dizzydog - You wrote, "You [Mike] have a yardstick that you are measuring EVERYONE else with called PFAL."
When Mike talks about "PFAL", he isn't really talking about the class presented by Wierwille. Mike is talking about the misinterpretations fed to him by his "advanced Christ formed within" spirits. Mike admits that there is a spirit, other than holy spirit, that has been "born" and is "growing" in his mind. This spirit gives Mike "spiritual understandings" of PFAL which often contradict the plain meaning of what Wierwille actually wrote.
The yardstick Mike uses to condemn everyone else is a sliderule, in the worst sense of the word.
I believe that in certain special PFAL writings, though they have VPW's name on them, their REAL author is God.
That's fine, Mike, but quite beside my point. If you believe in his words, why don't you do as he said when he said that the Word was to be our only center of reference for learning and not what men wrote about it, including himself?
He was very plain about that point and reiterated it plainly often. No number of aspersions about "loose decades old memory of PFAL" can change that. You shouldn't accept or teach points that are hidden or obscure or "subtle things" that contradict points plainly made a number of times. That is a basic PFAL (copped from Bullinger) principle of interpretation as well as a basic principle of how readers read.
What you say is not "consistent with a very close reading of PFAL," but a flat contradiction of its basic premises.
quote: I believe your estimate has slowly drifted up too high of how God-breathed the KJV, NIV, Critical Greek texts, and ancient fragments really are.
Your thinking is unhinged from reality, Mike. I wasn't talking about, nor was I thinking about "KJV, NIV, Critical Greek texts, and ancient fragments." In an attempt to communicate with you, I was referring to the "Word" as Dr. Wierwille said he referred to the Word, not any version of the bible, but the original Word as it was God-breathed originally before it was ever copied in any way. That was the Word that he said he dedicated his life to getting back to, and that was the Word that he said we should be getting back to when he contrasted it with man's words, including specifically his own. I think your grip on his words is as loose as your grip on mine, all your studying notwithstanding. It is the way you think.
quote: I also believe you estimate of how God-breathed some of Dr?s writings really are has drifted down from your initial exposure to PFAL. We all used to believe God gave abundant revelations to Dr, and I do AGAIN believe this
Fine, maybe.
quote: ...you?re amazed that I can say what I say because you?ve forgotten that when Dr refers to ?God?s written Word? it could be two different things he means
You don't know what I know and what I don't know, yet you fly off with this statement - another example of your ungrounded thinking habits. I remember very well these two meanings of "the Word" to which you refer.
RE: (1) the first definition of the "original first century writings," this is not intrinsically a "highly abstract item." It simply involves higher order, sometimes abstract (yet real nontheless) thinking processes to get to. And that was what he exhorted us to do.
RE: (2)
quote: writings of PFAL which are the fulfillment of the 1942 promise to Dr where God said He?d teach Dr His Word like it had not been known since the first century if he?d teach it to others
I may be wrong here since my memory is so faded :)-->, but I believe that Dr. Wierwille taught that the part of the Word that he taught that hadn't been known since the first century was the great mystery revealed. The greatest truth was the first to be lost and the last to be regained. Obviously, the vast majority of what was in PFAL had been taught by others in modern times.
I don't mean to be offensive, Mike, but I find many of your claims about PFAL, and about people and things in general, to be without foundation. It's about the way you think.
Let me illustrate. I remember doing a paper about the five kinds of love from Timothy LaHaye's (?) book on marriage, Love Life for Every Married Couple. After writing abut each of the five kinds of love, I concluded, as did LaHaye, that every marriage could be saved even if only one of the partners wanted to save it.
The professor was kind in his treatment of the paper. He said that the substance was very interesting and informative, but that it simply didn't add up to my conclusion. I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion of the keys to biblical interpretation, but it is my belief that there is nothing there is nothing there that is not just part of a logical description of how to read - assuming that the text you're reading fits logically. It is just pretty much how to think logically about things.
Anyway, one of the things that Dr. Wierwille brought up about the keys was that you needed to use all of them. If you only used some of them, you would wind up with a towering structure that looked beautiful to you and made perfect sense to you, but you would be wrong.
You just can't leave out obvious things that VP wrote and think you will come up with an accurate conclusion about where he was coming from anymore than you can think that you know what people are thinking on this thread and what they know if they haven't told you and think that you are communicating value back & forth.
I understand that second defintion of the Word, Mike, "modern 20th century writings of PFAL," and I have little problem with it per se, nor do I have a problem with ascribing the appellation "The Word" to the writings of others with the distinction that Dr. Wierwille made between his own writings and the "Word" in definition one. Dr. Wierwille taught us that the Word that came down to us in the compilation known as the bible - as corrupted as that might be - was a complete whole and nothing was to be added to it. Dr. Wierwille told us to study his writings. But he had that distinction in mind when he did. It was his professed goal and the goal of PFAL to get back to the original Word in definition (1).
BTW, my memory is better when it comes to the Word than when it comes to the people from the early 70's. I don't think I knew Ken Barden personally. I wonder if I knew Plot. If I could be sent back to teh 70's and see you somewhere, I would probably know you, but I can't place you now. Don't take it personally. It's me :(-->
"When Mike talks about "PFAL", he isn't really talking about the class presented by Wierwille. Mike is talking about the misinterpretations fed to him by his "advanced Christ formed within" spirits. Mike admits that there is a spirit, other than holy spirit, that has been "born" and is "growing" in his mind. This spirit gives Mike "spiritual understandings" of PFAL which often contradict the plain meaning of what Wierwille actually wrote.
The yardstick Mike uses to condemn everyone else is a sliderule, in the worst sense of the word."
While I do not have any revelation about Mike's spiritual condition, I have not even heard him speak in tongues so I do not even know if he is born again. I assume he is my brother in Christ because I see that as loving. I find his admitting to have some spirit other than Holy Spirit disturbing. This is quite contrary to PFAL and the scriptures. (Yes I know you think they are one in the same, Mike. Save the flogging for later. I am sure it will be coming by the end of this letter.)
My best efforts to communicate with him have done little more than make me irritated again.
My real point with that statement is that he seems to have taken a class and a set of materials and used them as a means of gauging or judging others by them. Whether we measure up to his (Mike's) standards seems to be the real issue.
Despite all that God has done for those in the body of Christ it is interesting to me that there always seems to be someone waiting in the wings to accuse those who have chosen to believe on God. There is always something else we have to do, until we do it we are just not quite good enough.
When a born again one comes after a brother in Christ with an accusation on his lips or fingertips he is not behaving the way God designed him to behave and is devilishly affecting the body.
2 Corinthians 4:1-7
1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
When Paul speaks of not handling the Word of God deceitfully he is speaking about not using the Word the further his own agenda. One way of looking at this is using the word as bait or giving the word to someone but having a hook in it so as to reel them in. It stands on it's own and is commended to all by God and him alone.
