What proof do you have that what you saw was not the counterfeit? Like you claim to have seen in the 60's? How do you know it wasn't just another one of those?” No, no, Tom. I’m the one asking questions here. I need to gage how much background you need to understand my answer. You’re distancing yourself even farther from me by answering my questions with a question or your own. *** Here’s a set of questions you didn’t even touch. You just brushed them off as unimportant and ok to ignore. If that’s an example of how you’ve dealt with these kinds of thoughts in the past then you’re not going to get any more answers from me than Pontius Pilate got from Jesus. And don’t distract me from the issue by accusing me of comparing myself with Jesus, again. That’ll just delay your answers even more. Here are the questions you thought you could shove under the rug: When you see Jesus, how will you know FOR SURE that it’s him, the REAL him and not a counterfeit? What criteria can be used to discern the real Jesus? Finger prints? Iris scan? DNA? One guy I know used touching the holes in his hands feet and the gash in his side to tell, but he got scolded for that. WHY? How much thought have you put into things like this? I have a large file waiting to get into posting form on this subject as soon as people here are ready. maybe that’s why I blurted out some of the things you’ve latched onto. I just need to have people interested in them for the right reasons, not for nailing me to a wall. *** You see, Tom, I have to not only test your preparedness and help fill in the gaps of your understanding to answer you, but I also have to protect myself from a trick. Why would I suspect a trick from a trickster like you? Oh, I don’t know. ...call it experience? ...call it observation? Don’t you think I ought to protect myself from you just picking up new material for another paste-job? You need to convince me that you want to learn from my answer and not just use it against me, like you have been SO PRONE to do, doncha know? You got some convincing to do. *** So, go ahead. Start thinking about your answers. You got some preparation to do. It may take some intense thinking to answer my questions, especially if you haven’t intensely thought these questions through on your own for years and decades. You can’t show up as a kindergarten student and demand to be taught calculus. You have to jump through some hoops to get ready for the strong stuff. *** Maybe we ought to go back and read the “Ubiquitously Hidden Teaching of VPW” thread and see what your grades look like there. Did you pay any attention in that class on the big difference between physical and spiritual, or were you busy throwing spitballs? I want to answer your questions, but I’d like to think you’re asking me for your learning and not prepping for a fresh paste-job. *** Hey! I can answer one. I’m in a generous mood. Mike 2/3/04 5:22am. "Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL. He told me so." I don’t remember most of your quotes, because I am constantly dealing with so many things here that fleeting one-time statements fade from my memory pretty fast. I think I remember this one though. It looks like the one WW got his shorts in a bunch over a few months ago. It was hilarious, because this is just a typo... I think. Actually, the quote doesn’t look to be quite right. I thought there was an object of a preposition involved, where I simply thought antecedent nouns didn’t count, or something like that. The “He” in the last sentence is supposed to refer back to Dr and not Jesus Christ. I know this from the word “spokesman.” One of the 22 “thus saith” statements is Dr claim in the Introduction of JCNG that Jesus Christ appointed him as his spokesman. It was Dr who told me that Jesus Christ appointed Dr as his spokesman. When WW went into orbit over this I was amazed at how much effort he exerted over a simple typo. Attitude counts, Tom, so pay attention! WW’s attitude was so stinky that I just let him rant. I’ve kept my mouth shut in your recent paste-jobs regarding this one item to see if he jumps on it again, but he’s leaving me alone lately, and I’ve even detected an increase of civility emerging in some of his posts to me. (By the way, you guys and a few others look like you have a tag-team going on me. When one gets tired, another jumps in to keep the heat on me. It’s another source of amusement for me, pondering if it’s true... er... I mean factual.) Anyway, you’ve exhibited some civility toward me in recent weeks so I decided to throw you a bone here. Still, I could swear there was an object of a preposition involved where I made my typo or grammar mistake. Maybe it was another one. I have way too much on my plate to chase all these things down, especially for people who don’t want to learn and just razz me and impede my progress. You wouldn’t happen to know what thread it was on do you? If you’re going to do paste-jobs then supplying the source (and not merely the date) is the proper thing to do. Letting others know where it came from allows them to check out the whole context for themselves. Surely you can see this... unless fully informing readers is a low priority and merely influencing them is your real intention.

