So far NO ONE has even mentioned their willingness (or not) to suspend the "rounding up of usual suspects" when I do post this.
We've been round and round this mulberry bush a hundred times since Christmas, and before I ever posted it was a thousand times. I can almost write the catcalls and hoots myself when I look at the material, because I too have developed the same knee jerk association. I have to fight my mind's habit patterns myself, so I feel a need to prepare this time for this post.
For this particular post, the sex association is very strong, YET the non-sex value of the Jesus Christ part is very high. But it's only a still small voice, compared to justifiable outrage over sexual pain and boisterous scatological humor.
This is not a taudry titilating tease; it'a pre-post prep.
As for the plagiarism and copyright issues, I simply won?t let those subjects deter me in my study nor in my posting.
I would expect no less from you, nor will I be deterred from posting and rebutting by your refusal to think, nor by your declaration that it's time to move on.
My posting is slowed and delayed a little by these subjects because I want to help those who want to brush them aside like I do. I?ve got an itinerary, and I?m done with this spur in the route to where I?m going. If you want to keep bringing this subject, start another thread, and maybe I?ll join you for a little.
No thank you, since it is relevant to your basic premise. I just want to help those who don't want to just brush it aside.
But here I want to get back in topic. You may have interpreted my determination to wrap up this sup-debate as hostility or condescension, but to me it?s just my way of saying ?IT?S TIME!? It's time to pack up and ?Westward Ho!? the wagons.
By all means, get back to your topic, don't let me stop you; however, you don't determine what I am going to say or post. It's time to burn those wagons because they're infested with fleas.
So, a few screens back I asked if people were ready to tie their knees with leather straps, because there?s some kinky material up and coming.
Kinky material from a worshipper of Wierwille...what a surprise!!!
Should I interpret the total silence on this announcement to mean that everyone is ready to suppress that sure to be felt knee jerk reaction to the material I will soon be posting?
No, interpret as the fact that we all post when we have time, not necessarily simultaneously. As far as knee-jerk reactions go; I think you've got the market cornered on that Mikey.
I want to avoid the sex deviations from the post post discussion, and go for the much more subtle issues of our rich relationship with the active Jesus Christ.
Okay, you're going to post material that deals in sex, in a discussion forum that has exposed your master's sexual predations and deviancy, and you don't want anyone to talk about it? No promises sycophant-boy.
The things that appeared in ?Christ Formed In You? will come up again, and be greatly enriched if we can keep our minds out of the gutter.
Your master and his spiritual spawn have already staked out that part of the street
Who?s ready for some mature, disciplined discussion?
And you're the one who will define what that is?
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
So far NO ONE has even mentioned their willingness (or not) to suspend the "rounding up of usual suspects" when I do post this.
Since we really don't know what you're going to post, how can anyone say ahead of time what their reactions will be?
For this particular post, the sex association is very strong, YET the non-sex value of the Jesus Christ part is very high. But it's only a still small voice, compared to justifiable outrage over sexual pain and boisterous scatological humor.
So maybe if you'd just POST it, you'd KNOW what the reactions would be.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
quote:I'm just asking that the audience TEMPORARILY suspend their knee jerk urge to magnify the sex end of my next post, rather that the much more subtle spiritual end.
It's just not fair to readers who are trying to concentrate on the sublime, to be hit with lemons.
Now Mike wants to tell us how to react or not to react to something he says he is gonna post -something which he knows is liable to raise some ire here.
Grow up Mike. Folks are going to react based on the content and implications of what you post. You have no power over that. Stop trying to be a control freak.
Mike, if you would spend as much effort posting your "data" as you do telling us that you are gonna post it and teling uu how we ought not to react to it, you could have been done here by now.
No. It's a volunteer audience I'm looking for. And it's to serve THEM, not me.
Mike, look, you just don't seem to grasp that you aren't standing in a theater full of people who paid to hear you preach. I don't see anyone actively volunteering to be your audience on terms YOU dictate, either.
If the invisible timid masses are clamoring for this stuff via email, then give it to THEM, via EMAIL.
With respect to your message, look up Wierwille's definition of "apeitheia"--that's the majority of us here. We've heard far more than enough to believe in your crackpot theories if we wanted to. Nobody wants to, don't you get it?
If seaspray is convinced you're right, take it to email. If there are lurkers here who really want to hear it, start a private topic and invite everyone who is egging you on behind the scenes. Preach your guts out, be my guest. What I object to is that you are so arrogant as to believe you'll actually talk us into following your idol again by your incessant screeds. It is religiously offensive to me, as offensive as insulting Judaism or Islam would be to their adherents. The KKK may have a right to speak, but the first person to come in here preaching "white power" is going to get a boatload of the same.
I'm just asking that the audience TEMPORARILY suspend their knee jerk urge to magnify the sex end of my next post, rather that the much more subtle spiritual end.
No, you aren't. The majority response to that question is "no", but you're going to spew it anyway. Ride your high horse somewhere else.
It's just not fair to readers who are trying to concentrate on the sublime, to be hit with lemons.
Name ten.
I'm just asking for some temporary emotional control, in not overemphasizing the sexual references, so that the part about our relationship with Jesus Christ can be given fair consideration.
You wouldn't know emotional control if it slapped you in the face. We've already had one person banned for posting gay Jesus porn, so don't be fooled into thinking you have carte blanche with Pawtucket.
After it's over everyone can let 'er rip with catcalls and whistles.
Oh, please, may we, Mr. Mike??? You are so magnanimous with your permissions! [/gag]
If you insist on being such a control freak, go start your own website. You can rant there for all the world to see. All the world, that is, that actually gives the tiniest of damns about your neo-ultra-Wierwillian cult. Which still excludes the overwhelming majority of GreaseSpot patrons, if I'm not mistaken.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
You wrote: ?With respect to your message, look up Wierwille's definition of "apeitheia"--that's the majority of us here. We've heard far more than enough to believe in your crackpot theories if we wanted to. Nobody wants to, don't you get it??
I think not! It?s more apistia, and for that very reason I want to post things that slipped by or were forgotten.
I think the leadership did a very bad job (me too) in the later years before Dr?s death by getting into our own theologies. The quick development of many splinter groups tells me that a lot of the big shots were long harboring fantasies of escape pods from the mess the TVT religion had become. We OLGs, somewhat in the years before Dr?s death and bigtime in the years afterward, we OLGs were drifting back ?into our own thing? which was a popular movement that we boomers had emerged from the early 1960?s. There was a lot of information that did NOT get well noticed or passed around as it should have.
Your FEELING may be apeitheia, but it?s not based on full knowledge. A ton of things are still unknown to many. I?ve spent 5 years collecting them, and one by one presenting them.
Now Zixar, comparing me to the KKK is insulting to me, but so what? I hurt for your credibility.
If it is religiously offensive to you to see my opinions, then you owe it to your self to not come and see what offends you. Your religion is offensive to me, but I see no point in saying so to you, until now. YOU, sir, are more of the KKK mentality here than me. You want to exclude, not me.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 24, 2003 at 20:22.]
Just for a change Of pace, I'd like for you to address some questions pertaining to the topic of this thread, i.e., Wierwille's Ubiquitously Hidden Teaching, which I still view as Wierwille's ubiquitously hidden error. Here is a passage from PFAL ("The Bible Tells Me So", pp 23-24) that you say I, as a certifiable OLG, should "master".
"...We have been so schooled to revere the knowledge that comes to us through our five senses that we fail to recognize the truth that comes from the higher realm, the spiritual, where the Word of God, and not reason, has first place. Both realms or worlds are here: the natural world is factual; the spiritual world is true. As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supercedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the kingdom of God; so, there is a natural and a supernatural or spiritual world..."