Verse 5 is easily understood and is interpreted in the verse. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
Mike preaches VPW. Ever notice how little Jesus Christ comes up in his 700 some odd posts. If Jesus Christ is even mentioned it is in the context of something he is quoting from VPW. Never mind his obnoxiousness the real thing that shows where he is coming from is the remarkable lack of Christ being acknowledged, let alone preached.
If you really want to read all of his many posts read them in light of this section of the scriptures. If he has spoken the Word the end result will be that Christ has been declared Lord and that Mike and all others who speak for God have been declared servants for Christ's sake, for we preach not ourselves.
Mike,
I would suggest you read what I have written here a couple of times before you start blasting away at me.
If you are honest you will see what I have declared here is true.
Verse 7 - But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
That power came from God. Let's give the glory and declaration to the real man who provided power for abundant living to us, Jesus Christ.
quote:Mike preaches VPW. Ever notice how little Jesus Christ comes up in his 700 some odd posts. If Jesus Christ is even mentioned it is in the context of something he is quoting from VPW. Never mind his obnoxiousness the real thing that shows where he is coming from is the remarkable lack of Christ being acknowledged, let alone preached.
I was thinking the same thing the other day. Last night I read some of the posts on this thread for a couple of hours. Some excellent points by multiple posters with plenty of spiritual light to learn from. Someone would have to be very blind to not learn from some of the posts here. We know from the scriptures Dizzydog quoted that it is the God of this world who causes this blindness.
Well folks, check out the record on this thread when I tried to bring up the subject of our relationship with Jesus Christ.
And when I bring Galatians 4:19 and Christ formed within it?s said to be devilish.
You?re speculating on my JC Quota rating. I challenge you to search my record here and get an accurate figure. I will be getting back to Jesus Christ soon, his return, his being formed in us, our relationship with him, and our imitation of him by becoming the Word like he did. All of these items I've brought up here in this one thread.
Meanwhile it seems people want to talk more about me than the page references and quotes I post. When calculating my quota, please don't count the sections where my threads were derailed to be discussions about me.
This thread IS supposed to be about what Dr taught us.
Hold on to your JC Quota Counters boys. I want to steer this on topic.
*****************************
One of the great goals I had for this thread was reached a little bit ago when this ?Christ Formed In You? teaching got highlighted in relation to ?Christ in you the hope of glory? and how they both pertain to the Physical/Spiritual realms.
A little repetition wont hurt, so This will be emphasized again soon.
The teaching ?Christ Formed In You? can be found on page 6 of this thread, about one quarter of the way down the page, and at:
Another great goal of this thread is to emphasize the difference in Dr?s vocabulary regarding ?Bible? being associated with the 5-senses realm and ?Word of God? being associated with the spiritual realm.
This is what Dr writes in "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" on page 27:
"This law works with mathematical exactness and scientific precision. Anything that is obtained through the five senses?seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching?is in the senses world and relates itself to the flesh. The Bible is in the senses world, and as such the law of God requires that the Bible feed the mind which is included in the Biblical word ?flesh.? So if the Bible is in the category of the senses world and thus can feed only the mind..."
******************************
There are many posts above that I?ve only had a chance to scan. It?s too late now to absorb much, so I?ll try again tomorrow.
"My real point ? is that he (Mike) seems to have taken a class (PFAL) and a set of materials (collaterals) and used them as a means of gauging or judging others by them."
Is this not what God's Word instructs?
Hebrews 004:012
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
If Wierwille's writing is "theopneustos", is it any less the Word of God than Ephesians?
ROFLMAO LOL LOL .... whew Sea spray .... THAT was the single BIGGEST twisting of scipture and assignment of rediculous private interpretation that I have ever witnessed in my entire life ... your joking right? OMG You are hysterical ... (as well as delusional).
The *real* point is... Mike has taken the works of a motf/ wisc (wolf in sheeps clothing) and turned him and the doctrines he borrowed (some good many not so) into something to be revered, idolized even ABOVE the scriptures. the bible that vp HIMSELF maintained are ALL God breathed... something that even the old sot himself would have considered assinine.
.... class and set of materials ... snigger.. used them to judge by.... gasp.. God`s word`s instruction.......oh gawd... guffaw ... rofla....
[This message was edited by rascal on June 08, 2003 at 13:34.]
[This message was edited by rascal on June 08, 2003 at 13:37.]
The funny part it that Seapray was actually serious.
-------------
Seaspray, I don't think PFAL was around when Hebrews was written. Do You? Your argument like many of Mike's is circular. It simply presumes PFAL to be the Word of God and then presumes that Hebrews would apply to it. A seriously flawed argument.
I could make the same argument you made with any book or class about the Bible. I just have to presume it to be the Word of God and then quote Hebrews.
What would make your argument or claim any more valid than mine?
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
If Wierwille's writing is "theopneustos", is it any less the Word of God than Ephesians?"
If it is the Word, who does the judging? Mike or the Word?
The Word is the discerner, not my brother in Christ.
You wrote: ?You have a yardstick that you are measuring EVERYONE else with called PFAL.?
PFAL is not a yardstick for judgment, it?s a tool to get a job done that God?s called us grads out to.
What you perceive as judgement is my assertion that we have not finished deriving the huge benefits God Himself placed in the PFAL writings. I think we all have fallen short in receiving these benefits, and that should be GOOD news to you, because it means there?s more benefits to receive.
You then wrote: ?Unless God is showing you all the things in my heart you have little to criticize me with. You still don't know me.?
God IS SHOWING me, by various methods, that ALL grads have fallen short of this GREAT potential of ?all nine all the time.? It?s not a specific judgement of you. We?re all in this together.
You wrote of me: ?My best efforts to communicate with him have done little more than make me irritated again.?
I might save you some trouble. If you only goal in communication with me is to see me drop my message or stop posting data on this thread, then you need to find another goal.
You wrote: ?Whether we measure up to his (Mike's) standards seems to be the real issue.?
Like I said above, the REAL issue is whether or not we?re going to correct the problem of having so much of Dr teachings slip by us or leak out by coming back to PFAL and mastering it. Anyone who refuses will get no condemnation form me, but no expectation of assistance in the job we grads are called out to.
It?s not a matter of being ?good enough? at all. It?s a matter of being strong enough and knowledgeable enough to get the job done.
You then wrote: ?Mike preaches VPW. Ever notice how little Jesus Christ comes up in his 700 some odd posts.?
Let?s be honest. When you first met me a month ago you hadn?t read any of my 900 some posts. Now you say you?ve done a survey of them all and you see my JC Quota low? Did you REALLY check them all?
You wrote: ? If Jesus Christ is even mentioned it is in the context of something he is quoting from VPW.?
That should be expected, seeing my message is that the printed materials from The American Christian Press (Dr?s books) are closer in accuracy to the originals than anything Zondervan or traditional publishers can supply us.
