No, I have none of the books, tossed them years ago. Even my very costly Univ. Life tapes.
Larry, you posted in the other thread you had all that stuff on your computer. Did I mis-read it? VP taught sin in the blood stream in pfal. That much I remember.
Totally irrelevant, but I read a verse the other day in the OT that blows away VP's assertion there is no degree of sin. I'll find it again.
If he still has them, he'd need to know which one to reference, and where.
So, it's an easy-sounding request, but may not be at all easy to fill, depending.
Well, fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) I have all his books and have them electronically stored on my computer. So it's easier for me to do a search for anything VP might have said in his books. In just doing a cursory word search in the book "PFAL" all I can find in reference to the blood is in regards to the transfer of the soul-life and how the blood had become contaminated. However, I could quote something from him and it might not be what spot has in mind.
Perhaps, spot can quote the section in Romans she/he's referring to. That should be no problem.
Spot, I was composing my post (and doing a little research at the same time) so I didn't see your response until after I hit the "Add Reply" button. Sorry for not knowing your gender and thanks for clearing that up.
Larry, you posted in the other thread you had all that stuff on your computer. Did I mis-read it? VP taught sin in the blood stream in pfal.
Spot, I just did a word search of all the places in PFAL where VP mentions the word blood and at no time did he say that "sin is in the blood stream." I'll double-check that book and check out his other books when I have more time.
Might want to cross-check it against the phrase "innocent blood" when he was expounding on
Judas' statement on betraying Jesus. That might be where he gave the sin-blood connection
he held forth.
Ok, I did and this . . .
Children partake of both flesh and blood, but Jesus Christ did not partake of flesh and blood; He only took part. According to the flesh, He was born of Mary; but according to the soul life that was in His blood, He was by divine conception. Thus Judas spoke a truth when he said, "I have betrayed the innocent blood."
. . . is the only place in PFAL that the phrase "innocent blood" is mentioned.
Right- check the surrounding exposition. His discussion of why the "innocent" blood is "innocent" SHOULD
have what we're looking for.
Well, I already did that and the subject (in context) concerns the soul-life of man. No place in the body of the book does VP say anything about the "sin nature" of man being IN the blood. I'll check his other writings out (in a bit).
I can only find one reference (other than the one I previously cited) that mentions "innocent blood" and that is found in The Word's Way:
Conception by the Holy Spirit was the only way Jesus Christ could be conceived. Mary nurtured the body of Jesus in her womb and He became the line of Adam and David according to the flesh. The Holy Spirit contributed the soul-life in the blood of Jesus by way of the sperm. In His arteries and veins there was sinless soul-life. When Judas betrayed Jesus he confessed according to Matthew 27:4, “I have betrayed the innocent blood.” Sin made the original soul-life corruptible, but the soul-life of Jesus was from God.
It may be possible to conclude (and I can see how others might do so) that the phrase "In His arteries and veins there was sinless soul-life." supports the assertion that VP stated "sin nature was in the blood" but, I'll have to give it more thought before I can arrive at the conclusion that that's what he was saying.
Larry, it may be you won’t find it. The PFAL book is not a transcript of the class. It has a lot, but not all. I remember it being taught because it drove me crazy for years. That is, I couldn’t make sense out of Romans because of it. I am sorry you’ve spent so much time looking for it and been unable to find it.
Really the thrust of the thread isn’t particularly to discount VP. If it happens, it does. I guess I shouldn't have said he taught it since I can't document it.
I am sorry you’ve spent so much time looking for it and been unable to find it.
That's ok. It took no more than fifteen minutes to do a search of the books I listed.
Really the thrust of the thread isn’t particularly to discount VP.
The subject is one which is interesting in itself. If you haven't yet looked on the Internet you'll find lots of essays written on it. Some quite good.
I guess I shouldn't have said he taught it since I can't document it.
I think we all have done that at one time or another and not only with regards to VP. In earlier days (in this venue) I was called on it quite often.
Now, if it's not too much trouble for you could you cite the section in Romans that you're referring to and maybe a brief explanation of how you understand it?
Even just going from what's there, it seems that's what he was saying.
