Mike

karmicdebt, You mean you haven't had them on all this time?

Rafael, You wrote: "I'll post it in this space only if Mike grants permission. I consider it off topic.? Keeping this thread on topic has proved to be impossible. At this point I?m thankful for how often we just bring it back to topic. Please don?t let me interfere with full communications. ************************************************************ def59, You wrote about alternative models to the Gathering Togerther. In all these years, your post is only the second I?ve seen to go against the very popular ?left behind? kind of scenario. I?m slowly becoming aware of those who have not embraced this scenario. I remember seeing a poster in the 70?s of the supposed situation, with cars careening off the freeway, each one with a broken windshield near the steering wheel, and such. My guts impression was one of ?I could do better than that? in the sense of how decent and in order the Gathering Together could be carried out. I imagined angels encountering the drivers of those cars and being distracted or re-routed to avoid crashes. The instantaneous synchronization of everybody leaving at once seemed unnecessary, and if God had to wait a few minutes for one car to stop, I didn?t see anyone complaining. These were early objections I had to what I called the ?Broken Windshield? model of the gathering. I hardly ever voiced them, but I felt there was something wrong about a lot of the ?left behind? theology. When I came back to PFAL one of the first things I learned was that our TVT understanding of the gathering was very sketchy. One of the biggest revisions I?ve done in my understanding of the Gathering Together is to watch closely the difference between the Natural/Factual and the Spiritual/Divine. As this subject has grown in my mind and in my PFAL reading, the ?left behind? theology looks more and more childish in it?s 5-senses orientation. As this thread wraps up these loose ends, I want to go into this subject much deeper. [This message was edited by Mike on July 21, 2003 at 19:51.]

sirguessalot, You wrote: ?The uncommon nature of your declarations has stirred an equally uncommon tempest at the GSC, both of which have helped me to further understand my PFAL/TWI experience. I love this place, and I?m truly glad you came. I have healed greatly.? I?m glad to hear things are happening. *** You wrote: ?Like you, I do believe VPW learned things from God and that PFAL is God-breathed. But unlike you, I believe that God breathes more frequently than this, especially AFTER Pentecost.? I agree that Pentecost was a breakthrough and that God can get much more of His guidance to us by the 3 revelation manifestations. However, it might be noted that even after Pentecost, God still had a hard time getting the big revelations through to Peter and the apostles. It took years for God to find one man who was capable of believing that far, and 5-senses wise he was a ringer. Even after Paul believed it still took a generation to get it through to Peter. Then it was lost again for a couple more millennia. The kind of revelation that Pentecost made more available was the everyday specific kind of thing like try out for that job, and don?t speed through that green light. But for new or lost doctrine to get through, more than Pentecost is needed. The greatness of God?s Word is too big for an ordinary human to believe all alone to receive, without any company believing with him. If it?s not in writing (and gold edged do help) then VERY few people are able to believe a direct revelation that is extremely anti-tradition. God may breath out, but how many of us can be the first to breath it in? *** You wrote: ?And that VPW?s style of contribution is but a drop in the ocean. And that his errors did affect his ability to give. But God does make lemonade out of lemons. Thus, we can learn from PFAL.? I agree that his style may be less than the coolest Hollywood has to offer. But the end product, the PFAL writings, are unique. Sure Dr?s flesh errors and idiocy made it less efficient for him and more complicated for us, but Dr?s phase is over for this project. His contribution is done, and God got His Word into written form. Now the spotlight is on us as we learn to recognize this Word and run with it. *** You wrote: ?If you mean that the TVT had lost most of its fun by then, I would agree. __ But if you mean that no one could learn as much from PFAL after the 80?s (except what you have learned, of course), you contradict yourself greatly, and I think YOU actually cut yourself off from a heap of understanding that is available from PFAL.? I do NOT mean to say ?that no one can learn as much from PFAL after the 80?s.? I have mentioned that people who have not seen the functioning years of the early ministry have less natural motivation to slog through the cult fears, sex scandals, etc. It takes a lot of determination to not respond to the tug of these natural forces, and people who never knew Dr?s good sides or the good years of the ministry may be less inclined to learn from PFAL. I treasure the exceptions to this seemingly practical rule of thumb. *** You wrote: ?Besides, if corrupt TVT can really stop God from teaching the meek, what does that say about God?s ability and willingness? Not much, I?d say, which is again, one of my major beefs with you.? I?d say it?s not God?s fault. The reason the TVT can stop PEOPLE (not stop God) is because people too often have more than one desire they're juggling. The desire to know God is in there along with the desire to be respected by people. God is invisible and people are visible, so sometimes it?s the people ball that gets caught in when situations get tight. God?s willingness and ability must operate within His willingness and ability to honor all the rest of His laws. *** You wrote: ?It bothers me how you presume to know what everyone experienced in TWI better than they themselves. And I?m sure this cuts many to the bone.? I?m generally careful in blanket accusations. I think it?s safe to say that none of us learned all nine all the time, even though I realize all nine DID get operated once in a while. I think it?s safe to say that none of us REALLY mastered PFAL, that?s mastered it in our SPIRITUAL understanding, even though many did an admirable job in picking up many research techniques that turned out to be plenty powerful for working many scriptures. I think it?s safe to say that there were a lot of things that Dr said in his last years that few were paying close attention to, and that most of us allowed many things to slip by us that he said in those last years. I don?t think it should be looked at as an ego trip of mine when I say I found these things. I WANTED to find them, while few others did. I spent the time to find these things, and it took years. Outside of those three things, there are not too many more you could add to your list of bone cutters. [This message was edited by Mike on July 21, 2003 at 19:50.]