*************************
Steve Lortz
You swrote: ?When Mike talks about "PFAL", he isn't really talking about the class presented by Wierwille. Mike is talking about the misinterpretations fed to him by his "advanced Christ formed within" spirits.?
Steve, you admitted this subject of ?Christ Formed? is new to you. Like your premature question on Blue Book page 24, I think you?re a bit premature on judging this one too.
You then wrote: ?Mike admits that there is a spirit, other than holy spirit, that has been "born" and is "growing" in his mind.?
Surely, Steve, you?ve heard of the ?new man nature.? That?s what this is. I think the newness of the nomenclature spooked you, so to speak.
***************************
Thomas Heller
You wrote: ?If you believe in his words, why don't you do as he said when he said that the Word was to be our only center of reference for learning and not what men wrote about it, including himself??
I am doing as he said. Your question arises from our difference in how we identify exactly WHERE God?s revealed Word can be found. What do you do when you want to put God?s Word into your hand? You put an approximation into your hand. I?m saying we have something better than that to put in our hands.
This is something I posted a few months ago here:
?I sometimes challenge friends to consider the following. I have presented the notion that Dr's books are authoritative, and that they are just as good as having God Almighty standing before us speaking the same words. If this is not true, then it's the sad case that you do not have a single book in your library that is bigger than you. All your books, and every passage in them are subject to new "discovery" as being not quite true. You can white-out and change ANYTHING that is in print if you happen to come across some other evidence that convinces you otherwise. Then, that very same evidence is subject to similar challenges in the future, and so on.
?Can you to find in your library one single book that's "bigger" than you? Can you find one that you dare not alter or disagree with, but that you can rise up to because it's bigger than you? I think you can, that is, if you still have your PFAL books.?
When we followed Dr instructions to make the Bible, God?s revealed Word, our only rule for faith and practice, we did it with the available traditional materials like versions, translations, interlinears etc.
When we consulted that ?only rule? we had in our MINDS the abstract notion of the originals, but what we had in our HANDS was the modern traditional approximate hand-me-downs from the academic/religious world.
What I?m saying is that we ALSO have an exact (almost), given in English, revelation of God?s Word, ie Bible, RULE for faith and practice in the PFAL writings. This rule is NOT abstract. We can put the books in our hands.
***********************
You then wrote: ?In an attempt to communicate with you, I was referring to the "Word" as Dr. Wierwille said he referred to the Word, not any version of the bible, but the original Word as it was God-breathed originally before it was ever copied in any way. That was the Word that he said he dedicated his life to getting back to, and that was the Word that he said we should be getting back to...?
It?s precisely HOW to get back to the originals that I am addressing.
You say by further 5-senses (mixed with God?s revelation and guidance).
I say that that job is all done, because Dr said so in Oct?82 in the same minutes he put the mantle on Craig.
I believe the job of ?getting back to? has been accomplished and is TOTALLY done for us in the PFAL writings. It was by revelation that it was gotten to and it was by revelation that God told Dr the job was done after 40 years of Dr believing the 1942 promise.
You say I?ve lost my grip, but I say it?s because of the recent grip I got on the OPEN PFAL books that I see just how much has leaked out of everyone?s memory, including mine.
********************************
chwester,
How do you handle pages 34 and 116 in the Green Book?
******************************
Goey,
You wrote: ?Calm down Rascal...?
I like that.
Hebrews was written by an Author Who had complete foreknowledge of these times we live in now.
You guys are always assuming that everything?s a logical argument. Some things aren?t arguments, just presentations or announcements. Some things are demonstrations of internal consistency, but look like circular logic if taken as theorems.
I've NEVER said Hebrews in the KJV was completely unreliable. When it was supposed to be read, I read it, and learned a lot from it. I still look at it from time to time.
I'm out of time for now, but I realize I'm not done with your inventory. Will be back soon.
You decide for yourself whether Wierwille's work is "theopneustos". As do we all. If it is, we then have a standard against which we can measure "thoughts and intents of the heart".
If Wierwille's PFAL is "theopneustos", and Hebrews 004:012 is "theopneustos", then PFAL is "quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword".
It's not about you running me down, or me you. It's building each other up to point we manifest that Christ in us everyday, all day long. That's all nine all the time. PFAL is that which the adversary has managed to subtract from the bible over the last two thousand years. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at if God hasn't added significantly to that which the adversary subtracted.
It is clear, at least to me, that we cannot become the Christ-like men and women God has called us to become without mastering "the foundational class on Power for Abundant Living, and the Intermediate Class plus the collateral readings that accompany them".
This is the loving admonition to us from Dr. Wierwille, a man who loved God and God's people. A man who knew he would be dead within days.
By the way, let's skip the formality. seaspray is fine
[This message was edited by seaspray on June 08, 2003 at 22:21.]
seaspray ... you forgot to add a man who used God`s people ... a man who betrayed their trust, a man who sated his selfish lusts through coersion and manipulation of our sisters....yeah SURE his words were theopenustos...NOT he was a man after the flesh goof ball..... the only words of substance were the ones he *borrowed* from stiles leanard and others....
Mike and ss---you *presume* that "No grad can REALLY manifest God's power, etc., etc. without mastering PFAL, etc., etc." ...is that the jist of your argument???
If so, than only a pathetically small number of "Christians" will EVER manifest since PFAL grads are an infitestimally small drop in the bucket of Christianity. Ole vic hissef said that over 90% of scripture in KJV could be understood "right where it is written" without a commentary or even a dictionary. I refute and stand AGAINST your secret-decoder-ring brand PFALianity, which is idolatry, plain and simple.
You are damn right God Almighty will make the final call on the worthyness of the walk of ANY believer, even ole vic. But right here and now, I reject YOU and YOUR message. I will stick with my fragments--I learn more from them than you ever will, apparently. YMMV.... --> --> -->
This again is only a partial answer to your encyclopedic set. We?ll whittle it down yet.
Before I answer, let me reiterate something Seaspray brought up. What?s at stake here, whether we rely on PFAL supplied scriptures or on tradition supplied scriptures, what?s at stake here (sorry Goey) is the POWER!
To rob us of the power the adversary has employed VERY SUBTLE changes and corruptions in the texts and in our understand. One word twisted here in the text, one cultural twist centuries ago there, one religious cultural bias in the reader here, all adding up to a text that can?t help the reader over the hump in believing:
?...you mean it?s Christ in ME TOO!?
...you mean ALL the things he did and greater!?
...you mean when I am weak than I TOO am strong?!?
When I say tattered I mean SPIRITUALLLY, not physically. Most of the scriptures have been successfully reconstructed, but then again, Eve had MOST of it right too!
I?m talking some subtle tattered remnants.
