Patently wrong, especially when everyone believes a lie.
The saying was vpw's excuse to cover his gross deficiencies.
Many times he either didn't understand fully what he was quoting from another writer
(like his inconsistent explanations of "allos" and "heteros"
and "all without distinction" in one place being "all with a distinction"
in another place).
Furthermore, a number of times he just pulled explanations out of his
donkey. How could he justify that? He could NOT- so he made a virtue
of his deficiency.
=========
Remember in pfal where vpw "explains" to the class about apologetics?
That was where we learned that this is how people learn to "apologize
for being a Christian."
Now, that was vpw pulling an explanation out of his burro.
The actual meaning, which I just grabbed in about 10 seconds
by typing "what is apologetics" into a browser,
is
" The term apologetics comes from the Greek apologia, which means "defense" or "answer." Apologetics is the task of defending a particular idea or belief system and answering its critics. The origin of the concept of apologetics lies in the beginnings of Christianity. Between the second and fourth century, a number of Christian teachers wrote defenses of Christianity against pagan critics."
(www.calvarychapel.com)
So, the word "apologetics" means a "defense" or "answer",
and is not an "apology" at all.
This would have been obvious to vpw if he was even 1/2 way competent
in Greek studies as he often put forth with all his explanations from the
Greek (cribbed mostly from Bullinger). However, as you all should remember,
he never studied Greek texts or even Church history
(which would have educated him on the development of early apologetics),
but he himself said his specialty was "Homiletics", or "Preaching".
(The softest option available, really.)
BTW, wikipedia has this to say on "apologetics"...
"Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist or an "apologete". The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning defense of a position against an attack."
" The term apologetics etymologically derives from the Classical Greek word apologia. In Classical Greek legal system two key technical terms were employed: the prosecution delivered the kategoria, and the defendant replied with an apologia. To deliver an apologia then meant making a formal speech to reply and rebut the charges, as in the case of Socrates' defence.
This Classical Greek term appears in the Koine (i.e. common) Greek of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul employs the term apologia in his trial speech to Festus and Agrippa when he says "I make my defence" (Acts 26:2). A cognate term appears in Paul's letter to the Philippians as he is "defending the gospel" (1:7 & 17), and in 1 Peter 3:15 believers must be ready to give an "answer" for their faith. The word also appears in the negative in Rom. 1:20: unbelievers are αναπολόγητος (anapologētos) (without excuse / defence / apology) for rejecting the revelation of God in creation."
"In the English language, the word apology is derived from the Greek word apologia, but its use has changed; its primary sense now refers to a defensive plea for forgiveness for an action that is open to blame. It is occasionally used to refer to a speech or writing that defends the author's position."
=======
vpw was so deficient in apologetics-explaining WHY a belief should be held-
that he evaded the entire subject and smeared it with a label.
Did he do that deliberately, knowing what the term meant and deliberately
lying about it?
Or was he so incompetent that he couldn't even open a collegiate dictionary
to find its definition, which is something our supposed "Greek scholar"
should have been able to rattle off from memory?
Take your pick-it was one or the other.
(And of course, I'm evil for even mentioning it. I'll put that on my tab.)
===========
BTW,
vpw plagiarized the style of "never try to explain when you can declare
something true by divine fiat" like he plagiarized nearly everything else.
"Lamsa considered himself to be the man God set aside and inspired for our times, and his followers still view him as such. One even senses in Lamsa's writings an implicit claim that he stands in the line of apostles with Moses, Jesus, Paul, and Mohammed. Lamsa explains his unique calling through editor Tom Alyea: "God had revealed to Lamsa his purpose and how it was to be done. It was a one-man job. In the Bible testimony is given that God spoke to man; however, it is not recorded where he spoke to a committee...Yes, only one man could translate the Bible from Aramaic. God knew it, and Lamsa knew it, and so it was."49
Lamsa also attempts to establish scholarly credentials as a means of gaining acceptance. He claims to have been born about 1892, and to have acquired an A.B. degree equivalent in 1907 and a Ph.D. equivalent in theology in 1908 from Archbishop of Canterbury's College, Turkey.50 He also claims to have graduated from Episcopal Theology Seminary in Virginia51 and to have studied at the University of Pennsylvania and Dropsie College.