Goey, I?ve been working the title of Part II in PFAL that you brought up, and someone else did also weeks ago (shaz?). *** Here is the literal: The Bible is the revealed Word of God. The Bible is a physical item and in the physical world. God?s Word is spiritual, but is revealed to a man who puts it into physical form. *** Here is a simile: The Bible is like God?s Word. The validity of this is questionable, but I?ve not spent much time with it. *** Here is another figure of speech, stronger, called a metaphor: The Bible is God?s Word. There?s more punch here.

A few days ago, a few pages ago, there was a discussion I stayed out of here because it seemed to cover a lot of ground. I?m now responding to some that page?s posts. ************************************************************* shazdancer, You wrote (with my formatting): ?...either VPW sinned when he took the words of others to put into his books (without their consent and without acknowledgement), and we should overlook the sin because he was such a great MOG; ?or he refrained from footnoting on purpose, to spare us from looking up the references and getting off track in our thinking, and we should thank him for sparing us such pain.? I reject your limited menu of choices. I see many other ?or?s to add to your truncated offering. I might add that ?without their consent and without acknowledgement? is an unknown quantity to you. You?re not including God?s ownership and His authority to give consent. As to acknowledgement, I?d estimate that 98% of us grads would never have known Bullinger, Kenyon, and the others even existed if it weren?t for Dr?s repeated verbal and written acknowledgement of them. So you exaggerate when you say ?without acknowledgement? as if there was none whatsoever. What you should really say, to be accurate, is that Dr didn?t print ENOUGH acknowledgement of Bullinger, Kenyon, and the others to satisfy your highly sciminating and fosisticated tastes. ***** You wrote: ?OR he wanted to get those books into print, and didn't think a bunch of midwestern hayseeds and babyboomer kids would know that he plagiarized.? Then why would he document the existence of Bullinger, Kenyon et all to his grads from way back in the early days? ***** You wrote: ?Later on, when he was more concerned about being recognized in the academic community...? I think he was more interested in injecting grads into the academic community who wouldn?t get talked out of the Word. I was one of these types of grads. I casually talked to Dr about it a little once, but the College Outreach programs said much more on this. I don?t think Dr was trying to curry favor of any mainstream academics with his selection of the title ?Jesus Christ Is Not God.? That was an ?in your face? to the academic community. ***** You wrote: ?(and after he already got into trouble with plagiarizing the lyrics in the song book)? I?m 90% per cent sure the song book situation came up after his death. I?m 99% sure it came up after he stepped down as president. ***** You wrote: ?he footnoted extensively, and somehow we didn't all get "off the Word" by looking up any of the texts he cited (if we looked them up at all).? By then we were more advanced grads. Plus, the footnotes don?t send people off in directions looking for other teachers. They are different types of books. It?s with these two books JCOP & JCPS that we grads had some interface with non-grad Bible students from the denominations. Traditional readers of the KJV spent much more time in the gospels than we OLGs did in the 70?s, and these two books gave us a rich & balanced view of the godpsel. These two books are not like the Blue Book in any way. Additionally, ADAN was early in its printing, but it too has a few more footnotes. This book was unique in many ways, one of which was that it was originally published by a secular company, Devon Adair. I?m currently chasing down the references, but Dr used the term ?secular? to describe books that differ in some way from his others. I think ADAN is, or was, one such book. ************************************************************* sirguessalot, You wrote: ?I recall that I despised TVT, but dug the books.? Thank you, sir. ****** You wrote: ?The rules and customs and bumper-sticker mantras of TWI never really jived with what I was getting out of it anyway. And it was like that for a lot of innies I knew.? I agree. In the