When I say ?tattered remnants? it?s the figure of speech exagggggerationus used to draw attention. We were taught that just ONE word added, subtracted or changed and the results can be catastrophic. Change just ONE word and you no longer have God?s Word. In a translation EVERY word gets changed just about, but that doesn?t seem to bother people too much.
Did you see the post I did on the Word written in the stars getting corrupted? How did THAT happen. It got into tattered remnants up there somehow. God?s Word in the stars became a tattered remnant, a corruption of what it was originally. How could that be? The answer will help you understand how I apply ?tattered remnants? to the admittedly fairly well preserved and transmitted copies of the originals.
******this is something I posted a month ago on another thread: ******
rascal,
You wrote: ?Hey Mike...When/how were the stars corrupted??
That?s a GREAT question! I?ve been wanting to bring this point up for a while. I?ve pointed out some of the textual problems with very early sloppy copying and deliberate forgeries that prevent us from really receiving the Bible as it?s passed down through the ages. What we have is corrupted. Lots of 5-senses scholars try to fix this, but they are trying to match wits with the devil who corrupted it, and they are no match for the big important details like power. Even Bullinger, who fixed tons of problems, was outwitted on SIT and as a result, administrations too.
However, an additional factor I?ve only glossed over is the religious bias we all bring to the scriptures. Even if we had perfect copies of the originals, and perfect translations, there STILL is a huge problem with religious bias, language evolution, and cultural bias. This may not seem like a huge impediment, but the stars prove it.
With the stars there?s no corruption in the texts. Yes the stars do slowly move, but not so much in a few thousand years. So, by the time of Babel, or even of Moses nothing had changed in the ?text? in the sky. What had changed was the environment. The spiritual environment of bias was one of complete convolution. It thwarted God?s Word just as much as the king in Jeremiah 36 who cut up the scroll God had inspired. So God just reissued that scroll with many words added. The same with the new format after the stars, the written Word has many words added, the Mystery. It took a while, but it finally was complete.
So the ?corruption? in the stars was really in the eyes of the beholders.
***************** posted May 03, 2003 18:40 ****************
When you put your ?Holy Bible? into your hands, open it up, and start reading the words, it?s not REALLY God?s Word you?re reading. You?re reading a version of a translation of a critical compilation of a large set of fragments of ?spiritually? poor copies of the original documents.
I see many surety challenges in the chain that connects me to the originals.
(1) The first is in the accurate copying and complete transmission of the originals. This was done by a reprobate church that had forsaken Paul. Peter?s dying last words also mention how most people were misunderstanding Paul.
(2) I next must assume that ALL the originals were found, i.e. the Canon is complete, and there are no missing books. There are LOTS of theologians who will assure me I need not worry about this one, but I can?t find the Biblical proof of this after 30 some years of looking. I see two things that took place in Jer.36 when God?s revealed written Word was destroyed by being cut with a knife and thrown into a fire.
The first thing in Jer.36 is that although God?s written revealed (Biblical-5senses) Word was utterly destroyed, nonetheless His Word, God?s Word, the Word of God (spiritual) continued on uninterrupted in His mind.
The next thing in Jer.36 is that some time after this destruction of the written Word, God re-issued it and in a new format, with many words added. Similarly, when His Word written in the stars was corrupted He re-issued it in a new format: hand writing. The time between destruction and re-issue for the later seems to be hundreds of years between the tower of Babel and Moses. For the Jer.36 incident it seems to be days or weeks.
I can be reasonably content with the Canon as is because Dr was content to work within it. Otherwise I?d have to find a theologian to help me over this hump who wouldn?t put me to sleep.
(3) The assembling of the critical texts leaves me with making choices as to which of the footnotes in my Interlinear I want to run with and which ones ignore. Again, the assortment of would-be authoritarian theologians is abundant. I can get out of deciding here by deferring to whoever seems to be the best... that decade.
One major problem here is that there?s no way a church can be like minded if all the permutations of these footnote alternative renderings are considered. SOMEONE would have to step forward and be the authority as to which EXACT Greek text is going to be their text.
As far as this step goes, it?s every man for himself. There IS NO authoritative Greek text, there?s many. I must rely on middle men scholars and academics to sort through all this for me.
(4) The next steps are the killers ? translation and versionating. Here I must again rely on an army of competing generals, all saying slightly different things, and NONE of them PFAL grads.
All the above steps add up and subtly influence what I can put in to my hands if I place my trust in the Zondervan route of the above theologians and scholars.
If it weren?t for Dr getting my attention in the first place, I?d have NEVER given a rat?s a$$ to know the best way through the 1-2-3-4 step minefield above. I was a cosmic scientist type rebelling from the RC doctrine and the Bible was the LAST thing I was ever going to check out.
Dr got my attention, taught me to love God, His Word, and His Son Jesus Christ, and he turned me loose to check it all out for myself the best I could. I worked the 1-2-3-4 minefield for 27 years continually judging which scholars or teams of scholars to trust when my abilities failed. Finally I came back to PFAL and realized that all that work was done for me and I need only trust Dr to have brought forth that re-issued format altered Authorized by God set of writings.
We?re ALWAYS going to be making massive decisions as to who supplies us with God?s Word until we come back to PFAL and see that?s no longer necessary. Instead of spending all my time OBTAINING the Word of God, I must now only rightly divide this Word, and apply this Word, and obey this Word, and become this Word.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 09, 2003 at 0:45.]
I see thousands coming back to PFAL. That's plenty.
Once some thousands have mastered PFAL the principles and truths will be efectually made available to all who desire to love God. In these classes NO ONE ever gets missed! NO ONE!
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
Steve Lortz
dizzydog - You wrote, "You [Mike] have a yardstick that you are measuring EVERYONE else with called PFAL."
When Mike talks about "PFAL", he isn't really talking about the class presented by Wierwille. Mike is talking about the misinterpretations fed to him by his "advanced Christ formed within" spirits. Mike admits that there is a spirit, other than holy spirit, that has been "born" and is "growing" in his mind. This spirit gives Mike "spiritual understandings" of PFAL which often contradict the plain meaning of what Wierwille actually wrote.
The yardstick Mike uses to condemn everyone else is a sliderule, in the worst sense of the word.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
That's fine, Mike, but quite beside my point. If you believe in his words, why don't you do as he said when he said that the Word was to be our only center of reference for learning and not what men wrote about it, including himself?
He was very plain about that point and reiterated it plainly often. No number of aspersions about "loose decades old memory of PFAL" can change that. You shouldn't accept or teach points that are hidden or obscure or "subtle things" that contradict points plainly made a number of times. That is a basic PFAL (copped from Bullinger) principle of interpretation as well as a basic principle of how readers read.
What you say is not "consistent with a very close reading of PFAL," but a flat contradiction of its basic premises.