T-Bone, Thanks. Sorry if I was a little paranoid. I get hit from many directions and it's sometimes hard to retract my shields. **************alert********************************alert***************** ********************************SHIELDS UP**************************** *************all hands on deck*******************battle stations************* ********************************************************************** Oh HI Tom! Old pal, old buddy, old friend! What’s up? So, you wrote: “...you haven't actually physically seen him? just spiritually???” What do you mean by “...just spiritually”??? Is that like “merely spiritually”? Is there something lacking with spiritually? Is there something less than “actual” with spiritually? I think we got a lot of background work to do. *** Let me ask YOU a question to get you prepared for some answers. When you see Jesus, how will you know FOR SURE that it’s him, the REAL him and not a counterfeit? You wouldn’t want to bend the knee and swear loyalty to the wrong god accidentally. Have you ever thought this through deeply? I used to do this all the time in the 60’s. I saw all kinds of things then. From those experiences I would say the counterfeit is much more possible than most people think. This is related to your questions to me, because how are you going to tell if what I saw was counterfeit or not? What criteria can be used to discern the real Jesus? Finger prints? Iris scan? DNA? One guy I know used touching the holes in his hands feet and the gash in his side to tell, but he got scolded for that. How much thought have you put into things like this? I’m serious. Before I’m allowed to bring you on a tour of the limits of the universe, I have to make sure you can take it. It’s a liability issue. My hands are tied by insurance regulations. You have to be fit to survive the ride, doncha know.

Tom, Many have thought that I do merely want to shake things up with my oft repeated assertions like God-breathed PFAL, in spite of the intense detail and constant repetition. Seeing Jesus is something we should all want to do and strive for, like Zacheus did in his tree climbing, and is covered in an entire chapter of OMSW. I’ve often posted on how we need to look for the spiritual now, and not the physical in many areas. Because we are so far removed STILL from being spiritually oriented, we tend to think that the BETTER way to see Jesus would be physically, in the flesh, because the still small voice is so still and small and this applies to the sight as well. It seems like too flimsy a way to see him to us who are not yet proficient in the revelation manifestations, which IMO is ALL of us, me included. But many, many people did see Jesus phsically long ago and where are they now? Only a small few, and only for a very small time did they come even somewhat close to doing all the things that Jesus Christ did. Seeing him physically did not make them become totally like him, like our seeing of him spiritually promises. That you are so eager to hear physical details, and that you slough off the spiritual setup of what I have glimpsed should tell you that you have some spiritual growing yet to do. I think there is ALSO something to seeing him physically, but first things first, spiritually is the way God wants it now. Otherwise he would not have removed His Son from the physical realm and placed him in the spiritual at His right hand. *** Why would I make a statement that I know will come back and “haunt me” ? I dunno. I haven’t gone back to read the contexts. Maybe I was inspired. I have to admit, the impact of my statements to that effect have reached far more eyes due to your paste badgering (or whatever description you prefer). This would be an excellent example of Philippians 1: 15-19. Maybe I was angry and blew it. I don’t worry about it. If I blew it and am doing God’s work He has to cover for me. As far as heeding my message, I think I’ve given plenty of reasons for opening the books again, and he who has ears to hear will hear it, remembering that there are lots of current and future silent readers of this website, as well as there can be lots of currently rejecting posters who sometimes feel the need to search for better understanding, and who who may eventually put it together that there is a huge unturned stone out there and try opening the books. I appreciate your not attacking me now, but your paste jobs leave you wanting for diplomacy. Impolite badgering in nasty tones is o way to get information out of anyone. *** Still, I was not comparing my character with Noah’s character and claiming any kind of equality, which is what you were implying. We’re supposed to compare our situations to similar ones in the past and see how the great cloud of wit\nesses handled them for our guidance and support. *********************************************************** *********************************************************** *********************************************************** *********************************************************** T-Bone, You wrote: “Mike, thank you for interpreting that which I had just spoken in a post...Maybe we better handle that in the All Nine all the time thread.” I have to interpret all posts before responding to them, but in this one you don’t give me enough information to have any confidence in handling it. I don’t understand the “all nine” reference one bit at all. Are you saying I should have gotten revelation on your last post to get it right, because that I got it terribly wrong? I’m not sure if you are sincere with your “thank you” or sarcastic. I’m hard pressed to interpret this one. I( can't even tell if the smiley face icon is waving hello or goodbye. You last post I felt I had interpreted correctly. You may not have like how I used it as a jumping off platform for expressing my views, but I don’t see how I can change that much. I can ask you if I got something wrong in the way I interpreted, though, which would be in accordance with what we were taught in the AC about all nine, especially receiving revelation, that God expects us to know by the five senses what we can know. So please, let me know if there’s any line(s) in your post that I misinterpreted, and I’ll try again to respond appropriately.

Allan, Management here is VERY tolerant. You are not.

Oakspear, I responded to your handling of “thus saith” statements #1 and #2 last night in Post #1000 of this thread. Yikes! That’s amazing to think, a thousand posts here. If archeologists were to someday centuries from now find a hard drive with all this on it I wonder what they would think of us? Anyway, Oak, if you already read that post, I made some major additions this morning and fontationalized them with this bright blue.