earlier days they were less offensive, even fun, but by the mid 80?s the fun was totally gone. ***** You wrote: ?Why don't ya stop mastering the tools and actually start using them?? I do use them, and am getting good results. Plus, if I continue the mastering process, my use of them in the future can be even better. Of course there?s a balance between reading and applying to life?s situations. I work that balance. Sometimes it tips away from reading and I have to bring it back. I don?t think it?s ever tipped towards too much reading. Then there?s another set of balances I must watch, like reading/posting or living/posting ? ***** You wrote: ?Seems to me that if PFAL is the most powerful and relevant God-breathed Bible-aid, then you should be able to USE it to understand any part of the bible. Those hard-to-understand parts.? That ?seems? may be illusory. Even if you?re correct, and PFAL should be applicable to any part, that doesn?t say anything to the ORDER of what we are to apply PFAL to first, second, third... I believe that in the mastering of PFAL, we will find our instructions for dealing with that part of the Bible. If we partially master PFAL, we can only partially apply it to this part. ****** You wrote: ?Show us how to use it to unlock the secrets of those most puzzling sections of scripture that VPW never refers to. Are they still valid for godly wisdom?? As this thread finishes, I next want to look at PFAL and the Return of Christ. There will be plenty of new data there for how John?s Revelation fits in. ***** You wrote: ?And if not in the book of Revelation. How bout the book of Job? The flood? Daniel's visions? The wierd stuff in Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekial? All those poetic little books before the Gospels.? There were years and years where we could look into those things. I did. We were often encouraged to read these things, and there were extra classes to feed our hungers in those directions. Those things all took place in their time. I just think there?s something much more important now, and that?s coming back to PFAL. ***** You wrote: ?There are a lot of blanket accusations behind his sermons, and they're levelled at everyone here, more or less. For me, it's hard not to get grumpy.? Please remember, you?re not an OLG, and I?m not aiming even my ?soft? blame at you. You?re not guilty of any of my ?charges.? I see this ?blame? towards OLGs as greater for those who were in higher leadership categories back in 1985. BUT, I also keep the ?Saving Private Ryan? model of forgiveness close by to remind me of their great service in the previous years. Plus, I temper my ?blame? by often reminding myself that if I had been in one of those higher leadership positions in 1985, then I would have probably earned much more of this soft blame than they did. Plus, I temper this ?blame? with the notion that this whole thing is EASILY CORRECTABLE! All we OLGs need to do is come back to PFAL and master it like we were supposed to. Voila! No soft blame anymore. Plus, I temper this ?blame? by remembering that it seems God let us all out on enough rope to hang ourselves. We OLGs back then all were like rebellious teenagers who thought they didn?t need any more teaching. God allowed us all to dig our cisterns and try filling them with water. We all dug different sizes and styles, but we all were like sheep who went astray. We lost The Way, because we went our OWN way. Dr writes this on page 98 of TNDC ?We lost THE way because we have turned to OUR own way.? ************************************************************* def59, You wrote: ?I think for the most part this thread gives men a place to rip into something without making it personal or physical.? You may be right. I?ve thought that sometimes here I am taking hits that people wanted to retro-hit Dr with, or can?t find Craig to hit with now. I can relate to this, since I sometimes went through a lot of the same feelings about Dr that are expressed her. If it helps people get it out of their system, or helps them see if more clearly, I?ll take it. It does get personal at times, but since it?s not physical, I can?t complain. I?m valuing my religious freedom to speak. ************************************************************ dizzydog, You wrote: ?I think we are all bozo's on this bus.? I can relate. [This message was edited by Mike on July 20, 2003 at 15:08.]