"Conception by the Holy Spirit was the only way Jesus Christ could be conceived. Mary nurtured the body of Jesus in her womb and He became the line of Adam and David according to the flesh. The Holy Spirit contributed the soul-life in the blood of Jesus by way of the sperm. In His arteries and veins there was sinless soul-life. When Judas betrayed Jesus he confessed according to Matthew 27:4, “I have betrayed the innocent blood.” Sin made the original soul-life corruptible, but the soul-life of Jesus was from God."
"contributed the soul-life in the blood" "the soul-life of Jesus was from God" "In His arteries and veins there was sinless soul-life."
"When Judas betrayed Jesus he confessed according to Matthew 27:4, “I have betrayed the innocent blood.”"
So, he was saying that Jesus' blood/"soul-life" was sinless, & that because it was from God.
He contrasted that to the blood of everyone else:
" Sin made the original soul-life corruptible, but the soul-life of Jesus was from God."
Therefore, according to vpw,
"Jesus blood=sinless, innocent"
"everyone else's blood=NOT sinless and innocent."
Otherwise, he would not be making any comparison there at all.
Whether or not he was right was a separate issue- this was what he intended to say, and succeeded in saying.
this was what he intended to say, and succeeded in saying.
Well, yeah like I said -- I can see how others might make that conclusion. However, since at this point I don't draw the same conclusion I can't say he "succeeded in saying" that. I suppose, if that's what I really wanted to believe he meant it might be easier.
Well, yeah like I said -- I can see how others might make that conclusion. However, since at this point I don't draw the same conclusion I can't say he "succeeded in saying" that. I suppose, if that's what I really wanted to believe he meant it might be easier.
I have a transcript of the class. I'll check it out for you.
Well, yeah like I said -- I can see how others might make that conclusion. However, since at this point I don't draw the same conclusion I can't say he "succeeded in saying" that. I suppose, if that's what I really wanted to believe he meant it might be easier.
I'm not convinced one way or the other he was definitely correct, but I see that as the information he
intended to impart, reflected by how he said it.
A complication, of course, is that he himself didn't really edit the S.I.A.L. books- the editing staff did.
Therefore, the EXACT phrasing was how they interpreted his intent and phrasing to the best of their
abilities, which is not an absolute guarantee it's phrased EXACTLY as he would have.
So, it's more sure to say what the editing staff believed than what HE believed in that chapter.
I think that transcript of the class will be more explicit as to what vpw himself said moreso than
this-which, pretty much, is how it should be, I suppose.
Meanwhile,
what IS the section of Romans that was driving you nuts, another spot?
Now, if it's not too much trouble for you could you cite the section in Romans that you're referring to and maybe a brief explanation of how you understand it?
I could be incorrect but I believe that she was refering to Romans 6, 7 & 8. The three chapters should be read together to get the full context of "sin nature" and "corruption of the flesh".
If I am wrong Spot please correct me.
You are absolutely correct that VP's teaching concerning all sins being equally bad in God's eyes was incorrect. There are degrees of sin and hence degrees of punishment or consequences. I am curious which verse you found in the OT that corroberates this standing.
A complication, of course, is that he himself didn't really edit the S.I.A.L. books- the editing staff did.
Therefore, the EXACT phrasing was how they interpreted his intent and phrasing to the best of their
abilities, which is not an absolute guarantee it's phrased EXACTLY as he would have.
So, it's more sure to say what the editing staff believed than what HE believed in that chapter.
WordWolf, I think you're stretching the function of an editorial staff a bit too far. The way I read the above quote would have me believe that VP had no control over the final version of his writings. I find it difficult to accept (especially coming from those who think VP had control over every aspect of TWI) that he would not be involved in the editing of his books. An editor's primary function isn't to interpret the meaning of words conveyed -- it's not like they're the monks who translated the KJV and interpreted the texts to agree with their theology -- but rather to proof-read to correct any spelling and grammatical errors. But perhaps there are some former members of TWI, who worked in the editing dept, posting here who can support your position. Maybe I'm wrong.
Are you saying that TWI staff wrote all of VP's books (with the exception of first two editions of RTHST) and merely slapped his name on the cover to imply that he wrote the books?
