Mike

You seem to imply in you post that Jesus wrote Matt/Mark/Luke/John as opposed to Paul writing his own epistles. But the truth is: (1) God gave revelation to Matt/Mark/Luke/John to record Jesus' pre-Pentecost teachings. (2) God gave revelation to Paul/John/Peter to record Jesus post-Pentecost teachings. */*/*/*/*/*/* The Great Principle is nothing more than a pedagogical device to help those in our culture understand Biblical writings, with their embedded cultural understanding of how prophets and others would have "spirit" added for doing God's work. Our culture is all messed up with the idea of "spirit" due to "ghost stories" and belief in life immediately after death. Also, our culture associates the notion of "spirit added" to be devil possession. The GP is not a big deal in itself, but is great for unlocking the mystery of Biblical cultural and it's notions of "spirit added." My working the GP lately is to help us understand better what the film class teaches on it. I can explain the GP to today's computer culture with the analogy of data interface structures. I have a another useful analogy for understanding the "difficulty" God has communicating with beings that lack this interface of spirit. Phenomena is where God causes sound and light to portray an angel in the form of a human with a message to a real human. At the receiving end the human is usually fearful and, strongly associating foolishness with all the things of God, being a natural man. Natural man receiving such a phenomenal message is analogous to a wild animal encountering a human for the first time. The human may be able to produce sounds to communicate, but they are largely lost to the animal in their confusion and fear. But when a natural man receives spirit, that interface makes up for the great communications inefficiencies inherent in lacking spirit-assisted communication. The analogy for this efficient communication can be seen in pet dogs and cats or other domesticated animals. The DNA changes in domestication breeding and training serves in this analogy as an interface for communicating with humans, building contextual expectations and soothing fears. */*/*/* Those of you following my GP explanations may see that it is evolving, as I work this topic further. I am now using 2 types of animals in my explanation, wild and domesticated. I am not sure yet if this is a better explanation.

Yes, you are right, and I apologize. I've been looking back and finding errors like that, and many of them. Maybe this is what Rocky talks about regarding my poor writing. May I plead bargain down to a lesser charge of sloppy typos? If so, I will say that I've been thinking more and more that I need to avoid fast and furious flurries (FFF) of posting. They are fun, because it can be like a live chat. But the notifications are another flurry of distractions as I hurriedly write to keep my response up at the high pace. And proofreading suffers the most. I think to avoid this, I should wait when many are posting, but collect their posts in my MS Word, and then slowly respond to all on one document for posting when the traffic slows down. */*/*/* Here is a 2nd draft of that enigmatic post of mine should have said: "Jesus never laughed in the 4 Gospels" is accurate research, but it is not a very enlightened working of the Word, and even leads to real problems. Another dubious research method is expecting Jesus to label everything and in modern English idioms. */*/*/*/* I'm sure that wont pay for my mistake, and it is probably still enigmatic without the context. Only those who do the work to trace back to the original post, that the enigma was a response to, will see how it all fits now. */*/*/*/* There was a sect or cult of hippie like Christians who believed that because the 4 Gospels never depict Jesus laugh, it is therefore a sin to laugh. I met one of them at the 1974 Rock, who was protesting against the Way outside the perimeter of the grounds. He was a real sourpuss, and when he explained that "no laughing" doctrine to me, I was SO TEMPTED loudly guffaw.... but then I realized he probably saw that reaction before, so I withheld. I was then tempted to ask him if Jesus ever... but held back on that too.

Ok, thanks. I wont beat that drum any more. Do I get credit for knowing it might be a mere Englo-cowinkenality?

No. I was only admitting that the GP is rather unsupported, but not the law of believing. I seem to have used the word "rather" in an awkward way. In hindsight I think "relative" works better. In the new PFAL-T class the GP comes up TOTALLY unsupported. I was surprised at that. I was also surprised that it comes up a lot, at least three times, in that new class. This thought was accidentally neglected when I posted the awkward "rather." This slight defect in the new class can be fixed easily with a supplement in the class coordinator's handbook that can be read to the class. I went back to the 1968 film class transcript and was again surprised at how often it comes up. HOWEVER, relative to the new class, there actually IS some support in the context. It is very light support, though. Like the modifications to the old class of removing a few segments, I would like to see a more detailed description of the GP offered, like the one I have been hammering out here from time to time. My hunch is that in 1968, the plan was to have the GP explained better in the Intermediate and Advanced classes.

