Mike

def59, You wrote regarding my fresh coinage of "Righteous Appropriation" and "Appropriate Appropriation" as opposed to plagairism: "That's a nice phrase, too bad it won't stand up in any court. But first you have to ask yourself, who said that it was God who gave these people their stuff. (Because there is much debate about the doctrines of the people who vpw took from) And if He did, why didn't he remind vpw to give credit where credit was due?" What about GOD'S court??? You seem to keep on wanting to drag this argument into the lower courts of the marketplace and academia. If Dr had operated i those areas he'd have been in hot water. He didn't, and he wasn't. God most certainly DID remind Dr to give credit to the men (most of them) from whom he received much teaching. It's the FORMAT of that credit you are quibbling about.

What the Hay, Wordwolf is referring to a thread started by Research Geek where RG said much the same thing that you just did (and rightly so for both of you) that many here need to step away from illogic and emotion based persuasion for a breather. Your tip is helpful and a much needed reminder. RG's thread is titled "Jeepers Sherlock. How'd you arrive at that?" and is at: http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=9...6921#8506056921 Then I resurrected it with "Part II: Jeepers Sherlock. How'd you arrive at that?" and is at: http://www.gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc...42&m=5036027881 You may notice that on my thread many quotation marks and apostrophe marks are distorted. This occured a software glitch during a moving of the thread to a new forum. Both threads were started and finished a little before you registered here. Thank you for this third refresher course worth repeating again. The Power of Words: http://www.aniota.com/~jwhite/words.html#TRUTH

Oakspear, I responded to a post of yours yesterday about your perceived contortions that I go through in maintaining my chosen belief system. There's very little time this morning for me to even read, let alone respond to, any of your posts since then, nor anyone else's. (maybe later today) However, I've spent a lot of time thinking about what you said since then. It is easy for me to see why you say that, about me going through great contortions, but I want to tell you FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, these things I do are very easy and even fun. Things that I said about the marketplace and the expectations of rewards from other marketplace participants must really gall you! When I adopt (temporarily) YOUR PERSPECTIVE I can readily see that this is no way to think or behave. In fact, most of my work day is spent in my thinking from your perspective regarding physical goods, services involving labor and time, and intellectual property. I expect my customers to pay me in 99% of all the squeegee swinging I do, and not God. I only switch over to the Family of God method of reward in a few instances, mainly because it's so small right now, and even where it exists in numbere, most are not doing much real "family style" believing. I see my participation in "normal" business as temporary. It's obvious to me that in your belief system there is no God to reward men's efforts to bless others, and there is no God to give revelation, and thus be the ultimate owner of all intellectual property, as well as physical. You probably think that Abraham's family were pirates of sorts in the way they claimed the land promised to them by God, and unfortunately occupied by unbelievers. In your system, Abraham's family appropriation of that land (ultimately in Joshua) was just as as unrighteous as Dr's appropriation of the revelations God gave to people like Kenyon and Styles, and Leonard, and others. My question to you is this: If you can temporarily adopt the frame of mind that there IS a all owning God, and one who gives accurate revelations to men, and that Dr was such a man, THEN can you see that from that frame of mind my contortions are graceful and beautiful gymnastics? I'm not blowing my own horn here; the beauty of the arguments I present are not of my own doing. I haven't tried to copyright for my own use any of my writings here, because I see that they come from a source other than myself. I do very much delight in them, though. I consider this a sharing in God's Family. Oakspear, your approach to most of what I write (like others here) is one of always looking for me to prove that which I have chosen to assume as already proved. I cannot prove to anyone in writing that there is a God Who created everything and therefore owns it all, that He does give revelations, and that Dr received, put together by divine guidance, and put into written form the mother load of those revelations. I don't try to do that. I assume it now, after 27 years of God proving it to me. If you have it in mind that I am trying to prove my postulates, then my moves SHOULD look contorted to you. If you think it through from my perspective, then this whole plagiarism thing totally evaporates, and it is YOU FOLKS HERE arguing against Dr that are contorted and twisted all out of shape in your protestations. I was just wondering it you have yet taken the time to see this, if even only temporarily.

socks, It's good to see that people are thinking about love... after all these years.

Mark S, Why do you ask? Do you want to drag me into the Political forum?