The posts we had from staff who discussed how the magazine articles, the S.I.A.L. books and so on,
reflect a position where vpw ENDORSED the finished product, but the editing staff operated
as I previously described. I'm taking it as a given that those posts are correct.
(The exceptions to this process, of course, are the (at least first 2) early editions of RTHST,
which vpw did personally and HAD no real staff to edit in the first place,
and JCOP and JCOPS, which were written entirely by the research dept.)
Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly.
Are you saying that TWI staff wrote all of VP's books (with the exception of first two editions of RTHST) and merely slapped his name on the cover to imply that he wrote the books?
A complication, of course, is that he himself didn't really edit the S.I.A.L. books- the editing staff did.
Therefore, the EXACT phrasing was how they interpreted his intent and phrasing to the best of their
abilities, which is not an absolute guarantee it's phrased EXACTLY as he would have.
So, it's more sure to say what the editing staff believed than what HE believed in that chapter.
I think that transcript of the class will be more explicit as to what vpw himself said moreso than
this-which, pretty much, is how it should be, I suppose.
No.
I'm saying that vpw edited and "wrote" the first 2 editions of RTHST,
which is demonstrated by there being nobody else around TO edit.
With the S.I.A.L, the books were taken from material vpw had already "written", dictated,
what-have-you, and the staff EDITED that material.
According to staff, this wasn't a simple proofreading process, as they sought to
correctly convey his intent (primarily) while leaving his words as intact as possible (secondarily).
Therefore, I believe they intended to convey his intent, and succeeded in doing so.
(I can't absolutely guarantee it, but he DID "sign off" on books 1-4.)
The material was "his", but the framing was theirs. I don't consider that being them
literally writing the SIALs.
Now, JCOP and JCOPS, those WERE written entirely by the research staff, and vpw added his name
on the cover, and an introduction, and that's all he wrote for them.
THOSE were the serious research books from twi, you probably noticed.
(lcm's book, "VP and Me" includes him complaining about one of the staffers while the staffer
was writing-as one writer- JCOP.)
Now, those 2 books, yes, I consider vpw's contribution" to be equivalent to slapping his name
on them to directly say-not imply- "I wrote this." He neither is listed as "editor"
(which would at least have admitted others wrote it) nor included ANY MENTION of writing done
by the research staff.
Contrary to what one or two people have tried to claim in the past, this has never been acceptable
policy ANYWHERE, and no credible Christian writer has engaged in such practices.
So it wasn't commonplace or expected- rather, honest representation was-and is-expected
anywhere except twi-world.
You WERE aware of SOME of this, right?
If not, let me know, and I can direct you to threads that were specifically about the books
and who wrote them.
My intent in mentioning this was to point out that it is unlikely but POSSIBLE that vpw's precise
intent got lost in editing. Therefore, if he is wrong, it is not necessarily (only PROBABLY) his fault.
Without guaranteeing his phrasing, one can't guarantee what he INTENDED to say.
Recommended Posts
Larry N Moore
If it would not be too much trouble for you can you post in this thread VW's exact wording for this doctrinal teaching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It probably wouldn't be a lot of trouble-
providing he has a copy of vpw's books.
If he still has them, he'd need to know which one to reference, and where.
So, it's an easy-sounding request, but may not be at all easy to fill, depending.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
I am a female....lol
No, I have none of the books, tossed them years ago. Even my very costly Univ. Life tapes.
Larry, you posted in the other thread you had all that stuff on your computer. Did I mis-read it? VP taught sin in the blood stream in pfal. That much I remember.
Totally irrelevant, but I read a verse the other day in the OT that blows away VP's assertion there is no degree of sin. I'll find it again.
Deb
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) I have all his books and have them electronically stored on my computer. So it's easier for me to do a search for anything VP might have said in his books. In just doing a cursory word search in the book "PFAL" all I can find in reference to the blood is in regards to the transfer of the soul-life and how the blood had become contaminated. However, I could quote something from him and it might not be what spot has in mind.
Perhaps, spot can quote the section in Romans she/he's referring to. That should be no problem.