Lamsa, however, appears to have exaggerated his academic credentials. First, he claims to have attained a Ph.D. at age 16, only one year after his A.B.52 Second, there are no records of his graduation from a seminary, and his own writings suggest that he was never at any school long enough to attain any valid degree.
Lamsa's writing style reflects his exalted view of his own mission and character. He usually writes embellished narratives or discourses, not documenting either blanket assertions or detailed comments. For example, he dismisses his lack of supporting evidence for his theory that the New Testament was originally authored in Aramaic by saying, "What is a fact needs no defense."53 He assumes that his peculiar habits, culture, superstitions, idioms, and musings all match and illuminate Scripture, resulting in often incorrect or simplistic interpretations. By contrast, scholars in the fields of New Testament studies and Aramaic offer detailed evidence, accept criticisms, and yield much more cautious and informed conclusions.
======
Simply put,
twi tries to declare everything they say as true beyond question-
and then suppresses the questions.
This was instilled from the beginning by vpw himself.
Patently wrong, especially when everyone believes a lie.
The saying was vpw's excuse to cover his gross deficiencies.
As I recall, the saying was made in the context of witnessing, that's all.
When we go out witnessing, we do not have to defend truth, we simply are witnesses to it.
We preach and teach.. but to stand there and defend and argue all day is wasting time and energy.
Like speaking in tongues. I can argue all day with someone trying to defend SIT, whereas all I have to do is teach what I know and be a witness to its benefits.
There are folks who will not believe, no matter what, so why get in defense mode?
Of course, if one chooses to argue all day, well, that's their chosen course.
Don't you remember one of our admonitions to preach to everyone once before someone even gets a second hearing? Shake the dust off your feet if someone doesn't believe? That happened to me oodles of times. The idea was, more folks won't believe than believe so don't waste a lot of time on unbelievers.
Regardless... maybe "TRUTH NEEDS NO DEFENSE" is a true statement... heck, I believe it is, however I might have phrased it "truth needs no argument" because truth is what it is... there's no arguing it...
And maybe, just maybe "truth needs no defense" is as solid a statement as there can be... maybe, just maybe... if TWI is spending so much time "defending" and "arguing"...
...well... maybe that's just an indication of how much "truth" they represent...
So much has been said at this site about how folks have "hung onto the truth that they were taught" how they "didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater"... IMHO there was truth there all along, the greater percentage of it in folks hearts... but as TWI grew more and more, the percentage of truth TWI represented shrank and shrank... in direct proportion to the percentage of bullwinkle increasing...
Perhaps "Truth Needs No Defense" can be used in either light. I think WordWolf brings up a good point though.
If truth needs no defense, it also stands to reason that "Truth Has Nothing to Hide" and "Truth Has No Fear of Questions". While the original statement may be true, it has been used as a means to cover error and indiscretion, and to sidestep or rebuff questions.
Oldiesman is correct; VP used the phrase in the context of witnessing. In my WOW syllabus it says to answer a question with a question in order to keep the truth of God's word on the offensive.
Lawyers deal with accusations which are based on claimed facts. Jesus most definitely tried to defend Himself in front of Annas, Caiaphas, and Pilate. Paul defended himself in front of the Council, Festus, and Matt Dillon...er...I mean Agrippa.
This strategy won't work every time. That's why Proverbs 26:4 & 5 gives us a choice. Answer a fool according to his folly, which Jesus did (Luke 15 and the latter half of Luke 16) or answer not a fool according to his folly (Mark 12) in which Jesus answered questions with questions.
If you're witnessing and you KNOW that somebody is just not going to do anything other than belittle you and what you stand for, then you don't have to be so nice to them. Some of you are committed to bearing witness to your misery here on GSC. Are you going to be nice if someone belittles you for that?
It was not ONLY used in context of witnessing you guys! C'mon. How long were you in TWI? My wife and I heard this stated in many teachings NOT in context of witnessing but in other contexts as well. Also in quite a few of the hundreds of Corps teachings we sat through.
