A note on forgiving

[Mike]

Ham,

I don’t take that as malevolent at all.

The answer is "yes." Of course I have thought that through, and many times. In fact, it was a PREVALENT thought for many years.

Now, may I turn the non-malevolence back? Have YOU thought through the possibility that YOU have left some crucial stones unturned? Have you thought through the possibility that the adversary’s tricks (and with those unturned stones) are better than your intellect, even the collective intellect of GSC, and that you’ve been talked out of the treasure in PFAL?

***

In review, we looked at both Corinthians epistles and how one situation in their fellowship was dealt with. A certain man was acting way out of bounds. Paul told the young and still somewhat uneducated twig that they had to get rid of that guy, Old Testament style or face bigger growing problems.

Then later, after the Corinthians had absorbed and digested the first epistle, Paul told them in the second that they could now better distinguish between that one man and his actions. They were told to bring that guy back into the loving arms of the fellowship after some temporary shame to him, and some temporary protection for the rest of the twig.

This more mature form of loving that they were instructed to show to the man who sinned forms the context for the often heard phrase “we are not ignorant of his [the adversary’s] devices.

Part of the teaching in the first epistle (the third chapter) was to show the Corinthians how God recognizes this difference between the man and the action. The real man was the Christ within that man and his tripping out was the old man nature.

Before getting to that third chapter, let’s look a little closer at the second epistle and exactly what was said.

II Cor.2:5-11

But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me,

but in part: that I may not overcharge you all.

Sufficient to such a man is this punishment,

which was inflicted of many.

So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him,

lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.

Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.

For to this end also did I write,

that I might know the proof of you,

whether ye be obedient in all things.

To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also:

for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it,

for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;

Lest Satan should get an advantage of us:

for we are not ignorant of his devices.

This is one of God’s contributions to “A note on forgiving.”

Edited March 4, 2008 by Mike

[Mike]

More review:

What I shared has to do with forgiveness in general, and is not at all confined to forgiving Dr and leadership. The Corinthians had to apply what Paul taught on forgiving amongst themselves, and so do we, all the time.

When forgiveness is difficult, then we learn the most about it IF we press on and TRY to love and downplay the urge to “get even,” as if that has ever happened.

Have you ever gotten even with someone? What happened the NEXT day, though? It seems to disappear with time and more must be sought. Revenge seeking is an addiction.

***

Way back in Post #548 I mentioned that a lot of I Cor 3 is warming, EVEN the part where Paul calls them babes. At least that meant they were in the family and loved. Nowadays some may take that as an insult, but it’s usually still true. Hardly anyone has grown up in Christ. Those who do are not struggling with whether to forgive or not or how. In many areas we all are babes... don’t like that? ... grow up.

Back in Post #548 I mentioned the warming areas of I Cor 3 as being important, so I painted those fonts red, while the more difficult reproof parts are blue. The warm areas tell me I have something to be thankful for. I received pneuma hagion so it has benefits that the warm portions remind me of. This helps me handle the carnal accusations at the beginning, which I know still apply to some areas in my life. It also helps me with the fire coming later in the chapter.

Paul is saying that after teaching pneuma hagion to them, there was still more for believers to advance towards. He was leading them and teaching them.

Again, for review here’s what we’ve covered so far with a few more verses added and a few liberties taken with formatting punctuation and translation:

I Corinthians 3:1-16

1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual,

but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat,

for hitherto ye were not able to bear it,

neither yet now are ye able.

3 For ye are yet carnal,

for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions,

are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos;

are ye not carnal?

5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos,

but ministers by whom ye believed,

even as the Lord gave to every man?

6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth;

but God that giveth the increase.

8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one,

but every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

9 For we are labourers together with God.

You are God's husbandry, you are God's building.

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me,

as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation,

and another buildeth thereon.

But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,

which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation

gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 then every man's WORK shall be made clear, open, public, and obvious.

for the day shall declare it,

because it shall be revealed by fire.

And the fire shall try every man's WORK

of what sort it is.

14 If any man's WORK abide

which he hath built thereupon,

he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's WORK shall be burned,

he shall suffer loss,

but he himself shall be saved,

like narrowly escaping from a housefire.