Hi T-Bone, I’m happy to see you again. I agree with you and Modaustin that this is not my thread. If it does appear sometimes like I am assuming the lead-poster role here I think it’s only because I was given more material to present. We have many sub-threads running concurrently here, so feel free to “derail” like never before. Just to keep things clear for readers, though, I suggest we label such allowed derailment posts with a topic title explaining the departure from the current discussion. If a post is to refer to an earlier buried topic by the current posting, then again a suitable sub-topic title and the Post #numbers it refers to would help all readers follow. *** You wrote: “PFAL is on equal footing with the Bible [or even assume TWI is synonymous with the Kingdom of God]. I also got the idea that truth – the Original God-Breathed Word - was a very elusive, long lost thing that only TWI was able to discover.” The way I see it is the authoritative Bible is long lost and quite elusive. We have less than authoritative Bible versions available to us but we all know they are not the last word on the subject. If therefore, God steps in to this dilemma and inspires English words to be written like He did thousands of years ago, then we DO have something authoritative. It’s in this respect that I see PFAL on equal footing with the original Bible manuscripts, and on a superior footing to all available Bible versions available. Take away the originals and PFAL’s footing topples. There’s no way PFAL could communicate anything if it weren’t for the original Bible. Nearly every page of PFAL rests on Bible verses and would be an insane read if they were removed. *** I realize that TWI is not the only group of people capable of doing five senses (and therefore non-authoritative) Biblical research. The existence of JCPS would be impossible if it weren’t for the relatively recent five senses Biblical research of a Dr. Ernest L. Martin in the non-TWI institution named the Foundation for Biblical research in Pasadena CA. The fact that VPW vocally and in print credited Dr. Martin for his work may have slipped by your attention, but may have corrected the mis-impression you state you had that TWI claimed to have an exclusive grasp on this field. I can’t blame you for thinking this back then, though, because the TVTs by that time were saturated with the idea the TWI was the only such institution. There’s a big difference between presenting non-authoritative authoritative research and presenting that which has God’s breath directing. A non-authoritative presentation can be very accurate with the facts, yet fall short on the truths. VPW was very happy and excited when he came across Dr. Martin’s non-authoritative but factually accurate work. I have no doubt that God guided Dr to read Dr. martin’s work. The way he and God presented this work to us, I believe, is God-breathed. *** I think lots of the complaints you have of the stifling atmosphere of later years TWI are valid. However, I would disagree with you that there is NECESSARILY a difference between intense Bible (aided with PFAL) study and having a relationship with God and His Son. It’s POSSIBLE to avoid this available relationship and have lots of bible facts stored in one’s head, but I don’t believe it’s possible to have a deep relationship with God and be ignorant of the material in the Bible, especially in Paul’s epistles. Lots of people claim to have such a non-biblical relationship with God, but I am convinced that at best they are merely conjuring up some pleasant emotions and the True God is not involved. It’s a god of their own making. In Post #366 on this thread I discussed the need for such a relationship to have accurate words. It’s an expansion of Jesus’ quote of Deut. 6:5 “And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” The very next verse says “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:” Post #366 can be found here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=360 I have posted at GSC many times on Deut. 6 and this word based relationship God wants and demands, so searching may bring up more details. At the very least reading that entire Deut. chapter will show what I’m talking about. A true relationship with God can be missed with Bible study, but it cannot be achieved without Bible study. *** You wrote: “I wonder where TWI would be today if they hadn't put PFAL on a pedestal – but allowed wonderfully human, imperfect people and God's Spirit have free course in Bible study and practice.” Actually, we didn’t properly handle PFAL and that’s why the ministry meltdown happened. We only acquired a partial understanding of PFAL and even that got corrupted as the years went by. Dr spent the last ten years of his life trying to get us back to the written forms of the class, but all of us in leadership were pretty content with a casual and partial knowledge of the written materials, coasting on our memory and feeding off the TVTs. I wonder where TWI would be today if we hadn't put written PFAL on the back burner – but allowed wonderfully human, imperfect people and God's Spirit to have free course in Bible study and practice within the perfect guidance written PFAL offered. But we need not wonder about ourselves and the wonderful relationship with God that emerges from coming back to written PFAL again meekly mastering it.