What did Wierwille mean when he used the word "realm"? I looked it up in the concordance, and it only occurs seven times in the Word of God, always in the OT, mostly in Daniel. There, "realm" is translated from words that literally mean "kingdom".
In the passage quoted, Wierwille wrote, "Both realms or worlds are here." When Wierwille paralleled the words "realm" and "world", was he really making the meaning any clearer? If so, how? The concordance lists over ten different words in the Word of God translated as "world", all with differing meanings. None of them are ever translated "kingdom". It seems to me that Wierwille, by paralleling "realm" and "world", only confused the issue by multiplying irrelevant definitions.
When he wrote that "both realms or worlds are here", what did he mean by "here"? Did he mean that the natural "realm" and the spiritual "realm" are both co-terminal in space? In time? In space and time? Existentially or metaphorically? Did he mean New Knoxville, Ohio? What did he mean by "here"?
Wierwille wrote "As there are four kingdoms in this world..." and lists "...the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man, and the Kingdom of God..." I assume from Wierwille's parallel of "realm" and "world" in a previous sentence, and by his uses of "kingdom(s)" and "world" in the sentence under examination, that the phrase "this world" is referring to either the natural or the spiritual "realm". Because Wierwille included the kingdoms of plants, animals and men, I further take it that "this world" means the natural "realm" in this sentence.
If that's the case, then what are we to make of Wierwille's inclusion of "the Kingdom of God" in the natural "realm"? Is the Kingdom of God dependent on the senses and man's reason?
On April 14,2003, 14:53, you wrote, "...eventually the god who was given the 5 senses realm to control will see his [a person performing 5-senses service] weak spots and destroy."
I take it you believe "the god who was given the 5 senses realm" to be the adversary, based on the use of "world" in the KJV translation of II Corinthians 4:4, and Wierwille's parallel use of "realm" and "world".
"This world" is literally "this age" in the Greek. We are told in a number of places in the Word of God that "this age" is going to come to an end at the appearing of the Lord. Will the natural "realm" come to an end at the appearing of the Lord?
If the statement that the adversary is the "god of this world" means that the adversary controls the "senses realm", and if the Kingdom of God is "in this world", doesn't that put the Devil in charge of the Kingdom of God?
Regarding Wierwille's four kingdoms in the natural "realm" he wrote, "As... one supercedes the other... so, there is a natural world and a... spiritual world." How do the four kingdoms Wierwille listed "supercede the other"? One way the animal kingdom supercedes the plant kingdom is that all animals live by eating plants, the herbivores directly, and the carnivores indirectly. Human beings supercede both plants and animals because humans survive by eating both. Do beings of the spiritual "realm" survive by eating humans? Supercede... how?
Love, Steve
P.S. - If you're truly concerned about how people are going to respond to sexually salacious material, then don't post sexually salacious material.
I know I?m always begging for time, but I?m just in for a minute, and then out again.
The material I will be posting cannot in any way be regarded as sexually salacious material.
However, if there is not a concerted effort to the contrary, this material will be treated AS IF it were sexually salacious.
I don?t think this learned association and its associated behavior, are proper but they are ingrained by now. I think it?s a bad habit, especially if it distracts the participants from the more subtle issues I want to point out.
Maybe I should just post the stimulating buzz words as a preview that will help acclimatize readers, and then they?ll be more able to resist the reflex.
Anyway, I?ll be back. I see above that there?s lots to respond to..... later.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 24, 2003 at 4:27.]
quote:However, if there is not a concerted effort to the contrary, this material will be treated AS IF it were sexually salacious.
"Concerted Effort"? Don't be silly Mike. There will be no "concerted effort" one way or the other. It is not like GSers shoot emails back and forth to each other to collectively decide how to react to your "data". Each person will respond as he/she sees fit. There is no backroom concensus here. I don't know about anyone else, but I have never discussed with anyone beforehand as to what a particular response to your "data" should be.
quote:I don?t think this learned association and its associated behavior, are proper but they are ingrained by now. I think it?s a bad habit, especially if it distracts the participants from the more subtle issues I want to point out.
Maybe I should just post the stimulating buzz words as a preview that will help acclimatize readers, and then they?ll be more able to resist the reflex.
Don't be rediculous Mike. I do not think that we need any "acclimation". By hem-hawing around about what you are gonna post (but haven't), and predictiong beforehand about how folks are gonna imnproperly react, you are probably just making it worse.
"Stimulating buzz words", Give me a break Mike. Do you really think you can post some "buzz words" and effect some kind of mind control so that folks will react in the way you think they ought to. Don't be silly.
What are you afraid of Mike? Stop making excuses and just post your stuff. Explain the "more subtle issues" and be done with it.
As a public service, I am posting several buzzwords that might get my fellow GSers riled up. Please get it all out of your system now. Feel free to add words.
Father in the Word
The Teacher
"Doctor"
Ubiquitous
Throughly
Absent Christ
Mathematical Accuracy
Handin a Glove
That's riiiight
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
For everyone's benefit, my last named rhymes with "sports" when properly pronounced. It's Germanic, not Hispanic. Don't feel bad about getting it wrong. I've had to correct people all my life, especially in high school and the Navy. I'm used to it. And it's even more difficult on the internet, where we can't hear peoples' actual voices and the way they pronounce things.
When CES first came across the writings of Anthony Buzzard, we all pronounced it "boozeARD" because we thought it sounded silly to call somebody "buzzard". But when we met Anthony face to face, we found out he was a relative of the naturalist that buzzards were named after. So it *was* just "buzzard".
Mike - Regarding the possibly salacious material you intend to post, you wrote, "...especially if it distracts the participants from the more subtle issues I want to point out." Are you going to post the possibly salacious material on this thread or on another? If you intend to post it on this thread, then I would presume that the subtilties of the natural/spiritual dichotomy need be mastered before progressing to the possibly salacious subtilties.
As you can see from the questions I posted above, I don't understand what Wierwille meant when he wrote about natural and spiritual "realms". There are probably others in the same boat. Is it wise to post your possibly salacious material before you have led us into mastery of the natural/spiritual dichotomy?
quote: For this particular post, the sex association is very strong, YET the non-sex value of the Jesus Christ part is very high. But it's only a still small voice, compared to justifiable outrage over sexual pain and boisterous scatological humor.
Post wisely, Mike. There are a lot of raw nerves you are threatening to walk on, nerves attatched to heads and hearts.
It's just that wisdom that urges me to prepare for this post a little.
I'm aware of the nerves, and that's why I'm going slow right now. In addition to the nerves situation, I want to highlight the NON-sexual aspects of this post.
Hopefully the sex angle will be a big letdown, and the subtle issues can survive for discussion.
Thanks for the topical post. Please let me admit up front, that I do not have all the answers, but I?ll do my best to work this a bit. I?ll see what I can do to answer it now, and as we progress more into this subject, we may learn more.
You wrote: ?What did Wierwille mean when he used the word "realm"? I looked it up in the concordance, and it only occurs seven times in the Word of God, always in the OT, mostly in Daniel. There, "realm" is translated from words that literally mean "kingdom".?
One thing to keep clear is that the KJV translators used words they though best fit the texts they had. Their decisions are not authoritative. The English word ?realm? NEVER appeared in the originals, because English wasn't invented until over a thousand years after the originals were penned. I?d say your appeal to the concordance may be misguided here.
This is only slightly on subject, but have you noticed that the word ?concordance? is not used in the Bible? That may seem like a joke, but it?s not. We know what concordances are without having to look it up to see it?s Biblical useage, even if it did appear in there. I think the same case applies to Dr?s use of world and realm. If you are trying to get a KJV Biblical understanding of it I would expect to see things get confused a bit.