Hoisted on my own petard! Drats!

Hey! In that song, do you think the word "heights" is referring to 5-senses altitude height, or spiritual height? (...back on topic...)

I'm pressing on the upward way. New heights I'm gaining every day.

Rafael, My ability or inability to handle every twist your antagonistic research committee can come up with regarding PFAL texts says NOTHING about the ability of God to intervene and guide a man to put His Word into written form. My ?inability? to handle your demands may at times be due to a different priority I have placed on these twists in reading the text. My ?inability? to handle some items may really be due to your inability to recognize my right dividing. So I see three possible reasons for my ?inability? two false and one factual. As for the last, I have always admitted to being a student. In my studies I INSIST on taking the course of study laid out by God, not by you or your thread partners. Instead of dodge here, I simple SWEEP you and your cohorts away from my attention and press on. Now there were a few posts in a conversation above that I was following and not wanting to interrupt. I may look at them again soon, before pressing on to finish this thread.

Oh Rafael, I'll take it back. Your're not a crybaby.

alfakat, I'm talking about how he tolerated sin in David, Baalam, and others who were entrusted with His Word in spite of their flesh. It was much easier for God to work with David after the incident with Uriah, than it was for the people who were related to Uriah. It must have been exceedingly difficult for members of Uriah's family to forgive David for murder. What is interestinng is that there are a few who did, and it's documented in there. So, a few learned this godly ability to overlook. It takes work, and it has to be done only when it's God's will.

alfakat, It's easy to see in the Bible that God is able to tolerate sin better than man.

alfakat, Gosh! That's an old memory you conjured up. I remember Timothy Leary telling readers to be leary of anyone who suggests looking at the sun might be a good way to see God.

Well. look at it this way then. The whole purpose of footnotes benefiting the reader is to guide the reader onward in the search for more truth. But PFAL, as God?s intervening revelation, is the end goal of that search, and some footnotes can lead a student AWAY from the goal. There ARE a few footnotes in the books, and a few books have more than others. I think Dr did the right amount of footnoting his texts, and I think he did the right amount of citing (both verbally and in print) his teachers, and he did the right amount of mentioning he was not the originator, and the right amount of informing us that he was a collector who ?put it together.? and that a COMMON saying of his was that he just ?put it together? and that a COMMON saying of his was ?I didn?t write the book.? He also said he was not a scholar, and that his ministry was by grace, and that he didn?t deserve it. You crybabies will have to take your complaints to the management about the offending relative ratios of the above quotas you all feel so qualified to pass judgement on. God was behind the relative ratios of what Dr published in the all above categories, and it?s also the case that most of you are ill informed as to occurrence of these ratios in the record, being confused by the TVT, where the ratios may have been less than the best at times.

. . . ku ku ka chu . . .

Conscience is mental habit patterns without reference to the origin of the patterns. If the patterns are lined up according to God, then the conscience is godly. If the conscience is lined up according to the standards of this world, then a good searing may be in order. I?m glad that Dr had the non-worldly wisdom to EXCLUDE references in his books. Here?s why. When I was a younger PFAL student, back in the 70?s, I?d have probably been more inclined to look up Dr?s references, thinking that I could learn more. Unfortunately, such a strategy would have brought to me all the error that these men had in their teachings. Dr sheltered me as a young student from such dead end references, and many more students as well. Dr had, by God?s revelation, already extracted all the juice from these teachers he had so that we need not go through the arduous filtering process he had to go through to separate truth from error. I think he did the right thing.