Oakspear, Thank you so much for addressing the actual material in this thread and not me. It is so often refreshing to talk to you. I appreciate your efforts. You wrote regarding "Thus Saith The Lord Statement" #1, which is taken from TNDC, near the end of Chapter Two, “The Unqualified Commitment.” Here is the text of that statement, with my bold fonts: “Change what you put in your mind. To change the food you are sending to your mind is to “renew your mind.” Think those things which are true, honest, just, pure, lovely and of good report. __ If you by your free will accept Christ as your Savior and renew your mind according to The Word, you will find that every word I have written to you is true. I challenge you to stand upon the Word of God, declare your authority in Christ and claim your rights.” You wrote: “Clearly he is not referring to every word without exception, but every word that he has written previously on the subject that he is writing about. __ So what is Wierwille saying here? That his words in the previous section are the equivalent to scripture? Or that they are true because they line up with what the bible says? It would really be a stretch to suppose that he was saying anything other than his words line up biblically, therefore they are true.” I’ll first handle the last part of your post and then the first. It would be a pretty big claim for Dr say that every word he wrote in that chapter, or even in the last section of that chapter, lined up factually accurate with the Bible. Even this qualifies to satisfy the goal of my posting the 22 “thus saith” statements, which was to document that we missed many things in written PFAL and had not at all mastered it, therefore can’t say PFAL failed us. I never had seen this statement of “every word I have written to you is true,” or at least I didn’t remember it when I saw it in 1998 when I first came back to these books. A few years ago I saw an OLG literally jump 3 inches up from her chair in surprise when this page was read from a TNDC in front of her. I doubt if many readers here at GSC remembered it when I first posted it. But I think there is much more to be seen here. When Dr used the word “true” he meant something a whole lot bigger than factually accurate. I know this from the many times he said this very thing. In the Sep/Oct 1983 issue of the Way Magazine is his article titled “The Importance of Words In God’s Word.” In that article he explicitly outlines the differences between “facts” and “truths.” In Dr’s vocabulary a fact is on the human level. It’s accurate to the extent the five senses and the reasoning machine attached to them (the brain) are sound, all of which are actually quite lacking. A fact is something that is lined up with man’s experiences, and it can change. A truth, however, is lined up with God, is unchangeable, and is super-duper right-on. A fact is sound from man’s perspective, while a truth is sound from God’s perspective. So for Dr to claim that “every word I have written to you is true” is MUCH bigger a claim than if he had said something like “every word I have written to you is factual” or “every word I have written to you is lined up with the facts of the somewhat partial Bible data we have available and think we understand.” For Dr to claim that “every word I have written to you is true” means that every word lines up perfectly with God’s Word and will and will never change and will never have to be "taken back" and re-examined for error, excepting simply typos. The only way a human being can write such words would be if God gave them in the first place, if God inspired them, if God breathed them. This difference between fact and true is a huge topic. We will need to spend a lot more time on this for it to settle with people. *** Notice also that he does not say “every verse I have quoted to you is true,” although EVEN THAT would be a large claim, claiming that all the biblical research needed to check out the KJV handling of the manuscripts and translation for the verses quoted in that section WAS TOTALLY DONE. The only way a rational researcher could make such a claim is if he were convinced he had revelation on it. (Late Edit Adition) *** So, if Dr could make such a claim that that particular portion of that chapter was totally right on in every way, then he had to have gotten it from God. It’s AT LEAST a mini “thus saith the lord” statement that we all missed. But I think it’s a lot bigger than that. There is a set of audio recordings that Dr had broadcast on various radio stations back in the 60’s. In that set of tapes, which I have, he handles this chapter. I am only relatively sure that this tape comes from a time before TNDC was published in 1971, but we’ll handle that later. In that radio version of “The Unqualified Commitment” the passage reads: “...every word I said to you [slight pause] today is true.” He very deliberately adds a qualifier of “today” to what we have in TNDC, so we know he was aware of the difference between him claiming just that last portion of the chapter being true and the entire chapter being true. He claimed the entire chapter was true in the radio address. Have you read that chapter lately? It’s LOADED with doctrine, just LOADED. It’s a VERY large claim he made in the radio address. In the radio tape he has the kind of higher pitched shrill voice he had in the ’67 film class and not the mellower low voice of the 70's we see in the Rock of Ages '72 movie, so I think it’s before TNDC’s publication, which would mean he took out the qualifier that limited the “true” claim to the chapter. It’s a different “you” also in TNDC that he’s writing to than the “you” in the radio address. In the radio address it was the public at large, while in TNDC it’s his students in PFAL who received TNDC in the class. *** If the radio address was post-1971, then we have him adding the qualifier “today” to TNDC, which would be logical seeing he’s addressing an audience that would have some people who had not heard anything but what he said on that day. But I don't think this is the case. If it