OldsKool, I check in here to see if anything new or significant has been posted, but it looks like nothing here but a doubling back to defy common sense and logic of words. AGAIN, I am stunned to see after all my attempts to nail the common sense angle, and after all the jeering and mocking my posts as a mushbrain nonsense, AGAIN we see Raf coming in with a clear reality check. AGAIN I see the shock posters have from running into Raf's logic wall. AGAIN I see the humbled regrouping to somehow salvage the complaint that the Absent Christ teaching in the class ruined us all. Please, let me know, OIdSkool, if anything new appears here. */*/*/* I feel we were given an excellent foundation to build on. With that foundation we were responsible, as individuals, to build THE PROPER scripture-based relationship with Christ while we wait for his "return," which means personal presence. */*/*/* First Christ was SENT. Next Christ was ABSENT. Soon we can say he was SENT again. I'm looking at the English here indicating sent and absent are related. Anyone care to check the ancient languages on this simple observation?

Jesus never laughed is not very enlightened working of the Word. Neither is expecting Jesus to label everything.

I have experienced much the same as this paragraph expresses, with considerably less medical intensity. I agree that supervised learning in this area really sucks. I have had that evil gaze coming at me, and it was always Corps. I never saw that crap from non-Corps. It was always an imitation leader thing; leaders in learning at our expense on the field.

You are too hung up on lingo, and missing the ideas.

Jesus had different vocabulary from mine; that's trivial. The "...taking thought can add one cubit to his stature" is not everyday believing the promises, but very a much miraculous, power target. I am agreeing with you and Jesus here: ONLY those with direct revelation can believe to grow an inch. You may have read my post wrong.

Has anyone worked this angle of the law of believing? John 9 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. 4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. */*/*/* I seem to see that man's blindness as NOT a result of him missing the mark in believing, AND also not his parents missing the mark. It looks like some cargoes in life (good and bad) come by reasons other than believing. So, literally, although believing is a powerful influence, there are other forces at working bringing things to pass. I can only very vaguely remember if this point in John 9 ever came up in teachings.

I was bracing myself for that.

RIGHT. This is a perfect example of the self direct mis-application of the law of believing. This would be the witchcraft counterfeit if attempted. This would be Magical Thinking. Also note, this would be in the power believing category, and not in the everyday believing category, as I have pointed out in my post above, and in other posts lately.

I am seeing that many here are not distinguishing between everyday believing and the power believing in the manifestations. Sinners can do pretty well with the former and terribly with the later, unless the play the hooky pook game. There is more to this, but that's a start. As I explained in my long post above, I am still trying to understand some things here myself, AND I am trying harder to better express some of how i have worked this vast topic over the decades.