sirguessalot, You wrote: ?I finally realized, that if one is gonna brag about writings that are to usher in the next administration, one should also be able to explain those now-obsolete writings that already claim to do the job.? I?m doing the best I can. Remember, I?m a student too. I?m just passing on what I?ve learned and am learning, both of which are exciting adventures. I don?t think I?m required to have finished my mastery, before I can show that Dr wanted us all to master it. I?ve been working to master for 5 years now, so that does qualify me to share SOME few things that I have already learned. **** As for the book of Revelation, one primary way I?d approach it is to read all the places in the written PFAL record where Dr teaches out of the book of Revelation. I just did a quick statistical survey of the scripture index for Dr?s books. There are about 150 places where Dr quotes from this book. The following chapters are well represented, meaning over three references: 1,2,3,4,5,8,9,11,12,13,14,16,17,18,19,20,21,22. Some of these chapters have way more than three references. The following chapters are minimally represented: 6,7,10. I didn?t do a magazine survey because that index seems to cover all authors, not just Dr. There were a total of about 120 references from 1976-85. I just don?t have the time to see how many were Dr?s. The reason I want to see what Dr says about it is because for centuries thousands of different opinions have spewed forth about this book. I have no intention of adding my spit to that ocean. I have no reason to think my reading of the KJV is going to be any better an opinion than anybody else?s. I choose to follow God?s lead and see how much a priority God put into directing our attention to John?s Revelation in the 40 year project He had with Dr. The insights God gave to Dr and Dr put into written form about this book are the only solid ground I recognize from which to view it. Winging it with the KJV I already did on a few occasions during the previous three decades, and now it?s in a low time attention priority mode for me. Every now and then I run across one of those couple hundred times Dr ventures there. They can be electrifying! ***** You wrote: ?Why would God and Jesus go through all the trouble of delivering this complex angelic message about 1900 years ago if none of it applies?? It can apply to a different group of people AND/OR it can apply to a different time. ***** You wrote: ?Hasn?t PFAL got to jive with the book of Revelation to supercede it, or even exist in harmony with it?? We don?t know what the book says exactly, therefore we can?t judge the jive or no jive it has with PFAL. We don?t even know PFAL yet. Maybe after we obey God?s revelation and master PFAl we?ll be led into God?s understanding of John?s book of Revelation. ****** You wrote: ?Did not Jesus Christ himself sent this one, 1900 or so years ago, AFTER his ascension, AFTER he appeared personally to Paul, and AFTER the first century church had run its course?? From what I see, we need to identify with Jesus Christ himself. When we see Jesus Christ doing something in the future, we need to see US in there doing it with him, AS him, as we become him, as we adopt the mind of Christ in all its fullness. **** You wrote: ?Does not this personal message from Jesus Christ supercedes Paul?s personal message from Christ?? You?re looking at chronology of when each piece is written to decide supercession, but the chronology of each piece?s application may be different than the chronology of its writing. Plus to WHOM it?s addressed may eliminate any need to compare chronological supercession. **** You wrote: ?Did VPW get such a personal message from Christ?? In the introduction to JCNG he says that Jesus Christ appointed him a spokesman of God?s accurate Word. **** You wrote: ?Why does PFAL, like most schools of thought, seem to flat out ignore it, and ever explain it away as mere future?? Like I pointed out up above, PFAL does not in fact flat out ignore it. The reason it SEEMS to ignore it is because you?re really not looking at PFAL when you report your perception of flat-out-ignoredness. Instead, you?re looking at the TVT and thinking that it?s PFAL. I?m pretty sure in one of Dr?s post ?82 tapes he mentions that the Book of Revelation will be much more clear when it?s really happening.

Speakin of sponsibilities, I gotta go do some things. Bye for now.

Sure! But let's wait a bit until a block of free time, say a few months unscheduled with responsibilities, rolls it's way by us.

Want to give me the exact verses you mean?