We were taught to use a concordance NOT to see how words are used in everyday life, but to see how Biblical words were used when first written. In this situation we are not trying to better understand a KJV word, but one of Dr?s words. How he used these two words in HIS vocabulary is what is important. Until all Dr?s books are on-line the prospects of manually making a VPW concordance are slim. However, I have been collecting many page references of Dr?s on this very subject, so they may soon shed some light on this. As I digitize these notes they?ll be made available.
In one place Dr suggests a dictionary may be of occasional use. Sounds kind of funny, doesn?t it? We have such a strong background in doing things a certain way with concordances and interlinears, that whod?a ever thunk it, that a dictionary may help us?
If the word ?world? had appeared in a KJV verse, the proper place to go for deeper understanding would be a concordance, but not necessarily for Dr?s books. If he did get revelation in the writing, then it?s HIS vocabulary that?s critical, not the KJV translators.
Have we progressed any? If you relax the urge to hit the concordance, I think the meaning is not so hard to fathom. The words realm and world connote ?all encompasingness.? Realm carries an aspect of rulership. World carries the aspect of geometry, but Dr so often emphasized the time element from Biblical useage that I feel free to think that too could be in his vocabulary. (I?m thinking out loud here)
My best feel for these two words is that they fit together to describe an all encompassing situation and how things are governed in it. For the natural realm or world, we should think of all that the 5-senses can detect and interact with. This would include most of everyday life, as well as science. The spiritual realm is all that can be detected and interacted by way of manifestations of the spirit.
For both worlds or realm to be here means that both can be detected and interacted with by utilizing 5-senses for one and spirit for the other. Given two people in the same proximity, if one person operates in the natural, and another operates in the spiritual, we shouldn?t be surprised if they have two radically different impressions of the same event.
********
You wrote: ?Did he mean that the natural "realm" and the spiritual "realm" are both co-terminal in space? In time? In space and time? Existentially or metaphorically? Did he mean New Knoxville, Ohio? What did he mean by "here"??
Space and time are natural/physical commodities. They can be measured with the 5-senses.
I think of ?here? as where God is. God originated both realms.
********
You wrote: ?I assume from Wierwille's parallel of "realm" and "world" in a previous sentence, and by his uses of "kingdom(s)" and "world" in the sentence under examination, that the phrase "this world" is referring to either the natural or the spiritual "realm".?
This may not be the best assumption. I?ve seen in other places that Dr?s use of the word ?this? can be much less casual than my original expectations of him. It could very well be here that ?this world? is something entirely different. I?d have to think on this much more before going with that assumption.
*******
You then wrote (with my use of ALL-CAPS): ?Because Wierwille included the kingdoms of plants, animals and men, I further take it that "this world" means the natural "realm" in this sentence. .... IF THAT?S THE CASE, then what are we to make of Wierwille's inclusion of "the Kingdom of God" in the natural "realm"? Is the Kingdom of God dependent on the senses and man's reason??
If that?s the case, then where did you get the Kingdom of God?s dependency on man?s senses and reason? Plants and animals (or their realms) don?t seem similarly dependant. To ?include? the Kingdom of God in the natural realm doesn?t necessarily degrade it.
I do see the little knot you are pointing out, but I don?t see it as a debilitating factor in reading with meekness. By far, the most powerful method of study is simple reading. As we live in these books, the vocabulary Dr employed will become a part of us. Diving in with a concordance and a lot of detailed parsing seems to be a bit of overkill to me.
I asked WordWolf about his questions on overdetailed definitions of mastery, and I need to ask you the same. Are you genuinely interested in mastering this material, or looking for hang-ups to help justify NOT studying? Or to discourage others from studying?
This is not difficult metaphysical material, but very useful for our practical and spiritual growth. To be aware of the two perspectives, man?s and God?s , and the VAST differences there can be between the two, and the superiority of the spiritual, all help us to grow in our ability to interact with the spiritual.
You may be making it harder to understand by attempting to blast in first in too detailed a fashion. We?ve all been away from these books for along time, and even our original exposure was not complete or perfect. I suggest that this problem will dissolve as more scope is achieved. Recent scope, that is. I just counted 81 page references I?ve collected on this subject in the past 5 years, and I too could use more exposure to them.
******
You wrote: ?"This world" is literally "this age" in the Greek. We are told in a number of places in the Word of God that "this age" is going to come to an end at the appearing of the Lord. Will the natural "realm" come to an end at the appearing of the Lord??
SOMETHING gets dissolved in white heat, or something like that I think Peter talks about. We know that the second heaven and earth, the setup we live in now, will come to an end. We know that the adversary?s rulership has an end. How the realm operates will come to an end.
*******
You wrote: ?If the statement that the adversary is the "god of this world" means that the adversary controls the "senses realm", and if the Kingdom of God is "in this world", doesn't that put the Devil in charge of the Kingdom of God??
This is still assuming the ?this word? is as the natural. If that?s so, it sure looks like the Devil has some ability to mess with what Adam handed him, and Adam got it from God. If it?s the case that the Kingdom of God is "in this world," I don?t see that putting the Devil in charge of it. Wouldn?t that be reasoning?
*******
So, let me ask you this? What are you going to do about this? Do you see a contradiction? Or a book less that what you?d expect God to bring forth? I don?t. As I read and live in this Word, it unfolds for me with great satisfaction. I see your pointing out of ?this world? as one more thing to look into and enjoy. I think the WRONG approach would be to say ?If these things can?t fit for me right now, then Dr?s books can?t be worth mastering.?
Your original idea to use a concordance had a kernel of truth in it. Concordances help us to see where one particular word is used in many places in the Bible. By examining all such uses of the word in question, a much greater scope can be gained; greater than simply looking at the supplied definition.
The same is the case for Dr?s books. If we want greater understanding of realms, then we need to look at ALL the places where Dr mentions or utilizes these words. That will take time.
*********
Lastly, you wrote: ?Regarding Wierwille's four kingdoms in the natural "realm" he wrote, "As... one supercedes the other... so, there is a natural world and a... spiritual world." How do the four kingdoms Wierwille listed "supercede the other"? ?
I don?t think of the superceding as one eating the other. When people are born body and soul only, they inhabit the animal realm. When such a body and soul animal believes in Christ, and receives the gift of holy spirit, the kingdom of man is entered. Later, as Christ is formed in the soul/mind the Kingdom of God is ascended to.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 25, 2003 at 4:24.]
Gads! Hold your horses! I?m going to post this soon, don?t worry.
I?m not doing a control freak thing here. I just thought that if I didn?t say what I did, then I?d probably be working double time after the post to beg for the attention to go where it fits this thread. For me to do this same thing a little BEFORE posting shouldn?t be thought of as any kind of insult. I?m just asking people up front to TRY and not go where they are most inclined from recent years of discussion. I can pretty well predict what people will latch on to. The habitual courses of conversations here at GS are well established and somewhat predictable.
This pre hype was not intended as condescending or insulting. I just want the MOST important ideas in this to prevail, and not be drowned in the predictable.
I mentioned that this material may also hit some P&C (plagiarism and copyrights) issues. Here?s the twist. I was told that this material ?originated? with Kenyon. So, if the sexual hot buttons do push some into wild criticisms of Dr here, it just may be Keynon who is in the firing line also. Everybody loves Kenyon! So criticizing Dr here may be criticizing Kenyon. What Dr says is practical. It should be examined in the lights of it?s merits, not how it reminds us of sex scandals revolving around Dr, and the hurt, and the outrage.