Yikes! Is this the record breaker for post length? I only have a little time right now, so I am limiting my self to just the few words I quoted above. Actually, I saw a lot of interesting things to read here, and I only did a fast skim read on about one tenth of it. I'll save it to my "Believing" folder for later reading. I regard this topic of “believing” in the class to be not yet fully absorbed and understood BY ME! Understanding the film class and books on believing is an unfinished project for me. I started my "Believing" folder in 1972 by putting a "B" with a circle around it in my Cambridge Wide Margin for hot verses. Later it became a paper folder, and now a digital folder. But every couple of years I get another breakthrough, both in the area of (1) understanding the Bible's teaching on believing via the class, and in (2) applying it to my life. My (1) understanding has very slowly increased over 50 years with a few plateau-like jumps, but (2) my application successes have been all over the map. There were lots of exciting successes in the beginning, but they were mixed with miserable failures also. Some promises of God were easy to believe in some circumstances, but not in others. There are a couple items in my life that I have totally failed to both believe and receive for all the 50 years I’ve been in the Word. Then there are a few areas where my believing was surprisingly easy and solid, my acting on the believing was bold, and the receiving was just like in the book. I know what it is like to be abased here and to abound. I have learned to build as a Major Principle in my life “It’s the Word, even if it never comes to pass.” If you find that meme conjures up unpleasant associations, please find soothing relief in picturing Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednego saying something very similar right before being barbecued. */*/* Now, here is something I never posted. I did not purposely hide this, but I just never had the words of the proper context in which to express it. I take a small few of the things in the class, especially with the law of believing, to be in the category of HYPERBOLE. I realize this is going to sound like back pedaling, but I don’t care what it sounds like. I am just TRYING to be understand more here. It’s not that I insisting that I am right here (ON-TOPIC bonus points!). What I am insisting on is that you folks also lack a small few understanding(s) in this topic of believing, AS WELL as a small few horrendous failures at applying what seems to be understood. What I am insisting on is this topic need more work and less criticism. I think we all have not fully understood the PFAL teaching on believing. I think we all got too much of the TVTs here, and I sense gaps in everyone’s understanding here, like know I have. I’ve been working hard to fill those gaps for 25 years now, and part of that work involves going back to read the transcript and the books for understanding. */*/*/* T-Bone, the very few words I quoted above from your long post are pretty good examples of the kinds of PFAL that must be read as hyperbole. REMEMBER the class was designed to be understandable to a wide swath of ages and IQs. The hyperbole in this section of the class was useful for jumpstarting us, but it was also necessary for us to eventually grow out of this primitive wording and “rightly divide” the class this way. */*/* This is my justification for offering to “explain” the Great Principle better than VPW explains it in the God-breathed collaterals. I am surprised no one called me on that. */*/* Like the law of believing, the Great Principle is a Great Enigma that pops up in the class RATHER UNSUPPORTED. I am offering a supplement to rightly divide PFAL so we can better understand both of these things. Sorry I am late. I saw these gaps very early, and hence my early Believing folder. But my answers (the few that I have) came in slow and some fairly recently, and then one today. */*/* You wrote: “In the PFAL class the law of believing is stated as an equation - believing equals receiving. It is presented as a mathematical or logical sounding statement – that seems to hold promise…some may see it as an effective equivalency formula for success.” In only a couple of years after I left the Atom Smasher job and school that I tool the class, so Physics was still VERY fresh in my mind. I cringed with the hyperbole of VPW saying things like the Word fits with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision. But he seemed literally right in so many other areas that blessed me bigtime, that I gave him a pass on it. Then, as the years past and I learned more, I slowly came to realize that hyperbole CAN BE a valid figure of speech, with useful functions. I used to think it was lying or exaggeration only. I also learned that VPW’s perspective, education, and vocabulary were VERY far removed from math and science, just like 99% of all the humans I know. I NATURALLY give them an easy pass when they don’t use technical terms “properly” that I am intimately familiar with. It should be no big deal at all for me to give VPW a pass on this. I guess I didn’t do this at first because it was religion and I had my background expectations warped by Catholic School. PLUS, I slowly learned to add to this, the teaching in the class that God works within the vocabulary of the person He is speaking to. LONG before the class I had known( and even written on) the fact that everyone has a working internal dictionary that slightly differs from the Oxford English Dictionary in countless places. We all have slightly different internal dictionaries, and even some pet definitions of words, and hardly anyone is diligent to clean them all up. Knowing that written PFAL is rendered in VPW’s vocabulary is an important point for rightly dividing it. I hear and share all the complaints I here about PFAL’s handling of believing, and especially the Corps and TVT handling of it. Some of my questions and complaints have been answered, and some not yet. Again, this hyperbole stuff is as new for me in text form as it is your you. Up till now it was just a vague feeling I couldn’t put words to. In all my 20 years here I never had the words to express this. I think my understanding of the word “hyperbole” is relatively recent. I vaguely remember it being a word I’d ignore when I saw it outside the ministry, and it hardly ever came up in the ministry. It may have been when I was doing Open Mics in the early 2000s that the other writers I hung out with used that word a lot. For some of them, writing and performing hyperbole “rap” was their specialty. I experimented with it in some of my comedy. But it wasn’t until today that I finally realized that I would take in certain statements in PFAL with the FEELING that they needed to be “translated” to something more literal. I think in many other venues in life, when we hear hyperbole, we instinctively know how to not process it as literal. But with PFAL we somehow expected it all to be literal. A similar thing happened for me with “the Bible interprets itself.” I think the way I tried to explain that many months ago, when I hit that snag in Penworks’ book, was to describe that phrase as a summary or a title on a large set of ideas. That is one thing hyperbole can do: super summarize. It also gets attention, so is more easily remembered. I hope this “admission-discovery” doesn’t freak you all out. LoL Please consider it the “New Mike” with the 20 Year Makeover that I promised last December on my anniversary here. */*/*/* I know a similar recent admission of mine (that was not a discovery for me) seemed to anger and dismay a few posters, and I honestly did not understand why. This was on the logic of “God-breathed contrasted with the feeling and faith in “God-breathed” for collaterals. This was coupled with my pointing out that my major focus for 20 years was not on debating the God-breathed status of the collaterals, BUT WAS majorly focused on debating whether VPW claimed it or not. I forget who really was angered by this, but I would like to know why. I have never done an inventory on what I think is hyperbole in the class, and I can’t think of any other examples at this time. We will see.