Any fool in sales knows that you don't keep hammering a customer who is not interested. Many of our witnessing techniques were taken directly from Dale Carnagie's techniques and changed around to fit our product. The "truth needs no defense" angle was NOT why we didn't waste time on them. Basically it was better to move on to a paying customer. The most common scriptures used to justify it were the ones about "after the 1st and 2nd admonition reject" and "shake the dust off your feet" was how we mentally handled our many sales rejections.
Anyway, truth needs no defense was a commonly used phrase throughout the fabric of TWI. Lots of leaders used that phrase in their teachings.
Looking back it seemed arrogant. Like we have the real truth and no one else does and we do not need to defend our little comfortable world. Sounds kinda like the Geerites of today.
I'm with HegotHope on this one... the witnessing "techniques" were nothing but rehashed Dale Carnegie principles (with no credit given). TWI even tried teaching their version of Carnegie to us in the Corps. I can still use er I mean win friends and use er I mean influence people with the best of 'em...
If you're witnessing and you KNOW that somebody is just not going to do anything other than belittle you and what you stand for, then you don't have to be so nice to them. Some of you are committed to bearing witness to your misery here on GSC. Are you going to be nice if someone belittles you for that?
You mean if they actually question the validity of the theology your trying to shove down their throats?
C'mon, "Truth needs no defense" was used almost exclusively to avoid "arguing theology" with folks... and why? ...because they were arguments that couldn't be won for the most part...
Oldiesman is correct; VP used the phrase in the context of witnessing.
No one questioned that- so continuing to bring it up is at best, a non-issue,
and at worst, a smokescreen.
It is the claim that this was the SOLE USE that is being directly challenged.
In my WOW syllabus it says to answer a question with a question in order to keep the truth of God's word on the offensive.
Separate issue-but it is often intellectually dishonest to respond to people's
questions not by answering them-but by giving them a question back.
Supposedly, we had all the answers-but we're responding with questions?
"I have a jack, but I'm not going to help you."
Reminds me of Session 1.
And what does it mean to
"keep the truth of God's word on the offensive"?
Was that supposed to be taken to mean be offensive when witnessing?
This little snippet-with answering questions with questions-might suggest
that if this is ALL the information on the subject-
I expect there was a lot more...
Lawyers deal with accusations which are based on claimed facts.
Or you could have just used the above example...
" The term apologetics etymologically derives from the Classical Greek word apologia. In Classical Greek legal system two key technical terms were employed: the prosecution delivered the kategoria, and the defendant replied with an apologia. To deliver an apologia then meant making a formal speech to reply and rebut the charges, as in the case of Socrates' defence.
This Classical Greek term appears in the Koine (i.e. common) Greek of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul employs the term apologia in his trial speech to Festus and Agrippa when he says "I make my defence" (Acts 26:2). A cognate term appears in Paul's letter to the Philippians as he is "defending the gospel" (1:7 & 17), and in 1 Peter 3:15 believers must be ready to give an "answer" for their faith. The word also appears in the negative in Rom. 1:20: unbelievers are αναπολόγητος (anapologētos) (without excuse / defence / apology) for rejecting the revelation of God in creation."
Jesus most definitely tried to defend Himself in front of Annas, Caiaphas, and Pilate. Paul defended himself in front of the Council, Festus, and Matt Dillon...er...I mean Agrippa.
Paul definitely offered a defense to Agrippa.
(Agrippa: "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.")
I question whether Jesus really tried to defend himself- knowing a successful
defense-if it WAS possible-would have really wrecked "The Plan".
But, that's a subject for a Doctrinal thread.
Speaking of which, sounds like Paul was not on the same page about apologetics
as vpw...
This strategy won't work every time. That's why Proverbs 26:4 & 5 gives us a choice. Answer a fool according to his folly, which Jesus did (Luke 15 and the latter half of Luke 16) or answer not a fool according to his folly (Mark 12) in which Jesus answered questions with questions.
They "sought to entangle him" verbally. They were trying to get him in
trouble, and throwing up a smokescreen. There's a huge difference
between that and never engaging in apologetics. In fact,
you just made a case against vpw, using Jesus as a compelling example.
(Luke 15 & 16.)
If you're witnessing and you KNOW that somebody is just not going to do anything other than belittle you and what you stand for, then you don't have to be so nice to them. Some of you are committed to bearing witness to your misery here on GSC. Are you going to be nice if someone belittles you for that?