Spot, I was composing my post (and doing a little research at the same time) so I didn't see your response until after I hit the "Add Reply" button. Sorry for not knowing your gender and thanks for clearing that up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Spot, I just did a word search of all the places in PFAL where VP mentions the word blood and at no time did he say that "sin is in the blood stream." I'll double-check that book and check out his other books when I have more time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Might want to cross-check it against the phrase "innocent blood" when he was expounding on
Judas' statement on betraying Jesus. That might be where he gave the sin-blood connection
he held forth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Ok, I did and this . . .
. . . is the only place in PFAL that the phrase "innocent blood" is mentioned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Right- check the surrounding exposition. His discussion of why the "innocent" blood is "innocent" SHOULD
have what we're looking for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, I already did that and the subject (in context) concerns the soul-life of man. No place in the body of the book does VP say anything about the "sin nature" of man being IN the blood. I'll check his other writings out (in a bit).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Of the following books:
Jesus Christ Our Passover
Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed
The Bible Tells Me So
The New Dynamic Church
The Word's Way
Order My Steps In Thy Word
Receiving The Holy Spirit Today
Power For Abundant Living
And the Way Magazines dating back to Mar/Apr 1973
I can only find one reference (other than the one I previously cited) that mentions "innocent blood" and that is found in The Word's Way:
It may be possible to conclude (and I can see how others might do so) that the phrase "In His arteries and veins there was sinless soul-life." supports the assertion that VP stated "sin nature was in the blood" but, I'll have to give it more thought before I can arrive at the conclusion that that's what he was saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Larry, it may be you won’t find it. The PFAL book is not a transcript of the class. It has a lot, but not all. I remember it being taught because it drove me crazy for years. That is, I couldn’t make sense out of Romans because of it. I am sorry you’ve spent so much time looking for it and been unable to find it.
Really the thrust of the thread isn’t particularly to discount VP. If it happens, it does. I guess I shouldn't have said he taught it since I can't document it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
That's ok. It took no more than fifteen minutes to do a search of the books I listed.
The subject is one which is interesting in itself. If you haven't yet looked on the Internet you'll find lots of essays written on it. Some quite good.I think we all have done that at one time or another and not only with regards to VP. In earlier days (in this venue) I was called on it quite often.
Now, if it's not too much trouble for you could you cite the section in Romans that you're referring to and maybe a brief explanation of how you understand it?
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Even just going from what's there, it seems that's what he was saying.
"Conception by the Holy Spirit was the only way Jesus Christ could be conceived. Mary nurtured the body of Jesus in her womb and He became the line of Adam and David according to the flesh. The Holy Spirit contributed the soul-life in the blood of Jesus by way of the sperm. In His arteries and veins there was sinless soul-life. When Judas betrayed Jesus he confessed according to Matthew 27:4, “I have betrayed the innocent blood.” Sin made the original soul-life corruptible, but the soul-life of Jesus was from God."
"contributed the soul-life in the blood" "the soul-life of Jesus was from God" "In His arteries and veins there was sinless soul-life."
"When Judas betrayed Jesus he confessed according to Matthew 27:4, “I have betrayed the innocent blood.”"
So, he was saying that Jesus' blood/"soul-life" was sinless, & that because it was from God.
He contrasted that to the blood of everyone else:
" Sin made the original soul-life corruptible, but the soul-life of Jesus was from God."
Therefore, according to vpw,
"Jesus blood=sinless, innocent"
"everyone else's blood=NOT sinless and innocent."
Otherwise, he would not be making any comparison there at all.
Whether or not he was right was a separate issue- this was what he intended to say, and succeeded in saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, yeah like I said -- I can see how others might make that conclusion. However, since at this point I don't draw the same conclusion I can't say he "succeeded in saying" that. I suppose, if that's what I really wanted to believe he meant it might be easier.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I have a transcript of the class. I'll check it out for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm not convinced one way or the other he was definitely correct, but I see that as the information he
intended to impart, reflected by how he said it.
A complication, of course, is that he himself didn't really edit the S.I.A.L. books- the editing staff did.
Therefore, the EXACT phrasing was how they interpreted his intent and phrasing to the best of their
abilities, which is not an absolute guarantee it's phrased EXACTLY as he would have.
So, it's more sure to say what the editing staff believed than what HE believed in that chapter.