Oakspear, You wrote; "Wasn't the context of your statement on ethics regarding Joshua, WWII, etc plagiarism?" Plagiarism is a form of lying IF IT OCCURS IN ACADEMIA or in the MARKETPLACE. The Joshua and WWII items I mentioned involved espionage which is also a form of lying. *** You wrote: "Who was in danger of dying if Wierwille didn't plagiarize?" I'd prefer to answer that without acknowledging that what Dr did was plagiarism, seeing that it happened in a context of ministering to God's family with material God Himself supplied other members of His family. Lets call it Righteous Appropriation, or Appropriate Appropriation. Q: Who was in danger of dying if Dr didn't Appropriately Appropriate? A: You and me for starters. Lots of grads. Not only in danger of dying, but of wandering aimlessly with no real knowledge of God. God shared with some men who got lots of things right. God inspired Dr to find these men and appropriate what He, God, owned and share it with us. *** You wrote: "I don't want to get involved in ethics discussions either, but I am continually amzed at the contortions that you go through to justify Wierwille." It's no contortion to recognize that God owns all good ideas, and that He operates above and beyond the laws of man, especially men who do do not recognize that God amply rewards all good works, and who therefore construct laws to "get theirs" while the getin' is good. It's no contortion to recognize that the Family of God shares, while academia and the marketplace operate with a set of rules that accommodates ungodly men.

Oakspear, You wrote: "So what. Neither Galen nor I are trying to use these weather phenomena to justify becoming the final arbiter of biblical truth." Nor do I use these 3 reports to verify anything Dr said. Actually, Lifted Up (if I have the right person) reported seeing it TWICE, once in Ohio and once in PA. So that's 4 citings of a small rogue hail or snow storm. However, those who lean on the old weather records that claim it did NOT snow on certain occasions are leaning on flimsy data. An old weather report cannot be used as evidence that Dr lied, because weather records only report the large scale or very local events. A rogue storm could easily miss mentioning in such a report, ESPECIALLY one in 1942 when long distance phone commnication was expensive and rare. The Tulsa incident catches little of my attention. Little rides on it as far as I can see. Dr could have even remembered it wrong, and that wouldn't affect anything I regard as important. I could spend all kinds of time thinking up LOTS of ways that could have actually come down. The person Dr talked to could have had a vision, could have been talking about the wrong city, could have been an angel, ...etc. etc. etc. I'll repeat: The four citings posted here PROVE that weather report archives can prove nothing negative about Dr's 1942 account. . . .

THANKS Galen! That makes TWO witnesses the nay-sayers have to ignore now. I think the first one was Lifted Up.

No Steve, it's YOUR theology and YOUR take on what it means to have Christ formed (Galatians 4:19) within that I knowingly and willingly violate. Garth, it took me a full 27 years of pondering the senses evidence and God's guidance that brought me to accept PFAL with OPEN EYES. My decision to start mastering PFAL was anything BUT blind. It was with full knowing of what I was doing (like my rejection of Steve Lortz's religion) that I willingly accepted PFAL.

WW, You wrote (with my bold fonts): "Sometimes, I think you can understand why we find the concept of Jesus Christ, in the presence of his Father, learning anything from a book when his Father is RIGHT THERE utterly ludicrous no matter what you or Johnny Cochren would say. Other times, I'm sure you'd never see it. Your use of the word "when" is why you feeling of my statement being utterly ludicrous should be suspected. Your use of that word injects time into an area where it does not belong. In addition to that, you are assuming that this learning takes place NOT on earth, the natural/factual senses realm, but in heaven at God's right hand, the spiritual/divine realm. What makes you think that Jesus Christ is not on earth now? What makes your theology of the Second Coming so accurate that you can definitively say it's all future? Instead of trying to understand or ridicule my statements, why don't you examine your fundamental assumptions of how the Second Coming works? I suggest that if you want to do that with any certainty you will have to separate yourself from world theologians and accept the teaching that God gave us in PFAL. When it is the case that YOU YOURSELF are learning from PFAL again, then, AND ONLY THEN, you will have an understanding of what I've said on this subject of Christ learning from it.