Smokescreen.
We're barely addressing "witnessing", because we all seem to agree that this was
ONE-count 'em-ONE-usage of the term, and none of us seems eager to claim
that it's entirely inappropriate to be used then and there.
(Maybe in a separate discussion...)
We're discussing the OTHER usages of the term,
as in
"If truth needs no defense, it also stands to reason that
"Truth Has Nothing to Hide"
and
"Truth Has No Fear of Questions".
While the original statement may be true, it has been used as a means to cover error and indiscretion, and to sidestep or rebuff questions."
You may have missed somehow that THIS is where we were going with the discussion.
Wordwolfe, if you are not a lawyer you ought to be one. You're good.
Hey Tom Strange,
Remember Bill Hayes's (God rest his soul) famous Christian Motivational Techniques or Mo Tec for short. I abhorred that class because I hated doing stuff in front of a group. But I really enjoyed the Carnagie techniques we were taught.
As I recall, Bill was a Dale Carnagie Instructor before he got in TWI.
Then guess what he developed with VPW's approval. Mo Tech!!
It made us better salesmen indeed. PFAL classes were rollig down the pike as we applied our Carnagie techniques. They work.
Another 6th Corps guy taught us a speed reading class, taken from Ms. Evelyn Woods speed reading courses that he was familiar with. I actually liked a lot of those classes better than some boring bible teachings.
Sorry, I digress. But then again, my truth needs no defense so .... Phuq you.
Wordwolfe, if you are not a lawyer you ought to be one. You're good.
Hey Tom Strange,
Remember Bill Hayes's (God rest his soul) famous Christian Motivational Techniques or Mo Tec for short. I abhorred that class because I hated doing stuff in front of a group. But I really enjoyed the Carnagie techniques we were taught.
As I recall, Bill was a Dale Carnagie Instructor before he got in TWI.
Then guess what he developed with VPW's approval. Mo Tech!!
Of course I do! ...and guess what? I still have the syllabus up there in that bookcase! (and my notes)
My wife (non TWI) used to marvel at how I could manipulate er motivate people to do what I wanted them to do... I told her I learned it in the cult, but that now I only use my powers for good! She often wonders what other "powers" I learned... I think I'll just keep her guessing on that!
I never went to any corps meetings, but in 18 years I never heard that phrase used outside the context of witnessing. Either there IS a word of God which is the truth, or there ISN'T. Jesus says there is (John 17:17). But who's Jesus? He was just some cult leader talking about his 12 cult members, right? Gee, His cult grew pretty good, didn't it? He must've used mind control.
I never went to any corps meetings, but in 18 years I never heard that phrase used outside the context of witnessing. Either there IS a word of God which is the truth, or there ISN'T. Jesus says there is (John 17:17). But who's Jesus? He was just some cult leader talking about his 12 cult members, right? Gee, His cult grew pretty good, didn't it? He must've used mind control.
Johniam, I'm thinking that Jesus probably never told his disciples "Truth needs no defense" if they asked him a question and also willing to bet that he probably didn't instruct them to use that phrase either.
And there's a great chasm of difference between Jesus' ministry and TWI... maybe even a canyon...
...but I still enjoy using "the powers" now and then...
Wordwolfe, if you are not a lawyer you ought to be one. You're good.
Thanks kindly, but even the internet has better debators and arguers than me.
Hey Tom Strange,
Remember Bill Hayes's (God rest his soul) famous Christian Motivational Techniques or Mo Tec for short. I abhorred that class because I hated doing stuff in front of a group. But I really enjoyed the Carnegie techniques we were taught.
As I recall, Bill was a Dale Carnegie Instructor before he got in TWI.
Then guess what he developed with VPW's approval. Mo Tech!!
It made us better salesmen indeed. PFAL classes were rollig down the pike as we applied our Carnegie techniques. They work.
Can't seem to find offhand the place where someone quoted vpw complaining
about the dedication of the corps, and how some of the current ones were only
there to learn the (Dale) Carnegie stuff.
I thought it was "vp & me", but it's apparently somewhere in "Passing of the Patriarch."