This material was broadcast by Dr on the radio for years. It may be that he had an arrangement with Kenyon to do that. Or he may have originally credited Kenyon on the air, but the tape that was made in later decades has no such reference. If anyone does have the Kenyon version, I?d love to see it. What got changed is what I?d key in on.
One thing I keep in mind about this material is that this portrays the man Dr knew to be, but also wished he was. The Christ Formed Within is that man, but here Dr uses different vocabulary to describe that same process, in it?s maturity.
Here?s what to look for:
?a self like Jesus Christ?
?Jesus Christ like?
?a love self?
?a Jesus Christ self?
?Jesus Christ men and women?
One of the main themes of Dr?s last teaching is love, agape love. In that teaching he told his audience that there was a need for love. Theology without love is so empty. The need for love in the later days of the TWI-1 was pretty apparent. I see many practical things this teaching can minister to in the area of love, but no where more important is that than in our relationship with Jesus Christ. By loving as he loved, by developing that same love in our hearts that he had, the difficult things we still deal with will go much better.
Here is Part 1 (of 3) of ?The Love Way? from The Teacher Broadcast series
*********************************************
The Love Way
Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille
Part 1 of 3
I want to teach in the field of love for a moment, because so little is understood and known about this great field which came specifically into concretion and reality with the new birth on the day of Pentecost. This new birth on the day of Pentecost brought a new kind of love, which had been made available to us, however, by Jesus Christ. As we understand this new kind of love, we come to the great realization that there really never was any love before the day of Pentecost, that the love that came with the day of Pentecost is a spiritual thing on the inside, and it only comes into concretion, in manifestation, as we put it on in our mind and manifest it forth.
There are three words, three Greek words, translated ?love.? It's the word agapao, the word phileo, and the word eros. Eros is nothing more than just the kind of love that one animal would have for another, basically speaking. The word phileo love is the kind of love where one person loves another because one person scratches your back you're gonna scratch the other fellow's back, so forth. It's the word from which we got the English word, for instance, Philadelphia, brotherly love.
The other is the word agapao. Agapao is translated in the King James ?charity? as well as ?love.? The word ?charity? and ?love? translation are way too weak for this word, agapao. The word agapao literally means that it becomes yours when you're born again of God's spirit, when that eternal life which is Christ in you comes in at the time of the new birth. He brings with him many things, this new birth has many things, among which it has agapao, which is love of God. Then we have the love of God spiritually, but how do I get it into manifestation, into concretion? This I do by putting this love of God which I have received spiritually into my mind, and manifest it forth by my walk. This is why every place where the word agapao, or ?charity? is used, it should be translated ?the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation.?
Now with those basic truths set before you, again let me say that this new kind of love, the agapao love, was brought to the world by Jesus Christ. The thing that people have called ?love? has been basically nothing more than sexual attraction, or brotherly love where you scratch my back, I scratch your back. If you do not do right to me, I'm not going to do right to you. But we'll get along good together in a brotherly fashion because it'll be profitable for me, it'll be profitable for you, therefore we just have this kind of love.
Both of these, the phileo love and the sexual love of the eros, are relatively insignificant and never build a certainty within life or within the depth of the soul of a man which is lasting. This thing which we have called love has been basically nothing but sex attraction. You see, this sex attraction which we refer to as love is hardly any higher than that seen in the animal world which is nothing but eros. But Jesus Christ brought a new thing. This word translated ?charity? or ?love? in our Bible should always be translated ?the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation.? When we are born again we are born in love. God is love, and so the new birth is the impartation of the nature of the Father which is love. Then by birth, spiritually, we become children of love. This family to which you and I belong then is a love family because we are born into this family.
Paul speaking in Romans, chapter five, and I'll just read this to you, Romans chapter five, listen to this from the New Testament, Romans 5:5, and I just flip to it, ?...And hope maketh not ashamed; because, listen, ?the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy ghost which is given unto us.? The love of God, the agapao, is shed abroad in our hearts, within the spiritual part of man, by God who gave this unto us. So you see, the love of God has flooded us within, it's our spirit, it's on the inside. You don't feel, smell, taste, or touch spirit, but the Word says it's in there because when Christ came he brought it with him. This love nature which we now have spiritually is the great law of the new creation in Christ Jesus.
Remember in John 13, in verses 34 and 35, Jesus had declared, ?A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love (agapao) one another: even as I have loved (agapao) you, that ye also love (agapao) one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love (agapao) one another.? This love was to be the stamp, the brand, if you please, that would differentiate the believer from the people of the world. The Apostle Paul declared, ?...I bear, or I have branded on my body, the marks of the Lord Jesus.? He meant that he had the scars and wounds that had been given to him due to persecutions, but the believer, the born-again believer, bears the marks, the brands, of the love of Christ upon his spirit.
In Romans, chapter 12, verses 5 to 6, it says that every man when he comes into the family of God has the measure of faith given to him. This measure of faith is spiritual faith. Now in order to manifest this in the believing world, in the senses realm in the believing world, he must renew his mind. He has it spiritually but it comes into concretion into manifestation, when he believes with his mind what he has spiritually. He has to cultivate faith, spiritual faith, to make it manifest into the senses realm and develop it. Likewise, the same thing is true regarding this new kind of love which is given unto us when we are born into the family of God. That measure of love is given unto you and it comes with the new birth. This is the love nature. This love nature spiritually must be developed as you develop your faith life and manifest it forth by believing into the senses realm. As you give love freedom to grow and act, it naturally will gain in ascendancy in your whole life, in your whole being.
This love of God which is in the renewed mind in manifestation must be fed by the Word of God and then it will express itself in action as we operate it. Remember according to Matthew 4:4, Jesus declared, ?...Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.? You see, the real man of whom I am speaking is your spirit. If you're born again of God's spirit that is the real man. Your spiritual hunger and your spirit needs are just as great as your mental or your physical needs. Your spirit must have the privilege of meditating in the Word. You must learn to feed upon this Word of God as Jeremiah did when he said he ate it, he ate the Word (Jeremiah 15:16).
You feed and exercise this new love that has come into you by practicing love. The exercise makes it strong, just as exercise makes your body strong. Colossians 3:16 says, ?Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly,? gaining the ascendancy over all of your faculties. This agapao love, this love life, makes you gentle, makes you Jesus-Christ-like. It makes you strong and vigorous like the Master. It makes you absolutely fearless in your walk with the Lord. You know, some people have imprisoned love, and I recently heard of a father that locked up his boy in a room and kept him a prisoner until that child was nearly dead. How many have done that same thing to love? Instead of letting love have its perfect sway and control, we have limited it.
.
.
.
.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 25, 2003 at 4:36.]
Mike - Thanks for responding to my questions, and thanks for admitting that you don't have answers for all of them. I believe our style of interacting is improving, even though we don't agree.
You asked, "What are you going to do about this? Do you see a contradiction? Or a book less than what you'd expect God to bring forth?"
Shortly after leaving TWI in 1987, I began re-examing PFAL, asking the questions I was so subtly discouraged from asking while involved. I would read the material, or listen to the tape, and ask three questions: what did he say? what does that mean? and how does that line up with other things I know about the Word of God?
I came to the conclusion that some things were right, and some things were just wrong; some things Wierwille taught lined up with the Word of God, and some did not. That is still my conclusion.
I believed in a natural/spiritual duality since my teens in the '60s, about fifteen years before encountering TWI and PFAL. I only began to question whether that duality was Biblical about two years ago, when I read a book called "The Origins of Stoic Cosmology".
Stoicism was the dominant Graeco-Roman philosophy during the time the New Testament was written, and its cosmology incorporated what we might call "natural" and "spiritual" activity into a single, unitary cosmos, rather than a dualistic one split into natural and spiritual "realms".