dizzydog, You wrote: ?It doesn't really matter if God was the author. Right Mike?? RIGHT! That was what I was ultimately getting at. Dr often said ?I didn?t write the book!? and I see now that statement having a broader applicability. ****************************************************************** Rafael, You wrote: ?I think it's patently obvious that VPW got it from Bullinger. I just don't think that, in and of itself, is a big deal. I don't even think it's wrong. _ I only think it's wrong if VPW took what Bullinger wrote and passed it off as his own (which he did in the chapter "The Counsel of the Lord" in the Blue Book).? I agree it?s not a big deal. As far a passing as own, I simply remember the many admissions of ?collecting? and putting together, his inclusion of books by these men in the bookstore, and many other mentioned factors. Here?s one HUGE difference I see between the purity of all Dr?s PFAL writings and any of the other great men in this context that Dr collected from. That huge difference is that Dr got the right stuff from each guy, but rejected the bad. All of the other great men had error. All of them had a lack of skills, desire, calling, and timing to not only put it all together (huge diff #1), but Dr also had the wherewithal to move it over the world (huge diff #2), and it?s still moving. The same way I see my taking part in Dr?s ministry of moving PFAL as a privilege and an honor, I fully expect God to let these other great men who took part in Dr?s successful ministry to someday clearly see and enjoy the same privilege and honor. When I see Dr put his name on an article of text, I see that NOT as him taking credit for it?s contents. When I see Dr put his name on an article of text, I see that as God?s man saying this is the Word, this is OK. It says When I see Dr put his name on an article of text, I see that Dr stood behind it, which means God stood behind it, because He selected Dr for this job. ****************************************************************** def59, You wrote: ?To teach that the Pauline epistles have pre-eminence over any other scripture is ludicrous. I love his letters, don't get me wrong. But Luke and John and Matthew and Mark also did a good job. And I want to learn what Jesus had to say while he was on this earth. After all, He meant it!s? Let?s say that the treasure described in Paul?s epistles is bigger than the treasure in the gospels. I?m all for reading the gospels, and I did it regularly in the good old days. However, JCOP was like the most supercharged look at my Lord?s life and death than I have ever seen in my life! It sees 4 gospels all at once, all blended together. The detail in there of what he went through speaks more than all the Renaissance art of crucifixions that were ever painted. ****************************************************************** Tom Strange, You WACKY guy, you! ****************************************************************** sirguessalot, You wrote: ?I often wondered why the last teaching of Jesus Christ is neglected in the PFAL books (meaning that VPW refers to very few scriptures from that book). But final instructions to followers are quite important, right?? How do you figure last? His last teaching before the Ascension? His last teaching before dying? His last teaching of the year 2001? Last teaching in the KJV?

Dizzydog and def59, As far as Bullinger originally writing these things... I have LOT?S of arguments here! How do you know what his sources were? He might have gotten little pieces here and there (like Bob Dylan) and then put them together. If the pieces are small enough, in the past enough, or numerous enough, then people don?t bother to tell the sources. He might have also gotten some big chunks this way. Some of the putting together and some of the chunks might have been by revelation for God, in which case his source was divine, but a source nonetheless. Another thing to consider is two ?originators? coming up with the same thing at the same time, or similar times, or different places, but from different sources. This phenomenon happens OFTEN in science, when the conditions are ripe. Liebitz and Newton both came up with calculus in near the same decades. Schroedinger?s wave mechanics was identical to Heisenberg?s matrix mechanics is another uncontested spectacular example. There are many other less well known or clear examples regarding many inventions and ideas that seem to be ?ripe? or in the wind for multiple ?original? breakthroughs. ********* You wrote: ?Likewise the "post-pentecost" words also accomplished what they were designed to do. All were needed equally according to God's design. And were said in the order they needed to be said in.? Right, and some of Jesus? post-Pentecost statements override his pre-Pentecost. Actually the boundary lines are a bit fuzzy here, and some things changed just a little before Pentecost. The classic example Bullinger uses in ?How to Enjoy the Bible? is the pre-statement of Jesus that his disciples should go only to the lost sheep of Israel, and no Gentiles. Later, when things changed the message was ?include gentiles.? In these times, Jesus post-Pentecost revelations to Paul are what Peter said we better get right in his dying last words. Peter says it was Paul?s epistles that many were screwing up on. As for the ?for our learning? aspect of Jesus pre-Pentecost words, there is an absolute TREASURY of beautiful teaching of these items in Jesus Christ Is Not God, Jesus Christ Our Passover, and Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed. Anyone who diminished Jesus heart that?s displayed in the 4 gospels, did so against what we were taught in the writings. Dr?s repeated ?Christ Formed In You? series of teachings pointed out how we must become that same personality that is depicted in the Jesus of those 4 gospels. Then, as I pointed out on this thread before, the Zacheus chapter in Dr?s last book tells us point blank to climb over or up on anything we need to see Jesus. Def, you wrote: ?Too often we, who were in TWI, had a tendency to dismiss Jesus and elevate Paul which led us to elevate vpw.? I agree, and this tendency, identified here as TVT, would have been squelched if we had paid better attention to the teachings listed in the sentences above. ?But we should also take a look at James, John and Peter's letters as well. Those verses also tell us what we, in the church, should do and act. All, of this must be done in light of Jesus, who is the Word made Flesh.? I agree. Dr taught that Jesus Christ was the grand subject throughout all of the Word, or something like that. Elements of his mind are distributed all through it. John?s first letter gets major treatment in two separate chapters of PFAL, one of which covers every verse. Dr often encouraged reading these things on our own. Some of us did read and work them. I spent years working the agreement between James and Romans. Peter?s epistles were a constant source of study and encouragement. [This message was edited by Mike on July 16, 2003 at 14:03.]