Funny thing to complain about, for the guy who signed off on putting it IN the
program in the first place...
Another 6th Corps guy taught us a speed reading class, taken from Ms. Evelyn Woods speed reading courses that he was familiar with. I actually liked a lot of those classes better than some boring bible teachings.
Sorry, I digress. But then again, my truth needs no defense so .... Phuq you.
quote: Johniam, I'm thinking that Jesus probably never told his disciples "Truth needs no defense" if they asked him a question and also willing to bet that he probably didn't instruct them to use that phrase either.
Of course He never taught that. He didn't speak English, ha ha. But on at least one occasion He showed them how. Remember Mark 9 when that man was putting Jesus disciples on the defensive because they couldn't heal his kid? Then the man tried the same crap on Jesus but Jesus basically asked the man if he could believe. He didn't go on the defensive. That canyon just became a crack in the sidewalk.
Recommended Posts
Abigail
It also leaves one wondering why they have to spend so much money on defense attorneys
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Ha...truth?? We can`t handle the TRUTH!!! lol that was why there was so much *lock box* stuff..
The defense attornies are obviously to protect twi from those who aren`t spiritual enough to get the truth....bless their poor persecuted hearts
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Truth needs no defense."
Patently wrong, especially when everyone believes a lie.
The saying was vpw's excuse to cover his gross deficiencies.
Many times he either didn't understand fully what he was quoting from another writer
(like his inconsistent explanations of "allos" and "heteros"
and "all without distinction" in one place being "all with a distinction"
in another place).
Furthermore, a number of times he just pulled explanations out of his
donkey. How could he justify that? He could NOT- so he made a virtue
of his deficiency.
=========
Remember in pfal where vpw "explains" to the class about apologetics?
That was where we learned that this is how people learn to "apologize
for being a Christian."
Now, that was vpw pulling an explanation out of his burro.
The actual meaning, which I just grabbed in about 10 seconds
by typing "what is apologetics" into a browser,
is
" The term apologetics comes from the Greek apologia, which means "defense" or "answer." Apologetics is the task of defending a particular idea or belief system and answering its critics. The origin of the concept of apologetics lies in the beginnings of Christianity. Between the second and fourth century, a number of Christian teachers wrote defenses of Christianity against pagan critics."
(www.calvarychapel.com)
So, the word "apologetics" means a "defense" or "answer",
and is not an "apology" at all.
This would have been obvious to vpw if he was even 1/2 way competent
in Greek studies as he often put forth with all his explanations from the
Greek (cribbed mostly from Bullinger). However, as you all should remember,
he never studied Greek texts or even Church history
(which would have educated him on the development of early apologetics),
but he himself said his specialty was "Homiletics", or "Preaching".
(The softest option available, really.)
BTW, wikipedia has this to say on "apologetics"...
"Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist or an "apologete". The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning defense of a position against an attack."
" The term apologetics etymologically derives from the Classical Greek word apologia. In Classical Greek legal system two key technical terms were employed: the prosecution delivered the kategoria, and the defendant replied with an apologia. To deliver an apologia then meant making a formal speech to reply and rebut the charges, as in the case of Socrates' defence.
This Classical Greek term appears in the Koine (i.e. common) Greek of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul employs the term apologia in his trial speech to Festus and Agrippa when he says "I make my defence" (Acts 26:2). A cognate term appears in Paul's letter to the Philippians as he is "defending the gospel" (1:7 & 17), and in 1 Peter 3:15 believers must be ready to give an "answer" for their faith. The word also appears in the negative in Rom. 1:20: unbelievers are αναπολόγητος (anapologētos) (without excuse / defence / apology) for rejecting the revelation of God in creation."
"In the English language, the word apology is derived from the Greek word apologia, but its use has changed; its primary sense now refers to a defensive plea for forgiveness for an action that is open to blame. It is occasionally used to refer to a speech or writing that defends the author's position."
=======
vpw was so deficient in apologetics-explaining WHY a belief should be held-
that he evaded the entire subject and smeared it with a label.
Did he do that deliberately, knowing what the term meant and deliberately
lying about it?
Or was he so incompetent that he couldn't even open a collegiate dictionary
to find its definition, which is something our supposed "Greek scholar"
should have been able to rattle off from memory?