Your thinking is unhinged from reality, Mike. I wasn't talking about, nor was I thinking about "KJV, NIV, Critical Greek texts, and ancient fragments." In an attempt to communicate with you, I was referring to the "Word" as Dr. Wierwille said he referred to the Word, not any version of the bible, but the original Word as it was God-breathed originally before it was ever copied in any way. That was the Word that he said he dedicated his life to getting back to, and that was the Word that he said we should be getting back to when he contrasted it with man's words, including specifically his own. I think your grip on his words is as loose as your grip on mine, all your studying notwithstanding. It is the way you think.
Fine, maybe.
You don't know what I know and what I don't know, yet you fly off with this statement - another example of your ungrounded thinking habits. I remember very well these two meanings of "the Word" to which you refer.
RE: (1) the first definition of the "original first century writings," this is not intrinsically a "highly abstract item." It simply involves higher order, sometimes abstract (yet real nontheless) thinking processes to get to. And that was what he exhorted us to do.
RE: (2)
I may be wrong here since my memory is so faded
:)-->, but I believe that Dr. Wierwille taught that the part of the Word that he taught that hadn't been known since the first century was the great mystery revealed. The greatest truth was the first to be lost and the last to be regained. Obviously, the vast majority of what was in PFAL had been taught by others in modern times.
I don't mean to be offensive, Mike, but I find many of your claims about PFAL, and about people and things in general, to be without foundation. It's about the way you think.
Let me illustrate. I remember doing a paper about the five kinds of love from Timothy LaHaye's (?) book on marriage, Love Life for Every Married Couple. After writing abut each of the five kinds of love, I concluded, as did LaHaye, that every marriage could be saved even if only one of the partners wanted to save it.
The professor was kind in his treatment of the paper. He said that the substance was very interesting and informative, but that it simply didn't add up to my conclusion. I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion of the keys to biblical interpretation, but it is my belief that there is nothing there is nothing there that is not just part of a logical description of how to read - assuming that the text you're reading fits logically. It is just pretty much how to think logically about things.
Anyway, one of the things that Dr. Wierwille brought up about the keys was that you needed to use all of them. If you only used some of them, you would wind up with a towering structure that looked beautiful to you and made perfect sense to you, but you would be wrong.
You just can't leave out obvious things that VP wrote and think you will come up with an accurate conclusion about where he was coming from anymore than you can think that you know what people are thinking on this thread and what they know if they haven't told you and think that you are communicating value back & forth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Second take
:)-->
I understand that second defintion of the Word, Mike, "modern 20th century writings of PFAL," and I have little problem with it per se, nor do I have a problem with ascribing the appellation "The Word" to the writings of others with the distinction that Dr. Wierwille made between his own writings and the "Word" in definition one. Dr. Wierwille taught us that the Word that came down to us in the compilation known as the bible - as corrupted as that might be - was a complete whole and nothing was to be added to it. Dr. Wierwille told us to study his writings. But he had that distinction in mind when he did. It was his professed goal and the goal of PFAL to get back to the original Word in definition (1).
BTW, my memory is better when it comes to the Word than when it comes to the people from the early 70's. I don't think I knew Ken Barden personally. I wonder if I knew Plot. If I could be sent back to teh 70's and see you somewhere, I would probably know you, but I can't place you now. Don't take it personally. It's me
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dizzydog
Steve,
You wrote:
"When Mike talks about "PFAL", he isn't really talking about the class presented by Wierwille. Mike is talking about the misinterpretations fed to him by his "advanced Christ formed within" spirits. Mike admits that there is a spirit, other than holy spirit, that has been "born" and is "growing" in his mind. This spirit gives Mike "spiritual understandings" of PFAL which often contradict the plain meaning of what Wierwille actually wrote.
The yardstick Mike uses to condemn everyone else is a sliderule, in the worst sense of the word."
While I do not have any revelation about Mike's spiritual condition, I have not even heard him speak in tongues so I do not even know if he is born again. I assume he is my brother in Christ because I see that as loving. I find his admitting to have some spirit other than Holy Spirit disturbing. This is quite contrary to PFAL and the scriptures. (Yes I know you think they are one in the same, Mike. Save the flogging for later. I am sure it will be coming by the end of this letter.)
My best efforts to communicate with him have done little more than make me irritated again.
My real point with that statement is that he seems to have taken a class and a set of materials and used them as a means of gauging or judging others by them. Whether we measure up to his (Mike's) standards seems to be the real issue.
Despite all that God has done for those in the body of Christ it is interesting to me that there always seems to be someone waiting in the wings to accuse those who have chosen to believe on God. There is always something else we have to do, until we do it we are just not quite good enough.
When a born again one comes after a brother in Christ with an accusation on his lips or fingertips he is not behaving the way God designed him to behave and is devilishly affecting the body.
2 Corinthians 4:1-7
1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
When Paul speaks of not handling the Word of God deceitfully he is speaking about not using the Word the further his own agenda. One way of looking at this is using the word as bait or giving the word to someone but having a hook in it so as to reel them in. It stands on it's own and is commended to all by God and him alone.
Verse 5 is easily understood and is interpreted in the verse. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
Mike preaches VPW. Ever notice how little Jesus Christ comes up in his 700 some odd posts. If Jesus Christ is even mentioned it is in the context of something he is quoting from VPW. Never mind his obnoxiousness the real thing that shows where he is coming from is the remarkable lack of Christ being acknowledged, let alone preached.
If you really want to read all of his many posts read them in light of this section of the scriptures. If he has spoken the Word the end result will be that Christ has been declared Lord and that Mike and all others who speak for God have been declared servants for Christ's sake, for we preach not ourselves.
Mike,
I would suggest you read what I have written here a couple of times before you start blasting away at me.
If you are honest you will see what I have declared here is true.
Verse 7 - But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
That power came from God. Let's give the glory and declaration to the real man who provided power for abundant living to us, Jesus Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
From Dizzydog.
I was thinking the same thing the other day. Last night I read some of the posts on this thread for a couple of hours. Some excellent points by multiple posters with plenty of spiritual light to learn from. Someone would have to be very blind to not learn from some of the posts here. We know from the scriptures Dizzydog quoted that it is the God of this world who causes this blindness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well folks, check out the record on this thread when I tried to bring up the subject of our relationship with Jesus Christ.
And when I bring Galatians 4:19 and Christ formed within it?s said to be devilish.
You?re speculating on my JC Quota rating. I challenge you to search my record here and get an accurate figure. I will be getting back to Jesus Christ soon, his return, his being formed in us, our relationship with him, and our imitation of him by becoming the Word like he did. All of these items I've brought up here in this one thread.
Meanwhile it seems people want to talk more about me than the page references and quotes I post. When calculating my quota, please don't count the sections where my threads were derailed to be discussions about me.
This thread IS supposed to be about what Dr taught us.
Hold on to your JC Quota Counters boys. I want to steer this on topic.
*****************************
One of the great goals I had for this thread was reached a little bit ago when this ?Christ Formed In You? teaching got highlighted in relation to ?Christ in you the hope of glory? and how they both pertain to the Physical/Spiritual realms.