def59, A few days ago you brought up a few points that I finally have some time to get to. You wrote: "Some of Paul's letters are his opinions. His comments about marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 are his opinion." Yes, but don't forget Paul's opinion counts more than most since he was hand picked by Jesus Christ. When he sat down to inspired writing and ministering to the Church Paul's opinions were not really his own, but God's. God had Paul use a figure of speech in that section to let people know that there were no hard fast rules that applied to everyone, in every situation. They were God-breathed verses that you refer to, but they were not absolute commandments from God, but more like general guidelines for most situations. To go against them, it would be wise to be sure it was an exceptional situation, and that no other sections of God's Word were being violated. *** You wrote: "If PFAL is God's revelation as you say, why did vpw need editors to "clean" it up. Could it be the master teacher was a lousy speller?" It was definitely the case that ALL of the men God selected to put revelation into written form were flawed individuals in many categories. NONE of them were the Son, and actually, all of them ministered to the Son, in spite of their flaws. Since Jesus Christ was not God, he had to be taught and learn just like any man. All of his "live" teachers were flawed human beings, which is all that God ever has to work with, outside of His Son. You should be thankful for this because YOU TOO are flawed, yet God is able to work a mighty work in you! Because the PFAL revelation (like all written revelation) did not come in the form of divine dictation, where each word was there in linear sequence. We were taught this in several places, and I've posted on it often. It took time for ALL of the revelation to get into written form. Plus, we were taught right up-front that proof readers and printers could interfere with the process some. Plus, some of the changes from edition to edition were not "clean up" situations but changes in the revelation, also a topic we were taught right up-front and relatively often. The spiritual situation was changing as more and more of the revelation was getting to circulation, and various people were accepting it and growing with it. *** You wrote: "You want to put to PFAL on a level above the Bible, go right ahead, God gave you a will." If you ever have put a correction in your KJV or NIV or any version, then you are placing yourself above that VERSION of the Bible. That is not bad if the correction is accurate with the original revelation. Same with PFAL: In my mind I place it above any man-made version of the ancient scriptures, because I'm convinced God placed it there in reality. *** You wrote: "But what if we dig deeper and find PFAL lacking. Many have and you still reject them. In fact, you won't even face their challenges. You dodge, distract and attack, but you don't face up to the problems they have brought up." Yes I do, but they reject my solutions. I insist on using a different set of tools in working those challenges. I find their tools lacking,a nd that's the reason they come up with their disappointing conclusions when examining PFAL. I don't always find the answers using my tools according t their timetable demands, but why should I have to? I once used their tools and found them lacking in comparison to the ones I use now. I shopped and compared, but they did not. The tools I insist on using are the same tools Dr taught us in the class we should use when working on the somewhat flawed KJV and critical Greek texts. The flaws in PFAL are much less, and using the same tools is easier. It's getting the mind to go against tradition that's hard. *** You wrote: "The problems begin with vpw's biography and his extemporary statements made in times and places where you weren't. __ The 1942 revelation is doubted because there is no record of any snowfall in that area on that date." We have had a witness here on GreaseSpot who saw in his lifetime TWO highly localized snow "storms" that were very dense, yet very small in the area they covered, like football field size. It is easy to see how such a "rogue wave" in land based weather might not make into the county weather recordings because it was small enough to escape the attention of whoever records the official weather events. Why is it that no one here recalls that GreaseSpot witness' report but me? Shall I find it and paste it here for all to see again? Is anyone able or willing to bring back that evidence? Or is it only evidence that fits with the popular theory on the 1942 weather that Dr was lying that gets recalled? Would you like me to bring up that discussion here? I don't want to bother. I have better things to do with my time. *** You wrote: "The Tulsa story is questioned, because again there's no evidence to support the blizzard story either." Here, for this subject, I have EVEN LESS time. Dr could have made a mistake on the time and date and that would settle it very easily. I don't see that this situation is critical for him to have been accurate. Then again, the weather report cold have a error. That happens to, you know. Then there are man other possibilities. Why bother? Unless you're hell bent on finding excuses to not taking him seriously. I see this story as relatively insignificant. *** You wrote: "Some of his "sources" doctrinal beliefs are questioned because of their gnostic or non-Christian bases." Questioned by whom? Not me. The Gnostics could have been right about some things! same with non-christians. Gads! The Gnostics could have been Christian too! Dr made no secret that he searched all over for the truth. It was the separation of truth from error that is important, not the source of the truth. God promised to help him with this separation process.