Now I know that Stoicism doesn't line up 100% with the Word of God, but it got me to wondering whether the Word of God necessarily supports a Platonic, dualistic view of the universe. As far as I have been able to discern, the Word can be better interpreted to support a unitary cosmology.
When I went back and re-examined Wierwille's passage on the natural and spiritual "realms", it just raised more questions than it answered, questions to which I have found better answers elsewhere.
You gave the following loose definitions for the two "realms": natural realm... all that the 5-senses can detect and interact with; spiritual realm... all that can be detected and interacted by way of manifestations of the spirit. Here is another honest question: How can a person distinguish between information that is coming from the holy spirit and information that is coming from demonic sources? Or in other words, how can a person detect counterfeit manifestations of the spirit?
The Septuagint uses the word "agape" a bunch of times in it's translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek. Here is only one of many examples:
Exodus 20:6
Exd 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love [agaposin] me, and keep my commandments.
It is clear that the word "agape" was in common use some 300 or so years before Penetcost. Agape "love" was not absent before Penetcost.
Wiewille states: "The word agapao literally means that it becomes yours when you're born again of God's spirit, when that eternal life which is Christ in you comes in at the time of the new birth."
Wierwille is inventing definitions again. There is no evidence to suggest that agapao changed meanings from one thing on the day before Pentecost and to another on the day after. Prior to Pentecost, Jesus used the word agapao quite a few times.
John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth [agapôn] me: and he that loveth [agapôn ] shall be loved [agapêthêsetai] my Father, and I will love[agapêsô] him, and will manifest myself to him.
The tense is clearly in the present at the time that Jesus said these words. It was indeed possible to agapao love prior to the day of Pentecost. There are many examples of folks loving - agapeo proir to Pentecost.
The notion that folks cannot "agape love" without being born again and renewing their mind is unbiblical and nonsensical.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
82
119
656
81
Popular Days
Jun 15
86
Jul 3
73
Jul 12
50
Mar 31
49
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 82 posts
mj412 119 posts
Mike 656 posts
Steve Lortz 81 posts
Popular Days
Jun 15 2003
86 posts
Jul 3 2003
73 posts
Jul 12 2003
50 posts
Mar 31 2003
49 posts
Popular Posts
Yanagisawa
Did you say "get the ball rolling" or get the kaballa rolling...for it sounds like that's your current freak - some sort of hidden, mystical kaballa-esque gnostic esotericism. I'm fascinated with you
def59
Mike
Why do you tease about new information and never do anything?
Cough it up boy!
Or are you really a gutless coward hiding behind platitudes and big words, all the while not having anything much to say?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
So far NO ONE has even mentioned their willingness (or not) to suspend the "rounding up of usual suspects" when I do post this.
We've been round and round this mulberry bush a hundred times since Christmas, and before I ever posted it was a thousand times. I can almost write the catcalls and hoots myself when I look at the material, because I too have developed the same knee jerk association. I have to fight my mind's habit patterns myself, so I feel a need to prepare this time for this post.
For this particular post, the sex association is very strong, YET the non-sex value of the Jesus Christ part is very high. But it's only a still small voice, compared to justifiable outrage over sexual pain and boisterous scatological humor.
This is not a taudry titilating tease; it'a pre-post prep.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I wish you could read it in the original:
??? ???? ?????? ???? ????
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oak,
Just started reading your three posts, when a thought hit.
This SAME pondered post will hit some P&C - PC buttons.
................(that?s Plagiarismpoopoo & Copyrighteousness,self - Political Correctness)
But there?ll ALSO be an interesting twist to it, if my hunch is correct. Time will tell.
Will read the rest soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike Posted:
Now Mike wants to tell us how to react or not to react to something he says he is gonna post -something which he knows is liable to raise some ire here.
Grow up Mike. Folks are going to react based on the content and implications of what you post. You have no power over that. Stop trying to be a control freak.
Mike, if you would spend as much effort posting your "data" as you do telling us that you are gonna post it and teling uu how we ought not to react to it, you could have been done here by now.
Just post your damn stuff and move on.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I was going to post this many
hours ago, but it got mixed up
with another file, and I then
pasted in the wrong file. This
is what I intended to post.
.
.
.
.
.
Zixar,
You wrote: ?With respect to your message, look up Wierwille's definition of "apeitheia"--that's the majority of us here. We've heard far more than enough to believe in your crackpot theories if we wanted to. Nobody wants to, don't you get it??
I think not! It?s more apistia, and for that very reason I want to post things that slipped by or were forgotten.
I think the leadership did a very bad job (me too) in the later years before Dr?s death by getting into our own theologies. The quick development of many splinter groups tells me that a lot of the big shots were long harboring fantasies of escape pods from the mess the TVT religion had become. We OLGs, somewhat in the years before Dr?s death and bigtime in the years afterward, we OLGs were drifting back ?into our own thing? which was a popular movement that we boomers had emerged from the early 1960?s. There was a lot of information that did NOT get well noticed or passed around as it should have.
Your FEELING may be apeitheia, but it?s not based on full knowledge. A ton of things are still unknown to many. I?ve spent 5 years collecting them, and one by one presenting them.
Now Zixar, comparing me to the KKK is insulting to me, but so what? I hurt for your credibility.
If it is religiously offensive to you to see my opinions, then you owe it to your self to not come and see what offends you. Your religion is offensive to me, but I see no point in saying so to you, until now. YOU, sir, are more of the KKK mentality here than me. You want to exclude, not me.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 24, 2003 at 20:22.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Hi, Mike!
Just for a change Of pace, I'd like for you to address some questions pertaining to the topic of this thread, i.e., Wierwille's Ubiquitously Hidden Teaching, which I still view as Wierwille's ubiquitously hidden error. Here is a passage from PFAL ("The Bible Tells Me So", pp 23-24) that you say I, as a certifiable OLG, should "master".
"...We have been so schooled to revere the knowledge that comes to us through our five senses that we fail to recognize the truth that comes from the higher realm, the spiritual, where the Word of God, and not reason, has first place. Both realms or worlds are here: the natural world is factual; the spiritual world is true. As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supercedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the kingdom of God; so, there is a natural and a supernatural or spiritual world..."
What did Wierwille mean when he used the word "realm"? I looked it up in the concordance, and it only occurs seven times in the Word of God, always in the OT, mostly in Daniel. There, "realm" is translated from words that literally mean "kingdom".
In the passage quoted, Wierwille wrote, "Both realms or worlds are here." When Wierwille paralleled the words "realm" and "world", was he really making the meaning any clearer? If so, how? The concordance lists over ten different words in the Word of God translated as "world", all with differing meanings. None of them are ever translated "kingdom". It seems to me that Wierwille, by paralleling "realm" and "world", only confused the issue by multiplying irrelevant definitions.
When he wrote that "both realms or worlds are here", what did he mean by "here"? Did he mean that the natural "realm" and the spiritual "realm" are both co-terminal in space? In time? In space and time? Existentially or metaphorically? Did he mean New Knoxville, Ohio? What did he mean by "here"?
Wierwille wrote "As there are four kingdoms in this world..." and lists "...the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man, and the Kingdom of God..." I assume from Wierwille's parallel of "realm" and "world" in a previous sentence, and by his uses of "kingdom(s)" and "world" in the sentence under examination, that the phrase "this world" is referring to either the natural or the spiritual "realm". Because Wierwille included the kingdoms of plants, animals and men, I further take it that "this world" means the natural "realm" in this sentence.
If that's the case, then what are we to make of Wierwille's inclusion of "the Kingdom of God" in the natural "realm"? Is the Kingdom of God dependent on the senses and man's reason?