A little repetition wont hurt, so This will be emphasized again soon.
The teaching ?Christ Formed In You? can be found on page 6 of this thread, about one quarter of the way down the page, and at:
http://www.gscafe.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a...=3656073772&p=6
******************
Another great goal of this thread is to emphasize the difference in Dr?s vocabulary regarding ?Bible? being associated with the 5-senses realm and ?Word of God? being associated with the spiritual realm.
This is what Dr writes in "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" on page 27:
"This law works with mathematical exactness and scientific precision. Anything that is obtained through the five senses?seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching?is in the senses world and relates itself to the flesh. The Bible is in the senses world, and as such the law of God requires that the Bible feed the mind which is included in the Biblical word ?flesh.? So if the Bible is in the category of the senses world and thus can feed only the mind..."
******************************
There are many posts above that I?ve only had a chance to scan. It?s too late now to absorb much, so I?ll try again tomorrow.
I don?t mean to ignore anyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
mike:
wowwie zowwie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chwester
The reason people want to talk about you is because the logic you espouse is so funny.
It's like reading about the beliefs of the Moonies or some other silly cult.
Of course you are welcome to post all you want, but our minds are already made up and you are just spinning your wheels.
No one takes you seriously, Mike.
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chwester
"What came off the printing presses is FAR closer to the pure Word of God than the received scriptures."
Although I believe your heart is right, the above statement is exactly why no one takes you seriously.
With a good heart one could do a lot of good by studying PFAL and living by it, regardless of the inaccuracies.
But to say it is closer to the pure Word of God than the received scriptures? I've got three words for you Mike, "out to lunch".
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
dizzydog,
"My real point ? is that he (Mike) seems to have taken a class (PFAL) and a set of materials (collaterals) and used them as a means of gauging or judging others by them."
Is this not what God's Word instructs?
Hebrews 004:012
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
If Wierwille's writing is "theopneustos", is it any less the Word of God than Ephesians?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
ROFLMAO LOL LOL .... whew Sea spray .... THAT was the single BIGGEST twisting of scipture and assignment of rediculous private interpretation that I have ever witnessed in my entire life ... your joking right? OMG You are hysterical ... (as well as delusional).
The *real* point is... Mike has taken the works of a motf/ wisc (wolf in sheeps clothing) and turned him and the doctrines he borrowed (some good many not so) into something to be revered, idolized even ABOVE the scriptures. the bible that vp HIMSELF maintained are ALL God breathed... something that even the old sot himself would have considered assinine.
.... class and set of materials ... snigger.. used them to judge by.... gasp.. God`s word`s instruction.......oh gawd... guffaw ... rofla....
[This message was edited by rascal on June 08, 2003 at 13:34.]
[This message was edited by rascal on June 08, 2003 at 13:37.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Calm down Rascal,
The funny part it that Seapray was actually serious.
-------------
Seaspray, I don't think PFAL was around when Hebrews was written. Do You? Your argument like many of Mike's is circular. It simply presumes PFAL to be the Word of God and then presumes that Hebrews would apply to it. A seriously flawed argument.
I could make the same argument you made with any book or class about the Bible. I just have to presume it to be the Word of God and then quote Hebrews.
What would make your argument or claim any more valid than mine?
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dizzydog
Seaspray,
You wrote:
"Is this not what God's Word instructs?
Hebrews 004:012
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
If Wierwille's writing is "theopneustos", is it any less the Word of God than Ephesians?"
If it is the Word, who does the judging? Mike or the Word?
The Word is the discerner, not my brother in Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dizzydog
You wrote: ?You have a yardstick that you are measuring EVERYONE else with called PFAL.?
PFAL is not a yardstick for judgment, it?s a tool to get a job done that God?s called us grads out to.
What you perceive as judgement is my assertion that we have not finished deriving the huge benefits God Himself placed in the PFAL writings. I think we all have fallen short in receiving these benefits, and that should be GOOD news to you, because it means there?s more benefits to receive.
You then wrote: ?Unless God is showing you all the things in my heart you have little to criticize me with. You still don't know me.?
God IS SHOWING me, by various methods, that ALL grads have fallen short of this GREAT potential of ?all nine all the time.? It?s not a specific judgement of you. We?re all in this together.
You wrote of me: ?My best efforts to communicate with him have done little more than make me irritated again.?
I might save you some trouble. If you only goal in communication with me is to see me drop my message or stop posting data on this thread, then you need to find another goal.
You wrote: ?Whether we measure up to his (Mike's) standards seems to be the real issue.?
Like I said above, the REAL issue is whether or not we?re going to correct the problem of having so much of Dr teachings slip by us or leak out by coming back to PFAL and mastering it. Anyone who refuses will get no condemnation form me, but no expectation of assistance in the job we grads are called out to.
It?s not a matter of being ?good enough? at all. It?s a matter of being strong enough and knowledgeable enough to get the job done.
You then wrote: ?Mike preaches VPW. Ever notice how little Jesus Christ comes up in his 700 some odd posts.?
Let?s be honest. When you first met me a month ago you hadn?t read any of my 900 some posts. Now you say you?ve done a survey of them all and you see my JC Quota low? Did you REALLY check them all?
You wrote: ? If Jesus Christ is even mentioned it is in the context of something he is quoting from VPW.?
That should be expected, seeing my message is that the printed materials from The American Christian Press (Dr?s books) are closer in accuracy to the originals than anything Zondervan or traditional publishers can supply us.
*************************
Steve Lortz
You swrote: ?When Mike talks about "PFAL", he isn't really talking about the class presented by Wierwille. Mike is talking about the misinterpretations fed to him by his "advanced Christ formed within" spirits.?
Steve, you admitted this subject of ?Christ Formed? is new to you. Like your premature question on Blue Book page 24, I think you?re a bit premature on judging this one too.
You then wrote: ?Mike admits that there is a spirit, other than holy spirit, that has been "born" and is "growing" in his mind.?
Surely, Steve, you?ve heard of the ?new man nature.? That?s what this is. I think the newness of the nomenclature spooked you, so to speak.
***************************
Thomas Heller
You wrote: ?If you believe in his words, why don't you do as he said when he said that the Word was to be our only center of reference for learning and not what men wrote about it, including himself??
I am doing as he said. Your question arises from our difference in how we identify exactly WHERE God?s revealed Word can be found. What do you do when you want to put God?s Word into your hand? You put an approximation into your hand. I?m saying we have something better than that to put in our hands.
This is something I posted a few months ago here:
?I sometimes challenge friends to consider the following. I have presented the notion that Dr's books are authoritative, and that they are just as good as having God Almighty standing before us speaking the same words. If this is not true, then it's the sad case that you do not have a single book in your library that is bigger than you. All your books, and every passage in them are subject to new "discovery" as being not quite true. You can white-out and change ANYTHING that is in print if you happen to come across some other evidence that convinces you otherwise. Then, that very same evidence is subject to similar challenges in the future, and so on.