dizzydog, You wrote: ?Let me say one thing here. I am not going to respond to you as many others do, I am not trying to hurt you. I see how so many take pleasure in the fight with you. I do not. I have stepped out of this forum on a number of occasions intentionally so that I do not get out of line.? I admire that. The mob mentality is easy to get caught up in. It?s happened to me. I do get the picture that you are not trying to hurt. ***** You wrote: ?My goal is to see the body of Christ dwell together in unity and be likeminded. Saying that, I know this will not happen until the return of Christ.? My goal too! I do believe we are at the time when it is finally available to be like minded in the perfectly renewed mind. Here is what Dr said in the 1979 Advanced Class (segment 6) with my ALL-CAPS: ?And class, that can only be when we all speak the same thing on God's Word. No one will ever qualify for first Corinthians one, ten, unless they get their heads and their hearts into the accuracy of the integrity and the greatness of God's Word. How will we ever speak the same thing unless we STUDY THE SAME THING, people, and let the Word of God speak for itself. If you and I do not rightly divide the Word of God, there's gonna be division among us.? He told us what ?same thing? we needed to study, to master, and it?s not the KJV, or the Greek, or any of the traditional items that pass for or are closely associated with the Bible or God?s Word. The ?same thing? we are to study to get like minded is PFAL. ***** You wrote: ?Actually you have responded to two articles by VPW, although you may not have realized it.? I thought something was up. ***** You wrote: ?My first post was taken from a Way Magazine article in 1962 (September I think). With the exception of the first two lines everything else is VPW. I changed nothing and wrote the article in its entirety. If you reread it starting with the paragraph where the quote from Revelation is you will have the complete article.? That?s pretty early. The conditions were different then. Revelation may change, and I see an evolution of revelation. In 1962 it was right and proper for grads to think 9in terms of really getting to know the KJV ?book.? As the 1942 project progressed, the conditions changed, and the revelation to Dr changed, and his instructions to us changed. As the collaterals progressed in their development from articles and booklets, what was best for grad development changed. In 1962 there was far less of the PFAL writings to master, hence what WAS available was the main target. In 1977, GMWD, the last collateral that had chapters assigned as homework for class sessions was released. In 1979 Dr started letting Advanced Class students know that they better take these books seriously in this passage from segment #5: ?I have set for our people, and it's set in the book on "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today," and people, when you reach the Advanced Class, you ought to be able almost to quote this line for line. You should have mastered this book by the time you get to the Advanced Class. If you haven't, you better get busy and do it - work it to where you understand the Word of God in every facet, in every way of it's utilization regarding the holy spirit field - all of them, you must know this book, in and out. But I've discovered as I've worked among my people, and even all the grads of the Advanced Class, there still are areas where we got to push ourselves.? Then in 1982, he said that the research was done and we needed to run with what we had. Then at Sound Out'84 he brought up mastering the books again. Then in 1985 he said point blank to master the PFAL writings. So in 1962, things were different. From what I?ve seen, Dr himself in later teachings, supercedes a lot of the approach in the 1962 text you posted. I?ve not studied much of Dr?s material before 1968. ****** You wrote: ?I will give you some credit here. Initially you read the article and went on the attack toward me.? I think this is where I had a hard time paying attention to you, since I had multiple conversations cooking. That was a particularly fast and furious posting session, and I could see I was loosing it in tracking with you. I was somewhat countering past conversations I had with you mixed with the current post. ****** You wrote: ?In a subtle way I think maybe you and I agree more than we are saying.? This is what I was referring to about our common KJV verse like mindedness. ***** You wrote: ?I will not go to the extents you do in your characterizations of our current translations because I see that as disrespectful to God who has had to keep these things intact for the last