Garth, You wrote: "So ethics has nothing to do with PFAL, or the 'godly' mastery thereof? A waste even?" Garth, Garth, Garth,... ( :D--> I learned this technique from Linda Z today ) ...you said that I said that "ethics has nothing to do with PFAL," yet what I actually said was that it was "ETHICS DISCUSSIONS" that I didn't want to bog us down. There's a big difference between "ethics" and "ethics discussions" isn't there? *** Do you think you ALSO just maybe might possibly be taking my words a little teensy weensy measly bit out of context? ;)--> No? Well let's look at the context, ok? ...and let the folks at home decide. I wrote: "Have you ever wondered about Joshua and the other spies Moses sent behind enemy lines? I always wondered if they lied about their identities. How about our dads and grandfathers who fought in WWII? Do you suppose that in addition to their killing other Christian Germans, they might have lied to them too in undercover situations? Which would have been worse shooting a bullet at them or shooting a lie at them? __ I don't want to get bogged down in ethics discussions, so let's not go there, another waste of precious PFAL mastery time. OK? I just wanted to mention these things for pondering, or other thread ideas for other people." So, Garth, Garth, Garth, (possibly some technique overkill here?:(--> ) maybe you should go ahead and have that ethics discussion somewhere, sometime, and see just how bogged down it gets, without a solid, tangible, readable-by-all, unalterable standard rule for all faith and practice with which to measure all ethical decisions by. Meanwhile, as for me, I most certainly DO have such a standard on which to construct my ethics executions, without discussion, and I'll continue to encourage PFAL mastery so that others can have solid ethics, as well as power to bless well. I'm all for ethics, but wandering standardless ethics discussions are not my cup of tea.

Thank you, Tom. :)--> I do think we can communicate, as more common ground is discovered. As we look at what is written in the printed pages of PFAL, and not in our fading memories, or the very common TVT doctrines, I think my last words will take on a more sane look to you.

Hello What The Hay, It's a pleasure to discuss things with you here. I hope you didn't mind the flippant humor I used to initially respond. That was all the time I had, and I thought if I tried to get into any serious responding then, it would be too abbreviated. You wrote: "I have been doing a bit of research and biblical study lately on the power of words - i.e. life and death being in the power of the tongue for one. What at one time appeared to me to be merely "good biblical advice" for living the Christian life - living by Christian principles to get along with others now goes a lot deeper in my understanding than just "maintaining a positive relationship" with other people." In recent months I've turned to study this too, only in the BTMS. I was very sloppy with my spoken words for decades, and am only now realizing how powerful they've been, usually in defeating me. I'm learning to change that. The Chapter that focuses on this subject in BTMS is "The Synchronized Life" and much can be gleaned there. I've also noticed a pertinent passage in GMWD, in the "Job" chapter. On pages 59 and 60 we read: "If a sinner turns to God, he will get peace. When he puts God’s words in his heart, the man will be edified. I challenge you to start thinking about and believing this statement: Job 22:28: 'Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee....' In other words, if you declare a promise of God, it must come to pass. What a great promise this is when we use it in our everyday living! Not only does this hit on declaring a positive confession, it also targets the Word, God's promises, as what we must target if the law of believing is to work for us. This latter point you bring up well, later in your post with these words: "The only reason the law of believing would not work for anyone is because they tried to believe for something over which they have no authority." And in another place in your post you write of the same topic: "But the law of believing won't work outside that God given authority. The only reason the law of believing doesn't work (and why some want to put forth an argument there isn't even such a law) is because they tried to operate a spiritual law outside the authority God placed it - or out of their ignorance of what God has given us believers authority over. As VPW put it - find out what is available. To that I could only add, discover the authority God has made available to you as a born again son or daughter, and then walk in and use the authority God Almighty has given unto you. If you doubt, you will do without. If you believe, you will receive." Yes! Believing must be focused on what God has placed on the "available list," i.e., His promises. I've found many, many places where Dr taught exactly this, yet many have totally forgotten this important detail, both those who think believing is not a law, end even those who still know it is a law. Thank you for your contribution here, WTH. I look foward to discussing more with y in the future as you have available time.

Tom, I don't take myself seriously, but I most certainly DO take God's revelations seriously. It seems that the thing YOU take most seriously is my effect on new readers. Have you thought that maybe you insult their intelligence? I am NOT surprised that no one, hardly, accepts my message. I knew before I came here that it would be an up hill struggle. I do expect that someday soon more will come back to PFAL and re-discover that treasure. Once that happens it will spread fast.