?Can you to find in your library one single book that's "bigger" than you? Can you find one that you dare not alter or disagree with, but that you can rise up to because it's bigger than you? I think you can, that is, if you still have your PFAL books.?
When we followed Dr instructions to make the Bible, God?s revealed Word, our only rule for faith and practice, we did it with the available traditional materials like versions, translations, interlinears etc.
When we consulted that ?only rule? we had in our MINDS the abstract notion of the originals, but what we had in our HANDS was the modern traditional approximate hand-me-downs from the academic/religious world.
What I?m saying is that we ALSO have an exact (almost), given in English, revelation of God?s Word, ie Bible, RULE for faith and practice in the PFAL writings. This rule is NOT abstract. We can put the books in our hands.
***********************
You then wrote: ?In an attempt to communicate with you, I was referring to the "Word" as Dr. Wierwille said he referred to the Word, not any version of the bible, but the original Word as it was God-breathed originally before it was ever copied in any way. That was the Word that he said he dedicated his life to getting back to, and that was the Word that he said we should be getting back to...?
It?s precisely HOW to get back to the originals that I am addressing.
You say by further 5-senses (mixed with God?s revelation and guidance).
I say that that job is all done, because Dr said so in Oct?82 in the same minutes he put the mantle on Craig.
I believe the job of ?getting back to? has been accomplished and is TOTALLY done for us in the PFAL writings. It was by revelation that it was gotten to and it was by revelation that God told Dr the job was done after 40 years of Dr believing the 1942 promise.
You say I?ve lost my grip, but I say it?s because of the recent grip I got on the OPEN PFAL books that I see just how much has leaked out of everyone?s memory, including mine.
********************************
chwester,
How do you handle pages 34 and 116 in the Green Book?
******************************
Goey,
You wrote: ?Calm down Rascal...?
I like that.
Hebrews was written by an Author Who had complete foreknowledge of these times we live in now.
You guys are always assuming that everything?s a logical argument. Some things aren?t arguments, just presentations or announcements. Some things are demonstrations of internal consistency, but look like circular logic if taken as theorems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike:
Thanks for replying (somewhat).
Concerning Steve's question, yes.
I followed the discussion, and the points you
and Steve made. At last I looked, Steve's
last point seems to have illustrated that
yours was an invalid statement. You said vpw
said something, and Steve pointed out it seems
to go nowhere. Therefore, either
1) Prove it goes somewhere
2) Admit it goes nowhere
I'm interested in seeing either possibility.
(Not to be confused with PRETENDING either
possibility.)
So, yes, pending further data, it looks like
that quote was a statement that, when someone
actually examines it rather than blindly
assuming it's correct, goes nowhere.
----------------------------------------------
Regarding the other points
(C,D,E, or the rape issue, the 1942 promise
and plagiarism), I didn't list the possibility
you felt they'd been discussed sufficiently,
true. I also didn't list the possibility that
you're afraid a REAL objective discussion of
shame would show that reverence of vpw and pfal
is building a house on sinking sand.
I made no speculations on that either way.
We DID discuss "the 1942 promise" on several
threads, which you avoided, covering different
aspects. Whether or not it was actual snow
or a vision of snow was the least of all the
matters discussed. Your complete silence on
those threads was rather conspicuous.
-------------------------------------------
"Hebrews was written by an AUthor Who had
complete foreknowledge of these times we live
in now."
Make up your mind, Mike.
Is Hebrews 4:12 completely unreliable, or
isn't it? It's always funny to see you say the
Bible's worthless, then quote a verse you like
later.
Another thing I'd like to ask is if you're aware
that your last statement basically said that
all of vpw's writings are referred to
retroactively as the Word of God, since you've
declared vpw's writings as such,
and that, as such, Hebrews 4:12 refers to them.
---------------------------------
You may like to post "presentations or
announcements" here. However, this is STILL a
discussion board. Anything you post here, is,
by definition, open to discussion. (As is
everything I post.) Your preferred format is
to control the discussion and talk AT, rather
than discuss, prove, disprove. Your decision.
That's suited to your own website, or your own
book. If you run your own show, you can
declare a monopoly on authority, as you prefer.
So long as you post on GSC, EVERYTHING is an
"argument" (in both senses of the term.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
I've NEVER said Hebrews in the KJV was completely unreliable. When it was supposed to be read, I read it, and learned a lot from it. I still look at it from time to time.
I'm out of time for now, but I realize I'm not done with your inventory. Will be back soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, then.....
Approximately HOW do you determine WHICH
verses, Mike, are "unreliable fragments" and
"tattered remants", and WHICH are given by
God and accurate?
Is it merely which ones agree with you? Which
ones vpw quoted? (And anything he didn't
quote is a "tattered remnant"?)
This is a much, much more important question
than any others I have on the table. I'm sure
LOTS of us would love to hear this answer.
I can stand to wait significant amounts of time
on the other questions-so long as I know the
answers ARE coming.
Please- We've just GOT to hear your criteria.
(There ARE criteria, right?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
dizzydog,
You decide for yourself whether Wierwille's work is "theopneustos". As do we all. If it is, we then have a standard against which we can measure "thoughts and intents of the heart".
If Wierwille's PFAL is "theopneustos", and Hebrews 004:012 is "theopneustos", then PFAL is "quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword".
It's not about you running me down, or me you. It's building each other up to point we manifest that Christ in us everyday, all day long. That's all nine all the time. PFAL is that which the adversary has managed to subtract from the bible over the last two thousand years. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at if God hasn't added significantly to that which the adversary subtracted.
It is clear, at least to me, that we cannot become the Christ-like men and women God has called us to become without mastering "the foundational class on Power for Abundant Living, and the Intermediate Class plus the collateral readings that accompany them".
This is the loving admonition to us from Dr. Wierwille, a man who loved God and God's people. A man who knew he would be dead within days.
By the way, let's skip the formality. seaspray is fine
[This message was edited by seaspray on June 08, 2003 at 22:21.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
WordWolf, take a break.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
seaspray ... you forgot to add a man who used God`s people ... a man who betrayed their trust, a man who sated his selfish lusts through coersion and manipulation of our sisters....yeah SURE his words were theopenustos...NOT he was a man after the flesh goof ball..... the only words of substance were the ones he *borrowed* from stiles leanard and others....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Mike and ss---you *presume* that "No grad can REALLY manifest God's power, etc., etc. without mastering PFAL, etc., etc." ...is that the jist of your argument???
If so, than only a pathetically small number of "Christians" will EVER manifest since PFAL grads are an infitestimally small drop in the bucket of Christianity. Ole vic hissef said that over 90% of scripture in KJV could be understood "right where it is written" without a commentary or even a dictionary. I refute and stand AGAINST your secret-decoder-ring brand PFALianity, which is idolatry, plain and simple.