I too have mind numbing frustrations with the law of believing in my life. I'm still dealing with one now. But I also have had a few things work for me, and a few understandings that others seem to have missed. I know that Jesus taught rightly about believing and he did it and had great miracles with it. He did it right. Many do it incorrectly, or worse by getting into the devil's assistance in doing it very wrongly. I am sure that the counterfeit strongly resembles the genuine. It may be you see that resemblance, and you see the same title "The Law of Believing" was used before by hookey pook people and devilishly. Those two associations may convince you that VPW missed the mark of the kind of power Jesus said was in believing, but they don't convince me. I think this is similar to how MOMENTUS botched their handling of the manifestation of prophecy. The turning of the focus from helping others to helping self was pretty apparent there. Their "personal prophecy" turned from edification to mind control in a heartbeat.

In Engineering and Physics there is a concept called "duty cycle" that is can be used to measure things like this. I just checked, and google explains it pretty well, and has graphics that help. Here it is in words: "A 60% duty cycle is a signal that is ON 60% of the time and OFF the other 40%." */*/*/* What I was taught is that when we use the law of believing for BIG JOBS that require supernatural power, God is far from passive. The one operating the law of believing is INSTRUCTED TO BE PASSIVE until given the Word of knowledge, Word of wisdom, and discerning of spirits. THEN the believer operates the manifestation of believing to act on the revelation give by God. God is very active in this process involving the law of believing and supernatural powers. When we operate the law of believing for everyday living, the focus must be in the promises of God. When we put God's Word in our mind He is active to perform it. He keeps track of who has His Word in their heads. God is not at all passive around everyday applications of His words, laws, and principles. */*/*/*/*

I don't in any way buy the meme " you believe or you don't." I am sorry you seem to have been given some bad teaching. I am thankful I found teachers withing TWI that explained things. I am glad I went back to the materials to get the details better than you seem to have them.

That is at the beginning of the class. The class doesn't teach every detail. Much more was taught later in the class and in SNTs and other books and magazine articles . It is really pretty logical that believers SHOULD be able to use it much better. It is logical and he highlighted it, and so did other teachers. I know I did when I was a twig leader.

YES or NO three times That's an isolated line, with no context. Any particular reason for leaving out the other things he said on that? Do you forget him saying that the law of believing SHOULD work much better for a saint who knows and rightly divides God's Word and promises? If you DO remember it, why did you leave out that info?

Yes we have, and I bring up the rarely considered views. Here's another: VPW was the kind of mover and shaker that moved the Word around the world, and even to this old hippie (young then), for which I am extremly thankful. There is no way I could have gotten what I cherish now from any of VPW's sources, ESPECIALLY in the state I was in back in 1971. I would not have been able to listen long enough to Billy Graham to get born again, and I'd have NEVER learned to SIT from any of the teachers the past 50 years. I can't take what Western Churchianity offers seriously. I love blending in with them to see if I can serve any where, gently and without controversy. I have visited many churches with neighbors and customers and even the musicians I hob-nob with. EVERY time I am in another church I have a great sense of thankfulness for what I was taught, and for what I had in common with that particular church. I think we got the best quality product on the market.

THAT is the key I was taught. The counterfeit is self-focused with the super-natural use of believing. The natural use of believing is another story. */*/*/* But the dangerous stuff is the supernatural ABUSE of believing, or the misapplication of the law of believing for supernatural powers. The genuine use is the manifestations in accordance with 1 Cor 12,13,14. Seven of the nine manifestations are focused away from self, and onto service to others. I call these the PURE SERVICE manifestations. ONLY TWO of the nine manifestations are self-focused, and even they, SIT and believing, are closely related to the PURE SERVICE manifestations, and often used with the PURE SERVICE manifestations.

Bible verses can be used to justify anything, especially when wrongly divided. I take my guidance on the proper operation of believing from how people in the Bible believed and were exhorted to believe. Of course, when not walking in love to serve with believing, and focusing on serving self with believing, THEN there is a problem. The book of James discusses this. The devil always leaches off of God's good. Believing is good and from God and Jesus taught us to do it. The devil needs this genuine operation of believing to fuel his counterfeit. The problem is not the law of believing being evil, but the mis-guided operation of said law.

I actually DO know the law of believing falls into that category WHEN the promises of God are not the focus of the believing. I am very familiar with the book "The Seduction of Christianity" and reported on it here not long ago, and a few other times over the years. I keep trying to tell you folks that I was dragged into this whole circus more than 10 years before GreaseSpot and WayDale started. It was 1988 when I first saw that book, and bought it. I probably still have it.

You seem to forget all those guys have their rewards at the Return. I don't forget that.