two thousand years.? Just like that scroll got consumed in Jer.36, things didn?t keep so intact for the last 2000 years. Yes, the text itself is the least tattered in the chain or transmission to us, but there are many weaker links I?ve also mentioned. Changes in languages and cultures, religious bias in the teaching of ancient languages, religious bias in the minds of every translator, and religious bias in the mind of every reader make for the condition Dr described as buried before the 1942 promise. The Word wasn?t totally buried, but enough of it was for the power to be gone, except in isolated individuals, who were rarely able to teach others. ****** You wrote: ?When VPW shows us that the order of the seven church epistles is divine is nothing short of a miracle in my mind.? It seems they were assembled together a very early date, and circulated as a unit. Peter refers to ?all? Paul?s epistles in this way. ***** You wrote: ?It is there to be interpreted, with the right keys. As he said the seven Church epistles are the complete curriculum for the believer.? The keys must be mastered, though. Partial mastery of the keys means partial access to the curriculum. Trusting the KJV translators, or any other 5-senses helpers, to deliver to us all that we need to access the seven Church epistles is what Dr said we should NOT do. To access the seven Church epistles we must master PFAL. They?re in there. ****** You wrote: ?Which brings us to your question. The last article was from a Way Magazine ? Our Times article in November of 1978. If you doubt my veracity about this I will scan the articles so that you can see I at least had something to copy from. You likely will not be able to read them that way (they are already Xerox?s of the originals). You will have to trust I did an adequate job of transcribing.? I trust. The date was what I wanted. I was searching around in the books for it. ****** You wrote: ?I have more if you want.? Yes. I?m very interested in collecting e-texts of Dr?s stuff. Please e-mail me. ****** You wrote: ?I am going to offer one thing to you here. I do not argue Dr?s last instructions; I argue your interpretation of why he gave those instructions. He wanted people to get their heads back into the Word. PFAL provided the keys for understanding the seven church epistles (and the rest of the Bible). Not only understanding but also rightly-dividing it. As you have pointed out so clearly, it has not been rightly-divided since the first century church.? Yes. We can?t rightly divide it alone, away from PFAL, any better than the denominations have done it over the centuries. It?s God?s 1942 intervention that put Dr over the top in making this available to us. It?s ONLY by mastering PFAL that we can master God?s Word. The reason PFAL brings us this, when all other approaches fail, is because PFAL was given by revelation. It is not a man-breathed aid to seeing the scriptures, it?s a God-breathed aid. In mastering the PFAL revelations we not only get an accurate view of the ancient scriptures, but God also has given us a written revelation, addressed to us, so that we can carry out a job special to us. This special job has to do with the return of Christ. You mentioned Christ?s return several times. I see God?s 1942 intervention as very intimately connected with the Return. There are wonderful things in the PFAL record for the mastering students to find on this. [This message was edited by Mike on July 16, 2003 at 4:52.]

def59, Jesus' words pre-Pentecost were good, but his post-Pentecost words to Paul, to be echoed in his epistles, are better. If you look at Acts, there are three post-Pentecost appearances of Christ. Some Bibles even have his words in red. These places are the three places in Acts where the Road to Damascus incident are brought up. The first is in the chronological narrative, and the next two are flashbacks by Paul to the same incident. Add up all three incidents to get a composite of Jesus? words, and they read a lot like Colossians, Chapter One, the ?Christ in you? chapter. If you follow you reasoning out, the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not identical to Jesus? words, unless you believe they were inspired by God. Ditto for Paul. What Paul wrote was just as authoritative as Jesus speaking to you personally, because Paul got his written words from the same source Jesus got his from: God.

I just want to than y?all fo refrainin from postin anythin of substance seein that I?m kinda tarrrrred and all...it?s quarter to one am...and I?m pooped....dizzydogs spinnin in my head and all...term papers due and all...SamuelAdamsinsteadofLeinenkugel OH Yes! Scarlett! Tomorrow?s Another Day!