You are damn right God Almighty will make the final call on the worthyness of the walk of ANY believer, even ole vic. But right here and now, I reject YOU and YOUR message. I will stick with my fragments--I learn more from them than you ever will, apparently. YMMV....
--> 
--> 
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
This again is only a partial answer to your encyclopedic set. We?ll whittle it down yet.
Before I answer, let me reiterate something Seaspray brought up. What?s at stake here, whether we rely on PFAL supplied scriptures or on tradition supplied scriptures, what?s at stake here (sorry Goey) is the POWER!
To rob us of the power the adversary has employed VERY SUBTLE changes and corruptions in the texts and in our understand. One word twisted here in the text, one cultural twist centuries ago there, one religious cultural bias in the reader here, all adding up to a text that can?t help the reader over the hump in believing:
?...you mean it?s Christ in ME TOO!?
...you mean ALL the things he did and greater!?
...you mean when I am weak than I TOO am strong?!?
When I say tattered I mean SPIRITUALLLY, not physically. Most of the scriptures have been successfully reconstructed, but then again, Eve had MOST of it right too!
I?m talking some subtle tattered remnants.
When I say ?tattered remnants? it?s the figure of speech exagggggerationus used to draw attention. We were taught that just ONE word added, subtracted or changed and the results can be catastrophic. Change just ONE word and you no longer have God?s Word. In a translation EVERY word gets changed just about, but that doesn?t seem to bother people too much.
Did you see the post I did on the Word written in the stars getting corrupted? How did THAT happen. It got into tattered remnants up there somehow. God?s Word in the stars became a tattered remnant, a corruption of what it was originally. How could that be? The answer will help you understand how I apply ?tattered remnants? to the admittedly fairly well preserved and transmitted copies of the originals.
******this is something I posted a month ago on another thread: ******
rascal,
You wrote: ?Hey Mike...When/how were the stars corrupted??
That?s a GREAT question! I?ve been wanting to bring this point up for a while. I?ve pointed out some of the textual problems with very early sloppy copying and deliberate forgeries that prevent us from really receiving the Bible as it?s passed down through the ages. What we have is corrupted. Lots of 5-senses scholars try to fix this, but they are trying to match wits with the devil who corrupted it, and they are no match for the big important details like power. Even Bullinger, who fixed tons of problems, was outwitted on SIT and as a result, administrations too.
However, an additional factor I?ve only glossed over is the religious bias we all bring to the scriptures. Even if we had perfect copies of the originals, and perfect translations, there STILL is a huge problem with religious bias, language evolution, and cultural bias. This may not seem like a huge impediment, but the stars prove it.
With the stars there?s no corruption in the texts. Yes the stars do slowly move, but not so much in a few thousand years. So, by the time of Babel, or even of Moses nothing had changed in the ?text? in the sky. What had changed was the environment. The spiritual environment of bias was one of complete convolution. It thwarted God?s Word just as much as the king in Jeremiah 36 who cut up the scroll God had inspired. So God just reissued that scroll with many words added. The same with the new format after the stars, the written Word has many words added, the Mystery. It took a while, but it finally was complete.
So the ?corruption? in the stars was really in the eyes of the beholders.
***************** posted May 03, 2003 18:40 ****************
When you put your ?Holy Bible? into your hands, open it up, and start reading the words, it?s not REALLY God?s Word you?re reading. You?re reading a version of a translation of a critical compilation of a large set of fragments of ?spiritually? poor copies of the original documents.
I see many surety challenges in the chain that connects me to the originals.
(1) The first is in the accurate copying and complete transmission of the originals. This was done by a reprobate church that had forsaken Paul. Peter?s dying last words also mention how most people were misunderstanding Paul.
(2) I next must assume that ALL the originals were found, i.e. the Canon is complete, and there are no missing books. There are LOTS of theologians who will assure me I need not worry about this one, but I can?t find the Biblical proof of this after 30 some years of looking. I see two things that took place in Jer.36 when God?s revealed written Word was destroyed by being cut with a knife and thrown into a fire.
The first thing in Jer.36 is that although God?s written revealed (Biblical-5senses) Word was utterly destroyed, nonetheless His Word, God?s Word, the Word of God (spiritual) continued on uninterrupted in His mind.
The next thing in Jer.36 is that some time after this destruction of the written Word, God re-issued it and in a new format, with many words added. Similarly, when His Word written in the stars was corrupted He re-issued it in a new format: hand writing. The time between destruction and re-issue for the later seems to be hundreds of years between the tower of Babel and Moses. For the Jer.36 incident it seems to be days or weeks.
I can be reasonably content with the Canon as is because Dr was content to work within it. Otherwise I?d have to find a theologian to help me over this hump who wouldn?t put me to sleep.
(3) The assembling of the critical texts leaves me with making choices as to which of the footnotes in my Interlinear I want to run with and which ones ignore. Again, the assortment of would-be authoritarian theologians is abundant. I can get out of deciding here by deferring to whoever seems to be the best... that decade.
One major problem here is that there?s no way a church can be like minded if all the permutations of these footnote alternative renderings are considered. SOMEONE would have to step forward and be the authority as to which EXACT Greek text is going to be their text.
As far as this step goes, it?s every man for himself. There IS NO authoritative Greek text, there?s many. I must rely on middle men scholars and academics to sort through all this for me.
(4) The next steps are the killers ? translation and versionating. Here I must again rely on an army of competing generals, all saying slightly different things, and NONE of them PFAL grads.
All the above steps add up and subtly influence what I can put in to my hands if I place my trust in the Zondervan route of the above theologians and scholars.
If it weren?t for Dr getting my attention in the first place, I?d have NEVER given a rat?s a$$ to know the best way through the 1-2-3-4 step minefield above. I was a cosmic scientist type rebelling from the RC doctrine and the Bible was the LAST thing I was ever going to check out.
Dr got my attention, taught me to love God, His Word, and His Son Jesus Christ, and he turned me loose to check it all out for myself the best I could. I worked the 1-2-3-4 minefield for 27 years continually judging which scholars or teams of scholars to trust when my abilities failed. Finally I came back to PFAL and realized that all that work was done for me and I need only trust Dr to have brought forth that re-issued format altered Authorized by God set of writings.
We?re ALWAYS going to be making massive decisions as to who supplies us with God?s Word until we come back to PFAL and see that?s no longer necessary. Instead of spending all my time OBTAINING the Word of God, I must now only rightly divide this Word, and apply this Word, and obey this Word, and become this Word.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 09, 2003 at 0:45.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
I agree with alfakat. Thanks alf
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
alfakat and vickles,
I see thousands coming back to PFAL. That's plenty.
Once some thousands have mastered PFAL the principles and truths will be efectually made available to all who desire to love God. In these classes NO ONE ever gets missed! NO ONE!
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.