Take your pick-it was one or the other.
(And of course, I'm evil for even mentioning it. I'll put that on my tab.)
===========
BTW,
vpw plagiarized the style of "never try to explain when you can declare
something true by divine fiat" like he plagiarized nearly everything else.
He got it from LAMSA.
http://www.equip.org/free/DL010.htm
"Lamsa considered himself to be the man God set aside and inspired for our times, and his followers still view him as such. One even senses in Lamsa's writings an implicit claim that he stands in the line of apostles with Moses, Jesus, Paul, and Mohammed. Lamsa explains his unique calling through editor Tom Alyea: "God had revealed to Lamsa his purpose and how it was to be done. It was a one-man job. In the Bible testimony is given that God spoke to man; however, it is not recorded where he spoke to a committee...Yes, only one man could translate the Bible from Aramaic. God knew it, and Lamsa knew it, and so it was."49
Lamsa also attempts to establish scholarly credentials as a means of gaining acceptance. He claims to have been born about 1892, and to have acquired an A.B. degree equivalent in 1907 and a Ph.D. equivalent in theology in 1908 from Archbishop of Canterbury's College, Turkey.50 He also claims to have graduated from Episcopal Theology Seminary in Virginia51 and to have studied at the University of Pennsylvania and Dropsie College.
Lamsa, however, appears to have exaggerated his academic credentials. First, he claims to have attained a Ph.D. at age 16, only one year after his A.B.52 Second, there are no records of his graduation from a seminary, and his own writings suggest that he was never at any school long enough to attain any valid degree.
Lamsa's writing style reflects his exalted view of his own mission and character. He usually writes embellished narratives or discourses, not documenting either blanket assertions or detailed comments. For example, he dismisses his lack of supporting evidence for his theory that the New Testament was originally authored in Aramaic by saying, "What is a fact needs no defense."53 He assumes that his peculiar habits, culture, superstitions, idioms, and musings all match and illuminate Scripture, resulting in often incorrect or simplistic interpretations. By contrast, scholars in the fields of New Testament studies and Aramaic offer detailed evidence, accept criticisms, and yield much more cautious and informed conclusions.
======
Simply put,
twi tries to declare everything they say as true beyond question-
and then suppresses the questions.
This was instilled from the beginning by vpw himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
As I recall, the saying was made in the context of witnessing, that's all.
When we go out witnessing, we do not have to defend truth, we simply are witnesses to it.
We preach and teach.. but to stand there and defend and argue all day is wasting time and energy.
Like speaking in tongues. I can argue all day with someone trying to defend SIT, whereas all I have to do is teach what I know and be a witness to its benefits.
There are folks who will not believe, no matter what, so why get in defense mode?
Of course, if one chooses to argue all day, well, that's their chosen course.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Geeze...twi wastes a lot of time and energy, then...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Don't you remember one of our admonitions to preach to everyone once before someone even gets a second hearing? Shake the dust off your feet if someone doesn't believe? That happened to me oodles of times. The idea was, more folks won't believe than believe so don't waste a lot of time on unbelievers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
And if your memory is that was the SOLE context in which that statement was made,
your memory is rather selective..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
How would you know that my memory is selective, if I say the sole context of the statement made was what I recollected?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Regardless... maybe "TRUTH NEEDS NO DEFENSE" is a true statement... heck, I believe it is, however I might have phrased it "truth needs no argument" because truth is what it is... there's no arguing it...
And maybe, just maybe "truth needs no defense" is as solid a statement as there can be... maybe, just maybe... if TWI is spending so much time "defending" and "arguing"...
...well... maybe that's just an indication of how much "truth" they represent...
So much has been said at this site about how folks have "hung onto the truth that they were taught" how they "didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater"... IMHO there was truth there all along, the greater percentage of it in folks hearts... but as TWI grew more and more, the percentage of truth TWI represented shrank and shrank... in direct proportion to the percentage of bullwinkle increasing...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shortfuse
Perhaps "Truth Needs No Defense" can be used in either light. I think WordWolf brings up a good point though.