On April 14,2003, 14:53, you wrote, "...eventually the god who was given the 5 senses realm to control will see his [a person performing 5-senses service] weak spots and destroy."
I take it you believe "the god who was given the 5 senses realm" to be the adversary, based on the use of "world" in the KJV translation of II Corinthians 4:4, and Wierwille's parallel use of "realm" and "world".
"This world" is literally "this age" in the Greek. We are told in a number of places in the Word of God that "this age" is going to come to an end at the appearing of the Lord. Will the natural "realm" come to an end at the appearing of the Lord?
If the statement that the adversary is the "god of this world" means that the adversary controls the "senses realm", and if the Kingdom of God is "in this world", doesn't that put the Devil in charge of the Kingdom of God?
Regarding Wierwille's four kingdoms in the natural "realm" he wrote, "As... one supercedes the other... so, there is a natural world and a... spiritual world." How do the four kingdoms Wierwille listed "supercede the other"? One way the animal kingdom supercedes the plant kingdom is that all animals live by eating plants, the herbivores directly, and the carnivores indirectly. Human beings supercede both plants and animals because humans survive by eating both. Do beings of the spiritual "realm" survive by eating humans? Supercede... how?
Love, Steve
P.S. - If you're truly concerned about how people are going to respond to sexually salacious material, then don't post sexually salacious material.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve Lortz,
I know I?m always begging for time, but I?m just in for a minute, and then out again.
The material I will be posting cannot in any way be regarded as sexually salacious material.
However, if there is not a concerted effort to the contrary, this material will be treated AS IF it were sexually salacious.
I don?t think this learned association and its associated behavior, are proper but they are ingrained by now. I think it?s a bad habit, especially if it distracts the participants from the more subtle issues I want to point out.
Maybe I should just post the stimulating buzz words as a preview that will help acclimatize readers, and then they?ll be more able to resist the reflex.
Anyway, I?ll be back. I see above that there?s lots to respond to..... later.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 24, 2003 at 4:27.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
LOL!! (We wished we could have read it in the original also, otherwise we wouldn't have been hoodwinked by the pfal pirate.)
Faith is daring the soul to go beyond what the eyes can see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
"Concerted Effort"? Don't be silly Mike. There will be no "concerted effort" one way or the other. It is not like GSers shoot emails back and forth to each other to collectively decide how to react to your "data". Each person will respond as he/she sees fit. There is no backroom concensus here. I don't know about anyone else, but I have never discussed with anyone beforehand as to what a particular response to your "data" should be.
Don't be rediculous Mike. I do not think that we need any "acclimation". By hem-hawing around about what you are gonna post (but haven't), and predictiong beforehand about how folks are gonna imnproperly react, you are probably just making it worse.
"Stimulating buzz words", Give me a break Mike. Do you really think you can post some "buzz words" and effect some kind of mind control so that folks will react in the way you think they ought to. Don't be silly.
What are you afraid of Mike? Stop making excuses and just post your stuff. Explain the "more subtle issues" and be done with it.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
As a public service, I am posting several buzzwords that might get my fellow GSers riled up. Please get it all out of your system now. Feel free to add words.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bowtwi
These came right off the top of my head:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
For everyone's benefit, my last named rhymes with "sports" when properly pronounced. It's Germanic, not Hispanic. Don't feel bad about getting it wrong. I've had to correct people all my life, especially in high school and the Navy. I'm used to it. And it's even more difficult on the internet, where we can't hear peoples' actual voices and the way they pronounce things.
When CES first came across the writings of Anthony Buzzard, we all pronounced it "boozeARD" because we thought it sounded silly to call somebody "buzzard". But when we met Anthony face to face, we found out he was a relative of the naturalist that buzzards were named after. So it *was* just "buzzard".
Mike - Regarding the possibly salacious material you intend to post, you wrote, "...especially if it distracts the participants from the more subtle issues I want to point out." Are you going to post the possibly salacious material on this thread or on another? If you intend to post it on this thread, then I would presume that the subtilties of the natural/spiritual dichotomy need be mastered before progressing to the possibly salacious subtilties.
As you can see from the questions I posted above, I don't understand what Wierwille meant when he wrote about natural and spiritual "realms". There are probably others in the same boat. Is it wise to post your possibly salacious material before you have led us into mastery of the natural/spiritual dichotomy?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JesseJoe
Post wisely, Mike. There are a lot of raw nerves you are threatening to walk on, nerves attatched to heads and hearts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Jesse Joe,
It's just that wisdom that urges me to prepare for this post a little.
I'm aware of the nerves, and that's why I'm going slow right now. In addition to the nerves situation, I want to highlight the NON-sexual aspects of this post.
Hopefully the sex angle will be a big letdown, and the subtle issues can survive for discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
or...maybe the whole thing will be a letdown.
If it ever gets posted we'll find out.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve Lortz,
Thanks for the topical post. Please let me admit up front, that I do not have all the answers, but I?ll do my best to work this a bit. I?ll see what I can do to answer it now, and as we progress more into this subject, we may learn more.
You wrote: ?What did Wierwille mean when he used the word "realm"? I looked it up in the concordance, and it only occurs seven times in the Word of God, always in the OT, mostly in Daniel. There, "realm" is translated from words that literally mean "kingdom".?
One thing to keep clear is that the KJV translators used words they though best fit the texts they had. Their decisions are not authoritative. The English word ?realm? NEVER appeared in the originals, because English wasn't invented until over a thousand years after the originals were penned. I?d say your appeal to the concordance may be misguided here.
This is only slightly on subject, but have you noticed that the word ?concordance? is not used in the Bible? That may seem like a joke, but it?s not. We know what concordances are without having to look it up to see it?s Biblical useage, even if it did appear in there. I think the same case applies to Dr?s use of world and realm. If you are trying to get a KJV Biblical understanding of it I would expect to see things get confused a bit.
We were taught to use a concordance NOT to see how words are used in everyday life, but to see how Biblical words were used when first written. In this situation we are not trying to better understand a KJV word, but one of Dr?s words. How he used these two words in HIS vocabulary is what is important. Until all Dr?s books are on-line the prospects of manually making a VPW concordance are slim. However, I have been collecting many page references of Dr?s on this very subject, so they may soon shed some light on this. As I digitize these notes they?ll be made available.
In one place Dr suggests a dictionary may be of occasional use. Sounds kind of funny, doesn?t it? We have such a strong background in doing things a certain way with concordances and interlinears, that whod?a ever thunk it, that a dictionary may help us?
If the word ?world? had appeared in a KJV verse, the proper place to go for deeper understanding would be a concordance, but not necessarily for Dr?s books. If he did get revelation in the writing, then it?s HIS vocabulary that?s critical, not the KJV translators.
Have we progressed any? If you relax the urge to hit the concordance, I think the meaning is not so hard to fathom. The words realm and world connote ?all encompasingness.? Realm carries an aspect of rulership. World carries the aspect of geometry, but Dr so often emphasized the time element from Biblical useage that I feel free to think that too could be in his vocabulary. (I?m thinking out loud here)
My best feel for these two words is that they fit together to describe an all encompassing situation and how things are governed in it. For the natural realm or world, we should think of all that the 5-senses can detect and interact with. This would include most of everyday life, as well as science. The spiritual realm is all that can be detected and interacted by way of manifestations of the spirit.
For both worlds or realm to be here means that both can be detected and interacted with by utilizing 5-senses for one and spirit for the other. Given two people in the same proximity, if one person operates in the natural, and another operates in the spiritual, we shouldn?t be surprised if they have two radically different impressions of the same event.