shazdancer, Since this is supposed to be a GENERAL thread, I'd like to comment a bit on your "First Thought" thread. I do remember that being taught, but not so much by Dr in the AC. When I took that class in 1975, I had heard so much about from others that I kept my ears open, but heard little to none about it. Maybe it was is in my syllabus, but I think it was largely removed by '75 from his teaching. Maybe that was because Dr saw it was being abused, or not understood well enough. I do know for sure that Jack Kerouac was a big proponent of "first thought" and that he even used that exact phrase in describing his writing style. Maybe that's where Dr got it. Some principles that work for one side may work for the other as well. Possibly Dr's teaching "first thought" was useful to some for some time, but he seemed to remove it by 1975. I have recently done a thorough search of Dr's 1979 AC tapes and there is NO mention of "first thought" in that class at all. Still it might have been briefly mentioned in the syllabus, but it is NOT in the "16 keys to Walking in the Spirit" list that is in that syllabus. *** I have a John Gnagey "Learn to Draw" graphic art set from the 50's. He was a famous TV artist back then. In the instruction book he has some lines that also found their way into Dr's teachings. Dr certainly "drew" upon many sources, just like he told us. I'll have to look them up some time. They are not "first thought" lines though.

socks, Back in the 70's I reveled in the modern illustration of the Mystery (Jews and Gentiles FELLOW heirs) in the hippies, rednecks, jocks, academics, city slickers, and country hicks ALL getting along marvelously well. It didn't last but 10 years, but that Shangri La image never left me, and it helps motivate me now as I plow through the snow and the bitter cold back. I hear that the Word never lasted alive in believers more than ten years in any one city back in the first century.

Linda Z, I think we miscommunicated on a key point. I do NOT think Geer "took the writings all that seriously." I was focused on upper management only here, and them NOT mastering the books. I included Geer in upper managemant. He worked ONLY the tapes in my estimation. He is an example of someone who does NOT really master the books, only the tapes and their style. The fact that he advocates no hard foreknowledge in God flies in the face of what is written in many of the books. There are other points in your post I'd like to discuss, but will invite yo to the Doctrinal forum, to avoid de-railing here.

That was an abreviation to "work the Word which defines love and helps us bring into manifestation the love that comes in the new birth package" I abreviated that to spare some readers here of having to see me say (again) that the only real way to work the Word is to work PFAL. :D-->

socks, I have been poking my face in on TWI personel every two or three years since 1989, and can report seeing in the past year "something that would indicate a healthy change."

Linda Z, I plead guilty to poor grammar there. I agree with your observation on genuine love, and have posted to the same, as well as what we called "believing" back then being more mental assent than genuine believing. What I meant to say is to "again focus on working genuine love." We were trying to work genuine love and genuine believing back then, but mostly fell short. I truly believe that we will succeed with both if that becomes our focus, rather than demanding apologies and expecting satisfying closure should we get them.

rascal, Yes, I think that only mild closure would result from TWI issuing all the apologies demanded of them. They could do it tomorrow and some here would say to themselves, in the absence of great joy and fireworks, "Is that all there IS?" True closure will only come as people get that pure love of God working again in their lives. Then any apologies would be icing on that cake, and would be received like the loving father received the prodigal son.

TOMMY Z, Geer's appeal is classic. The adversary played a "good cop, bad cop" routine on leadership. Because they all, including Geer, failed to master the writings the adversary had them over a barrel. Geer had a reputation of having worked all of Dr's tapes, while no one in upper management took the writings all that seriously, and felt they had long since graduated from the need to open the books much. From Craig's installation on, and even before too, he became the bad cop, loud and tough. After Craig officially antagonizing many in leadership for well over 2 years, Geer came along with credentials nearly equaling Craig's via Dr's final visit and Ralph's confirmation of some of the details. Geer was the good cop with a calm voice and the promise of solutions. Many leaders sick of Craig fell for Geer's "sincerity." Some of his converts in later years saw his lack of answers (and his false answers like "no hard foreknowledge" in God) and slowly distanced themselves as much as they could. Admitting that they made ANOTHER mistake would be fatal to their followings, though, so the distancing is still very slow and very quiet. I knew Chris Geer in Rye a little bit, though mostly from a distance, and thought he was intellectual and helpful. He personally helped me tremendously two times. He was a bit cold, but so were a lot of otherwise good people. I liked him then, and later I even liked his WIGP class, until his final session bombed. Later still I saw more flaws in it. I also saw that his monotone college professor teaching style put many to sleep, even though I somewhat liked it for it's information intensity. I too saw as time passed into the mid 90's that he had no solutions and did cause a lot of trouble. However I don't see him as the epitome of evil at all. I see him being a sucker for some very powerful spirits, but I pray for his recovery, just like I pray for all grads, even TWI grads, and even Craig.