If truth needs no defense, it also stands to reason that "Truth Has Nothing to Hide" and "Truth Has No Fear of Questions". While the original statement may be true, it has been used as a means to cover error and indiscretion, and to sidestep or rebuff questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Well put. That WAS the point I was getting at.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Oldiesman is correct; VP used the phrase in the context of witnessing. In my WOW syllabus it says to answer a question with a question in order to keep the truth of God's word on the offensive.
Lawyers deal with accusations which are based on claimed facts. Jesus most definitely tried to defend Himself in front of Annas, Caiaphas, and Pilate. Paul defended himself in front of the Council, Festus, and Matt Dillon...er...I mean Agrippa.
This strategy won't work every time. That's why Proverbs 26:4 & 5 gives us a choice. Answer a fool according to his folly, which Jesus did (Luke 15 and the latter half of Luke 16) or answer not a fool according to his folly (Mark 12) in which Jesus answered questions with questions.
If you're witnessing and you KNOW that somebody is just not going to do anything other than belittle you and what you stand for, then you don't have to be so nice to them. Some of you are committed to bearing witness to your misery here on GSC. Are you going to be nice if someone belittles you for that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
It was not ONLY used in context of witnessing you guys! C'mon. How long were you in TWI? My wife and I heard this stated in many teachings NOT in context of witnessing but in other contexts as well. Also in quite a few of the hundreds of Corps teachings we sat through.
Any fool in sales knows that you don't keep hammering a customer who is not interested. Many of our witnessing techniques were taken directly from Dale Carnagie's techniques and changed around to fit our product. The "truth needs no defense" angle was NOT why we didn't waste time on them. Basically it was better to move on to a paying customer. The most common scriptures used to justify it were the ones about "after the 1st and 2nd admonition reject" and "shake the dust off your feet" was how we mentally handled our many sales rejections.
Anyway, truth needs no defense was a commonly used phrase throughout the fabric of TWI. Lots of leaders used that phrase in their teachings.
Looking back it seemed arrogant. Like we have the real truth and no one else does and we do not need to defend our little comfortable world. Sounds kinda like the Geerites of today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I'm with HegotHope on this one... the witnessing "techniques" were nothing but rehashed Dale Carnegie principles (with no credit given). TWI even tried teaching their version of Carnegie to us in the Corps. I can still use er I mean win friends and use er I mean influence people with the best of 'em...
You mean if they actually question the validity of the theology your trying to shove down their throats?
C'mon, "Truth needs no defense" was used almost exclusively to avoid "arguing theology" with folks... and why? ...because they were arguments that couldn't be won for the most part...
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No one questioned that- so continuing to bring it up is at best, a non-issue,
and at worst, a smokescreen.
It is the claim that this was the SOLE USE that is being directly challenged.
Separate issue-but it is often intellectually dishonest to respond to people'squestions not by answering them-but by giving them a question back.
Supposedly, we had all the answers-but we're responding with questions?
"I have a jack, but I'm not going to help you."
Reminds me of Session 1.
And what does it mean to
"keep the truth of God's word on the offensive"?
Was that supposed to be taken to mean be offensive when witnessing?
This little snippet-with answering questions with questions-might suggest
that if this is ALL the information on the subject-
I expect there was a lot more...
Or you could have just used the above example...
" The term apologetics etymologically derives from the Classical Greek word apologia. In Classical Greek legal system two key technical terms were employed: the prosecution delivered the kategoria, and the defendant replied with an apologia. To deliver an apologia then meant making a formal speech to reply and rebut the charges, as in the case of Socrates' defence.
This Classical Greek term appears in the Koine (i.e. common) Greek of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul employs the term apologia in his trial speech to Festus and Agrippa when he says "I make my defence" (Acts 26:2). A cognate term appears in Paul's letter to the Philippians as he is "defending the gospel" (1:7 & 17), and in 1 Peter 3:15 believers must be ready to give an "answer" for their faith. The word also appears in the negative in Rom. 1:20: unbelievers are αναπολόγητος (anapologētos) (without excuse / defence / apology) for rejecting the revelation of God in creation."
Paul definitely offered a defense to Agrippa.(Agrippa: "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.")
I question whether Jesus really tried to defend himself- knowing a successful
defense-if it WAS possible-would have really wrecked "The Plan".