********
You wrote: ?Did he mean that the natural "realm" and the spiritual "realm" are both co-terminal in space? In time? In space and time? Existentially or metaphorically? Did he mean New Knoxville, Ohio? What did he mean by "here"??
Space and time are natural/physical commodities. They can be measured with the 5-senses.
I think of ?here? as where God is. God originated both realms.
********
You wrote: ?I assume from Wierwille's parallel of "realm" and "world" in a previous sentence, and by his uses of "kingdom(s)" and "world" in the sentence under examination, that the phrase "this world" is referring to either the natural or the spiritual "realm".?
This may not be the best assumption. I?ve seen in other places that Dr?s use of the word ?this? can be much less casual than my original expectations of him. It could very well be here that ?this world? is something entirely different. I?d have to think on this much more before going with that assumption.
*******
You then wrote (with my use of ALL-CAPS): ?Because Wierwille included the kingdoms of plants, animals and men, I further take it that "this world" means the natural "realm" in this sentence. .... IF THAT?S THE CASE, then what are we to make of Wierwille's inclusion of "the Kingdom of God" in the natural "realm"? Is the Kingdom of God dependent on the senses and man's reason??
If that?s the case, then where did you get the Kingdom of God?s dependency on man?s senses and reason? Plants and animals (or their realms) don?t seem similarly dependant. To ?include? the Kingdom of God in the natural realm doesn?t necessarily degrade it.
I do see the little knot you are pointing out, but I don?t see it as a debilitating factor in reading with meekness. By far, the most powerful method of study is simple reading. As we live in these books, the vocabulary Dr employed will become a part of us. Diving in with a concordance and a lot of detailed parsing seems to be a bit of overkill to me.
I asked WordWolf about his questions on overdetailed definitions of mastery, and I need to ask you the same. Are you genuinely interested in mastering this material, or looking for hang-ups to help justify NOT studying? Or to discourage others from studying?
This is not difficult metaphysical material, but very useful for our practical and spiritual growth. To be aware of the two perspectives, man?s and God?s , and the VAST differences there can be between the two, and the superiority of the spiritual, all help us to grow in our ability to interact with the spiritual.
You may be making it harder to understand by attempting to blast in first in too detailed a fashion. We?ve all been away from these books for along time, and even our original exposure was not complete or perfect. I suggest that this problem will dissolve as more scope is achieved. Recent scope, that is. I just counted 81 page references I?ve collected on this subject in the past 5 years, and I too could use more exposure to them.
******
You wrote: ?"This world" is literally "this age" in the Greek. We are told in a number of places in the Word of God that "this age" is going to come to an end at the appearing of the Lord. Will the natural "realm" come to an end at the appearing of the Lord??
SOMETHING gets dissolved in white heat, or something like that I think Peter talks about. We know that the second heaven and earth, the setup we live in now, will come to an end. We know that the adversary?s rulership has an end. How the realm operates will come to an end.
*******
You wrote: ?If the statement that the adversary is the "god of this world" means that the adversary controls the "senses realm", and if the Kingdom of God is "in this world", doesn't that put the Devil in charge of the Kingdom of God??
This is still assuming the ?this word? is as the natural. If that?s so, it sure looks like the Devil has some ability to mess with what Adam handed him, and Adam got it from God. If it?s the case that the Kingdom of God is "in this world," I don?t see that putting the Devil in charge of it. Wouldn?t that be reasoning?
*******
So, let me ask you this? What are you going to do about this? Do you see a contradiction? Or a book less that what you?d expect God to bring forth? I don?t. As I read and live in this Word, it unfolds for me with great satisfaction. I see your pointing out of ?this world? as one more thing to look into and enjoy. I think the WRONG approach would be to say ?If these things can?t fit for me right now, then Dr?s books can?t be worth mastering.?
Your original idea to use a concordance had a kernel of truth in it. Concordances help us to see where one particular word is used in many places in the Bible. By examining all such uses of the word in question, a much greater scope can be gained; greater than simply looking at the supplied definition.
The same is the case for Dr?s books. If we want greater understanding of realms, then we need to look at ALL the places where Dr mentions or utilizes these words. That will take time.
*********
Lastly, you wrote: ?Regarding Wierwille's four kingdoms in the natural "realm" he wrote, "As... one supercedes the other... so, there is a natural world and a... spiritual world." How do the four kingdoms Wierwille listed "supercede the other"? ?
I don?t think of the superceding as one eating the other. When people are born body and soul only, they inhabit the animal realm. When such a body and soul animal believes in Christ, and receives the gift of holy spirit, the kingdom of man is entered. Later, as Christ is formed in the soul/mind the Kingdom of God is ascended to.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 25, 2003 at 4:24.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey and Oakspear,
Gads! Hold your horses! I?m going to post this soon, don?t worry.
I?m not doing a control freak thing here. I just thought that if I didn?t say what I did, then I?d probably be working double time after the post to beg for the attention to go where it fits this thread. For me to do this same thing a little BEFORE posting shouldn?t be thought of as any kind of insult. I?m just asking people up front to TRY and not go where they are most inclined from recent years of discussion. I can pretty well predict what people will latch on to. The habitual courses of conversations here at GS are well established and somewhat predictable.
This pre hype was not intended as condescending or insulting. I just want the MOST important ideas in this to prevail, and not be drowned in the predictable.
I mentioned that this material may also hit some P&C (plagiarism and copyrights) issues. Here?s the twist. I was told that this material ?originated? with Kenyon. So, if the sexual hot buttons do push some into wild criticisms of Dr here, it just may be Keynon who is in the firing line also. Everybody loves Kenyon! So criticizing Dr here may be criticizing Kenyon. What Dr says is practical. It should be examined in the lights of it?s merits, not how it reminds us of sex scandals revolving around Dr, and the hurt, and the outrage.
This material was broadcast by Dr on the radio for years. It may be that he had an arrangement with Kenyon to do that. Or he may have originally credited Kenyon on the air, but the tape that was made in later decades has no such reference. If anyone does have the Kenyon version, I?d love to see it. What got changed is what I?d key in on.
One thing I keep in mind about this material is that this portrays the man Dr knew to be, but also wished he was. The Christ Formed Within is that man, but here Dr uses different vocabulary to describe that same process, in it?s maturity.
Here?s what to look for:
?a self like Jesus Christ?
?Jesus Christ like?
?a love self?
?a Jesus Christ self?
?Jesus Christ men and women?
One of the main themes of Dr?s last teaching is love, agape love. In that teaching he told his audience that there was a need for love. Theology without love is so empty. The need for love in the later days of the TWI-1 was pretty apparent. I see many practical things this teaching can minister to in the area of love, but no where more important is that than in our relationship with Jesus Christ. By loving as he loved, by developing that same love in our hearts that he had, the difficult things we still deal with will go much better.
Here is Part 1 (of 3) of ?The Love Way? from The Teacher Broadcast series
*********************************************
The Love Way
Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille
Part 1 of 3
I want to teach in the field of love for a moment, because so little is understood and known about this great field which came specifically into concretion and reality with the new birth on the day of Pentecost. This new birth on the day of Pentecost brought a new kind of love, which had been made available to us, however, by Jesus Christ. As we understand this new kind of love, we come to the great realization that there really never was any love before the day of Pentecost, that the love that came with the day of Pentecost is a spiritual thing on the inside, and it only comes into concretion, in manifestation, as we put it on in our mind and manifest it forth.
There are three words, three Greek words, translated ?love.? It's the word agapao, the word phileo, and the word eros. Eros is nothing more than just the kind of love that one animal would have for another, basically speaking. The word phileo love is the kind of love where one person loves another because one person scratches your back you're gonna scratch the other fellow's back, so forth. It's the word from which we got the English word, for instance, Philadelphia, brotherly love.