was the case that he saw a problem with TNDC’s early printing without the qualifier, and then added it to a post TNDC radio address, he could have added it in later printings of TNDC, but didn’t. This collateral book and most others did not undergo full blown edition changes, but they did have minor tweaks in different printings. I am tracking these changes the best I can, but it’s slow work, requiring more materials than are available to me. I do, howevr, have a copy of first printing of TNDC and a copy of it's last prior to Dr's death, though, and the qualifier was never added. I am searching for a pre-TNDC collateral booklet to see what he wrote prior to TNDC's 1971 publication. *** So, what I see so far, is that Dr’s claim that every word used in explanation and every verse rendering in that chapter is totally right on from God’s perspective, and therefore God-breathed, because that’s the only way humans can write with such perfection. If God and Dr produced one God-breathed chapter, then it’s NOT A STRETCH to think that they produced a bunch more. This is even easier to believe when the scope of all 22 “thus saith” statements are embraced and used as a platform to view this chapter. The scope of all 22 statements adds MUCH more to the mix. ************************************************************* For the next "Thus Saith The Lord Statement"#2 we have TNDC page 116: “Paul in I Thessalonians 2:13, thanked God that ‘when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.’ You too must follow God’s truth as told in the Word of God. But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive. If you know that what I am saying to you are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is speaking to you by me, then you too will manifest the greatness of the power of God. If you will literally do what I ask you, then you can manifest the fullness of the abundance of God, the wonderful power of God.” Oakspear, you wrote: “I'd be interested in the broader context here. Is what he wrote previous to this quote Wierwille quoting scripture? Or is it Wierwille speaking on his own? (or claiming to speak by revelation)” Here is everything that precedes the quoted passage in that chapter, with my bold fonts: CHAPTER TEN How to Speak in Tongues Now that you know why one speaks in tongues and when one speaks in tongues, I know that you would like to receive into manifestation the power of the fullness of the Holy Spirit. I know that you would like to speak the wonderful works of God and magnify God. To do this there is one thing you must do and that is to believe God’s Word. Surely you do believe God’s Word for what He has promised He is not only willing to perform, but He is able to perform. I can assure you upon the integrity of God’s Word that when you speak in tongues you will be speaking the wonderful works of God and magnifying God.* (footnote: *Acts 2:11: “Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.” Acts 10:46: “For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God ....”) Before you can tap any of God’s resources you must know, first of all, what is available. You know speaking in tongues is available because the Word of God says all born-again believers have the holy spirit within them, which is the ability to speak in tongues. Next you must know how to receive it, which is set forth in the following paragraphs. Let me unfold the keys to you and shortly you too will be speaking the wonderful works of God. Acts 2:4 says, “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” They were all filled, nobody was missed. Nobody ever gets missed if he has heard The Word and if he believes it and then acts upon it. God is always faithful and nobody then can be passed over. Do exactly what I tell you to do down to the most minute detail. Late Edit Addition: The context AFTER the TNDC page 116's "thus saith" statement #2 goes directly into "the mechanics of speech" which has no verses other than Acts 2:4a where “they did the speaking” and Dr had to supply the word “they.” One would be hard pressed to find ANY Bible verses for what Dr says on these following two nearly full pages dealing with the mechanics of speech. I refrained from pasting in these pages to avoid straining the "Fair Use" rules. The expanded context of "thus saith" statement #2 I have elaborated on from the words “or speaking” is worth looking at too. It’s in the “Dear Cheryl and Jim” letter in Post #310, and can be found here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=300 Oakspear, you wrote: “In both of these statements we have Wierwille very obviously claiming that what he has taught is true. He is considering no other possibility. But is he suggesting that what he is writing can in any way replace, or supercede 'the bible'? If he is saying it, it's not in these two statements.” He most certainly IS saying that what he is presenting is true and unchangeable as you state. We also have many, many places where he says that what we know is as “the Bible” or manuscripts or translations or versions, is changeable and not always true and not even factually accurate with the originals. As for “replacing,” what data we have, there I disagree and have done so before. Instead of replacing Biblical data and facts he incorporates them into nearly every page of PFAL. I only use the word “replace” in regards to priorities and study scheduling. I have replaced my KJV study time with PFAL study time, but KJV verses are still included, being highly incorporated within the PFAL text and with occasional PFAL recommendations to look at various places in a KJV that are not incorporated in PFAL. The 22 “thus saith” statements I posted is just the beginning of a larger set I have found in my study. It’s in putting together all the “thus saith” statements AND immersing myself in the PFAL materials that my surety in all of VPW’s PFAL writings being God-breathed emerges. Some minor edits to this post occured as well as a few major additions several hours after the original posting. These major Late Edit Additions are in bright blue fonts.