But, that's a subject for a Doctrinal thread.
Speaking of which, sounds like Paul was not on the same page about apologetics
as vpw...
They "sought to entangle him" verbally. They were trying to get him in
trouble, and throwing up a smokescreen. There's a huge difference
between that and never engaging in apologetics. In fact,
you just made a case against vpw, using Jesus as a compelling example.
(Luke 15 & 16.)
Smokescreen.
We're barely addressing "witnessing", because we all seem to agree that this was
ONE-count 'em-ONE-usage of the term, and none of us seems eager to claim
that it's entirely inappropriate to be used then and there.
(Maybe in a separate discussion...)
We're discussing the OTHER usages of the term,
as in
"If truth needs no defense, it also stands to reason that
"Truth Has Nothing to Hide"
and
"Truth Has No Fear of Questions".
While the original statement may be true, it has been used as a means to cover error and indiscretion, and to sidestep or rebuff questions."
You may have missed somehow that THIS is where we were going with the discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Wordwolfe, if you are not a lawyer you ought to be one. You're good.
Hey Tom Strange,
Remember Bill Hayes's (God rest his soul) famous Christian Motivational Techniques or Mo Tec for short. I abhorred that class because I hated doing stuff in front of a group. But I really enjoyed the Carnagie techniques we were taught.
As I recall, Bill was a Dale Carnagie Instructor before he got in TWI.
Then guess what he developed with VPW's approval. Mo Tech!!
It made us better salesmen indeed. PFAL classes were rollig down the pike as we applied our Carnagie techniques. They work.
Another 6th Corps guy taught us a speed reading class, taken from Ms. Evelyn Woods speed reading courses that he was familiar with. I actually liked a lot of those classes better than some boring bible teachings.
Sorry, I digress. But then again, my truth needs no defense so .... Phuq you.
Edited by igotoutLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Of course I do! ...and guess what? I still have the syllabus up there in that bookcase! (and my notes)
My wife (non TWI) used to marvel at how I could manipulate er motivate people to do what I wanted them to do... I told her I learned it in the cult, but that now I only use my powers for good! She often wonders what other "powers" I learned... I think I'll just keep her guessing on that!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I never went to any corps meetings, but in 18 years I never heard that phrase used outside the context of witnessing. Either there IS a word of God which is the truth, or there ISN'T. Jesus says there is (John 17:17). But who's Jesus? He was just some cult leader talking about his 12 cult members, right? Gee, His cult grew pretty good, didn't it? He must've used mind control.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Maybe there is a "Word of God" that CONTAINS truth but is not the only truth.
Don't be so narrow minded. Think outside TWI
the box.
I love making the following statement loud and clear to my self these days:
"The Bible is NOT my only rule of faith and practice."
To me that's dangerous territory.
Edited by igotoutLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Johniam, I'm thinking that Jesus probably never told his disciples "Truth needs no defense" if they asked him a question and also willing to bet that he probably didn't instruct them to use that phrase either.
And there's a great chasm of difference between Jesus' ministry and TWI... maybe even a canyon...
...but I still enjoy using "the powers" now and then...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Thanks kindly, but even the internet has better debators and arguers than me.
Can't seem to find offhand the place where someone quoted vpw complainingabout the dedication of the corps, and how some of the current ones were only
there to learn the (Dale) Carnegie stuff.
I thought it was "vp & me", but it's apparently somewhere in "Passing of the Patriarch."
Funny thing to complain about, for the guy who signed off on putting it IN the
program in the first place...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
He said thy word IS truth, not thy word contains truth. If that's being narrow minded, so be it. TWI was just the messenger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Johniam, I'm thinking that Jesus probably never told his disciples "Truth needs no defense" if they asked him a question and also willing to bet that he probably didn't instruct them to use that phrase either.
Of course He never taught that. He didn't speak English, ha ha. But on at least one occasion He showed them how. Remember Mark 9 when that man was putting Jesus disciples on the defensive because they couldn't heal his kid? Then the man tried the same crap on Jesus but Jesus basically asked the man if he could believe. He didn't go on the defensive. That canyon just became a crack in the sidewalk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Well put Johnno ! That comment really needs no 'defense' !
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.