The other is the word agapao. Agapao is translated in the King James ?charity? as well as ?love.? The word ?charity? and ?love? translation are way too weak for this word, agapao. The word agapao literally means that it becomes yours when you're born again of God's spirit, when that eternal life which is Christ in you comes in at the time of the new birth. He brings with him many things, this new birth has many things, among which it has agapao, which is love of God. Then we have the love of God spiritually, but how do I get it into manifestation, into concretion? This I do by putting this love of God which I have received spiritually into my mind, and manifest it forth by my walk. This is why every place where the word agapao, or ?charity? is used, it should be translated ?the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation.?
Now with those basic truths set before you, again let me say that this new kind of love, the agapao love, was brought to the world by Jesus Christ. The thing that people have called ?love? has been basically nothing more than sexual attraction, or brotherly love where you scratch my back, I scratch your back. If you do not do right to me, I'm not going to do right to you. But we'll get along good together in a brotherly fashion because it'll be profitable for me, it'll be profitable for you, therefore we just have this kind of love.
Both of these, the phileo love and the sexual love of the eros, are relatively insignificant and never build a certainty within life or within the depth of the soul of a man which is lasting. This thing which we have called love has been basically nothing but sex attraction. You see, this sex attraction which we refer to as love is hardly any higher than that seen in the animal world which is nothing but eros. But Jesus Christ brought a new thing. This word translated ?charity? or ?love? in our Bible should always be translated ?the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation.? When we are born again we are born in love. God is love, and so the new birth is the impartation of the nature of the Father which is love. Then by birth, spiritually, we become children of love. This family to which you and I belong then is a love family because we are born into this family.
Paul speaking in Romans, chapter five, and I'll just read this to you, Romans chapter five, listen to this from the New Testament, Romans 5:5, and I just flip to it, ?...And hope maketh not ashamed; because, listen, ?the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy ghost which is given unto us.? The love of God, the agapao, is shed abroad in our hearts, within the spiritual part of man, by God who gave this unto us. So you see, the love of God has flooded us within, it's our spirit, it's on the inside. You don't feel, smell, taste, or touch spirit, but the Word says it's in there because when Christ came he brought it with him. This love nature which we now have spiritually is the great law of the new creation in Christ Jesus.
Remember in John 13, in verses 34 and 35, Jesus had declared, ?A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love (agapao) one another: even as I have loved (agapao) you, that ye also love (agapao) one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love (agapao) one another.? This love was to be the stamp, the brand, if you please, that would differentiate the believer from the people of the world. The Apostle Paul declared, ?...I bear, or I have branded on my body, the marks of the Lord Jesus.? He meant that he had the scars and wounds that had been given to him due to persecutions, but the believer, the born-again believer, bears the marks, the brands, of the love of Christ upon his spirit.
In Romans, chapter 12, verses 5 to 6, it says that every man when he comes into the family of God has the measure of faith given to him. This measure of faith is spiritual faith. Now in order to manifest this in the believing world, in the senses realm in the believing world, he must renew his mind. He has it spiritually but it comes into concretion into manifestation, when he believes with his mind what he has spiritually. He has to cultivate faith, spiritual faith, to make it manifest into the senses realm and develop it. Likewise, the same thing is true regarding this new kind of love which is given unto us when we are born into the family of God. That measure of love is given unto you and it comes with the new birth. This is the love nature. This love nature spiritually must be developed as you develop your faith life and manifest it forth by believing into the senses realm. As you give love freedom to grow and act, it naturally will gain in ascendancy in your whole life, in your whole being.
This love of God which is in the renewed mind in manifestation must be fed by the Word of God and then it will express itself in action as we operate it. Remember according to Matthew 4:4, Jesus declared, ?...Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.? You see, the real man of whom I am speaking is your spirit. If you're born again of God's spirit that is the real man. Your spiritual hunger and your spirit needs are just as great as your mental or your physical needs. Your spirit must have the privilege of meditating in the Word. You must learn to feed upon this Word of God as Jeremiah did when he said he ate it, he ate the Word (Jeremiah 15:16).
You feed and exercise this new love that has come into you by practicing love. The exercise makes it strong, just as exercise makes your body strong. Colossians 3:16 says, ?Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly,? gaining the ascendancy over all of your faculties. This agapao love, this love life, makes you gentle, makes you Jesus-Christ-like. It makes you strong and vigorous like the Master. It makes you absolutely fearless in your walk with the Lord. You know, some people have imprisoned love, and I recently heard of a father that locked up his boy in a room and kept him a prisoner until that child was nearly dead. How many have done that same thing to love? Instead of letting love have its perfect sway and control, we have limited it.
.
.
.
.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 25, 2003 at 4:36.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A la prochaine
HUH?
'til the next time...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Mike - Thanks for responding to my questions, and thanks for admitting that you don't have answers for all of them. I believe our style of interacting is improving, even though we don't agree.
You asked, "What are you going to do about this? Do you see a contradiction? Or a book less than what you'd expect God to bring forth?"
Shortly after leaving TWI in 1987, I began re-examing PFAL, asking the questions I was so subtly discouraged from asking while involved. I would read the material, or listen to the tape, and ask three questions: what did he say? what does that mean? and how does that line up with other things I know about the Word of God?
I came to the conclusion that some things were right, and some things were just wrong; some things Wierwille taught lined up with the Word of God, and some did not. That is still my conclusion.
I believed in a natural/spiritual duality since my teens in the '60s, about fifteen years before encountering TWI and PFAL. I only began to question whether that duality was Biblical about two years ago, when I read a book called "The Origins of Stoic Cosmology".
Stoicism was the dominant Graeco-Roman philosophy during the time the New Testament was written, and its cosmology incorporated what we might call "natural" and "spiritual" activity into a single, unitary cosmos, rather than a dualistic one split into natural and spiritual "realms".
Now I know that Stoicism doesn't line up 100% with the Word of God, but it got me to wondering whether the Word of God necessarily supports a Platonic, dualistic view of the universe. As far as I have been able to discern, the Word can be better interpreted to support a unitary cosmology.
When I went back and re-examined Wierwille's passage on the natural and spiritual "realms", it just raised more questions than it answered, questions to which I have found better answers elsewhere.
You gave the following loose definitions for the two "realms": natural realm... all that the 5-senses can detect and interact with; spiritual realm... all that can be detected and interacted by way of manifestations of the spirit. Here is another honest question: How can a person distinguish between information that is coming from the holy spirit and information that is coming from demonic sources? Or in other words, how can a person detect counterfeit manifestations of the spirit?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
The Septuagint uses the word "agape" a bunch of times in it's translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek. Here is only one of many examples:
Exodus 20:6
Exd 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love [agaposin] me, and keep my commandments.
It is clear that the word "agape" was in common use some 300 or so years before Penetcost. Agape "love" was not absent before Penetcost.
Wiewille states: "The word agapao literally means that it becomes yours when you're born again of God's spirit, when that eternal life which is Christ in you comes in at the time of the new birth."
Wierwille is inventing definitions again. There is no evidence to suggest that agapao changed meanings from one thing on the day before Pentecost and to another on the day after. Prior to Pentecost, Jesus used the word agapao quite a few times.
John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth [agapôn] me: and he that loveth [agapôn ] shall be loved [agapêthêsetai] my Father, and I will love[agapêsô] him, and will manifest myself to him.
The tense is clearly in the present at the time that Jesus said these words. It was indeed possible to agapao love prior to the day of Pentecost. There are many examples of folks loving - agapeo proir to Pentecost.
The notion that folks cannot "agape love" without being born again and renewing their mind is unbiblical and nonsensical.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.