I can't explain it, but I know what I have seen and do see. One CRUDE way of explaining it, and remember this is crude: Jesus finishes his job 2000 years ago, teaching as much as anyone could accept. God then says to him, "I got a job for you in the future" and he ascends. In the next instant for him and it's his second coming. We should be asking ourselves WHY is Paul's time "travel" adventure to the future documented for us there in his writing. We should be asking ourselves what Paul saw there... or here. We should be asking ourselves what was that joy all about that God showed Jesus and for which he endured the cross. We should be asking ourselves why God would have Paul ask US in the future, via his writings addressed to us, to pray retroactively for him in the past. Time is a useful thing for us here in the earthly realm, but when we try to impose it on God, and what takes place at his right hand, we are intruding into an area where we cannot expect to guess it right. These matters are best understood by meekly accepting what God makes available to us... like His PFAL revelations to Dr.

sky4it, You complained several days ago that my qualifier on sincerity being good "...negates the fact that it is good at all. Futhermore this is not what scripture teaches. In Corinthians it talks about sincerity... the leaven to be mixed with the word." Hey, like Dr said four times in the film class that sincerity is good, I will say the same thing. It is good, and should be present. Who would ever argue that INSINCERITY is to be sought after in self and others? Not me. Not Dr. I will state that, based on my study of PFAL, sincerity is a wonderful thing and we should always strive to have it and avoid insincerity... except in humor, and sparingly there. The limited context in which Dr was speaking (and that you had erroneously generalized on him) is that sincerity ALONE will not be enough to rightly divide God's Word, and that other things must be ADDED to it to obtain the truth. Dr never taught that sincerity should be subtracted from the equation. The TVT boys did, though, at times! I am sincere in my efforts here, yet you will not count that in my favor as me being correct, will you? If you think sincerity is so wonderful all by itself, then you should recognize it in me and believe my message. Think it through a little. Your complaint of Dr's criticism of "lone-sincerity" being insufficient was a case of you taking his words out of context. *** You wrote: "For if sincerity was good, why didnt he say what good it brought?" Because it's obvious what good it brings. Why didn't Dr teach that sleeping nearly every 24 hours is good? Because it's obvious. You wrote: "This point precisely highlights the deceptiveness of the teaching of VPW, for his pupils gave him credit for being "sincere", yet he and his followers didnt want anyone engaging in there own sincerity." Speak for yourself, please! It was only the robotic TVT adherents who abhorred sincerity. I abhor those who think that their sincerity ALONE will bring them the truth with no study, but it's that philosophy that I abhor, not the sincerity. You wrote: "For if he could minimize (and thats precisely what he did) peoples quest and journey with God through a sincere desire to know the truth, control would follow quite emphantically. It left no openendedness with each individual believer in pursuit of God." I agree that this happened, but it didn't stem from Dr's teachings. It was rooted in the Corpse Nazi mentality which developed contrary to Dr's teachings. *** You wrote: "Furthermore Mike by VPW own biblically accurate standards, some of the epistles like Phillipians were addressed "to all the saints at Phillipi with the bishops and deacons, etc. Where does it say it was addressed to "other churches" as in us?" Dr taught in the film class, and then in the books, that I Corinthians opens up in it's second verse with: "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord..." Add to this the ending of Colossians where 4:15,16 says: " Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." Some scholars believe that this Laodicean epistle is actually what we now call Ephesians. I've heard that there are ancient copies in which the space where "Ephesians" is printed was left blank, and the names of various other cities was penned in, some with different colored ink. Add to all this evidence the statements in Galatians and Acts that Paul's miistry was to the Gentiles, and the pattern emerges that all of his epistles are addressed to us. *** You wrote: "By VPW own standard of omission and inclusions, one would have to toss this epistle out and others also. But VPW could always fit a square peg in a round hole by glossing over his own standards when it was convient, and thus included all the epistles as "to us" and demeaned the gospels. Furthermore he uses the epistle of Peter to circumcise the writings of Paul, with the "no private interpetation stuff" But wait a minute Peter was a minister of the circumcision so his letters werent written by VPW's own logic to the church at all? Nope Mike this is a real high wire act that never did cut mustard, because it never had any mustard as in sincerity for individuals lifes" Did you know that that Peter's second epistle ends with a ringing endorsement for ALL the epistles of Paul? Did you know that Dr's ministry ended with two entire books devoted to the Gospel records? I sincerely urge you to spend more time studying that material which you criticize, instead of listening to the complaints of others who study too little also.