I think that transcript of the class will be more explicit as to what vpw himself said moreso than
this-which, pretty much, is how it should be, I suppose.
Meanwhile,
what IS the section of Romans that was driving you nuts, another spot?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I could be incorrect but I believe that she was refering to Romans 6, 7 & 8. The three chapters should be read together to get the full context of "sin nature" and "corruption of the flesh".
If I am wrong Spot please correct me.
You are absolutely correct that VP's teaching concerning all sins being equally bad in God's eyes was incorrect. There are degrees of sin and hence degrees of punishment or consequences. I am curious which verse you found in the OT that corroberates this standing.
Love you sis and bros!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Thanks Eyesopen. It's been quite awhile since I last sat through that class. There was a time when (if it was a song) I could lip-sync it. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
WordWolf, I think you're stretching the function of an editorial staff a bit too far. The way I read the above quote would have me believe that VP had no control over the final version of his writings. I find it difficult to accept (especially coming from those who think VP had control over every aspect of TWI) that he would not be involved in the editing of his books. An editor's primary function isn't to interpret the meaning of words conveyed -- it's not like they're the monks who translated the KJV and interpreted the texts to agree with their theology -- but rather to proof-read to correct any spelling and grammatical errors. But perhaps there are some former members of TWI, who worked in the editing dept, posting here who can support your position. Maybe I'm wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The posts we had from staff who discussed how the magazine articles, the S.I.A.L. books and so on,
reflect a position where vpw ENDORSED the finished product, but the editing staff operated
as I previously described. I'm taking it as a given that those posts are correct.
(The exceptions to this process, of course, are the (at least first 2) early editions of RTHST,
which vpw did personally and HAD no real staff to edit in the first place,
and JCOP and JCOPS, which were written entirely by the research dept.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly.
Are you saying that TWI staff wrote all of VP's books (with the exception of first two editions of RTHST) and merely slapped his name on the cover to imply that he wrote the books?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No.
I'm saying that vpw edited and "wrote" the first 2 editions of RTHST,
which is demonstrated by there being nobody else around TO edit.
With the S.I.A.L, the books were taken from material vpw had already "written", dictated,
what-have-you, and the staff EDITED that material.
According to staff, this wasn't a simple proofreading process, as they sought to
correctly convey his intent (primarily) while leaving his words as intact as possible (secondarily).
Therefore, I believe they intended to convey his intent, and succeeded in doing so.
(I can't absolutely guarantee it, but he DID "sign off" on books 1-4.)
The material was "his", but the framing was theirs. I don't consider that being them
literally writing the SIALs.
Now, JCOP and JCOPS, those WERE written entirely by the research staff, and vpw added his name
on the cover, and an introduction, and that's all he wrote for them.
THOSE were the serious research books from twi, you probably noticed.
(lcm's book, "VP and Me" includes him complaining about one of the staffers while the staffer
was writing-as one writer- JCOP.)
Now, those 2 books, yes, I consider vpw's contribution" to be equivalent to slapping his name
on them to directly say-not imply- "I wrote this." He neither is listed as "editor"
(which would at least have admitted others wrote it) nor included ANY MENTION of writing done
by the research staff.
Contrary to what one or two people have tried to claim in the past, this has never been acceptable
policy ANYWHERE, and no credible Christian writer has engaged in such practices.
So it wasn't commonplace or expected- rather, honest representation was-and is-expected
anywhere except twi-world.
You WERE aware of SOME of this, right?
If not, let me know, and I can direct you to threads that were specifically about the books
and who wrote them.
My intent in mentioning this was to point out that it is unlikely but POSSIBLE that vpw's precise
intent got lost in editing. Therefore, if he is wrong, it is not necessarily (only PROBABLY) his fault.
Without guaranteeing his phrasing, one can't guarantee what he INTENDED to say.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Would you, please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Here's a few to start you off. There's lots.
"vpw's plagiarized sources"
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...&hl=sources
"vpw on the sources of his books"
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...&hl=sources
"JCOP, JCNG"
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...89&hl=JCOPS
"Did vpw plagiarize JCING?"
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...91&hl=JCOPS
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.