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God,

and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Notice how Paul is so tender with them, reminding them that they are special, all the while letting them know how some heavy stuff was going to come down in the future.

Notice how I put “work” in ALL-CAPS to help US distinguish between the man (Christ within) and the work (from the dead old man nature). Paul talks about these two competing entities waging war within him in Romans 7.

Notice how in verse 8 the oneness we enjoy in some things does NOT extend to the rewards. This is why the “de” needs to be translated “but” in that verse. If we all got the same rewards, there would be no righting of wrongs in I Cor 3 to enjoy and no rewarding of extra effort as well. Sometimes I think this is where our heads go if we are having trouble with forgiveness. We think God will NOT even the score, so we have to do it for Him. God says He will reward with justice. "Vengance is mine saith ther Lord, I will repay," is just not believed. Are you afraid your God will not re-pay properly? Maybe it’s time to go God-shopping.

Notice verse 13. It’s in the same line of thought, that no one is going to hide anything from God or exposure at that time. Remember how I showed you in I John 2:28 the shame that some can have at the Return. I think many here have trouble believing that one too. I’ve had feelings like that before, many times. It’s like I want to see that shame NOW! Impatience is not a fruit of the spirit. Take heed how you build.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Mike

[Mike]

Finally! We get to the seventeenth verse.

Now brothers and cisterns, let me tell you that if you smoke cigarettes and defile the temple, God is going to destroy YOU! So have FEAR of the Lord and His destruction! Have FEAR when you tithe to me! Have FEAR when you read the holy scriptures! Why it says it right here in the holy book. I’ll read it to you, you don’t have to go there yourselves. It says as plain as day in I Corinthians 3:17 “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy!” And the context, folks, is loaded with FIRE! I didn’t write the book! There it says that God will destroy YOU if you don’t line up with me in this church. And now we'll take up a collection for the work of the Lord.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Mike

[waysider]

Finally! We get to the seventeenth verse.

snip snip snip

There it says that God will destroy YOU if you don’t line up with me in this church.

snip snip snip

Is that the message, Mike?

[Watered Garden]

Is he serious?

Lest we forget, VPW smoked Kool Shorties and drank Drambuie.

WG

[T-Bone]

Finally! We get to the seventeenth verse.

Now brothers and cisterns, let me tell you that if you smoke cigarettes and defile the temple, God is going to destroy YOU! So have FEAR of the Lord and His destruction! Have FEAR when you tithe to me! Have FEAR when you read the holy scriptures! Why it says it right here in the holy book. I'll read it to you, you don't have to go there yourselves. It says as plain as day in I Corinthians 3:17 "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy!" And the context, folks, is loaded with FIRE! I didn't write the book! There it says that God will destroy YOU if you don't line up with me in this church. And now we'll take up a collection for the work of the Lord.

Obviously you didn’t write The Book – what you’ve done here is re-write The Book…I Corinthians 3:17 in KJV plainly SAYS, “If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.” However, YOU stated “There it says that God will destroy YOU if you don’t line up with me in this church.”

Is that your response to the fourth request in my post # 423 ?

1. Explain how the current translation(s) of I Corinthians 3:17 contradicts the previous verses [verses 5-16]

2. Explain how the current translation(s) of I Corinthians 3:17 contradicts itself

3. Identify the one improperly translated word in I Corinthians 3:17 and

4. Demonstrate the correct method of translating the passage

5. Explain how the correct translation you suggest - changes the tone of the verse from condemning to warm and soothing

6. Explain how I Corinthians 3:17 correctly translated by you, furthers a deeper understanding of Galatians 5

7. Explain the connection to forgiveness in I Corinthians 3: 5-17.

...

I don’t think that’s the CORRECT method for translation work…then again, it may be according to your PFAL standards…You may want to start from the beginning of my list – and with logic and documentation argue your case, point by point – rather than this way which tends to ruin your credibility.

Edited March 4, 2008 by T-Bone

[Ham]

Now, may I turn the non-malevolence back? Have YOU thought through the possibility that YOU have left some crucial stones unturned? Have you thought through the possibility that the adversary’s tricks (and with those unturned stones) are better than your intellect, even the collective intellect of GSC, and that you’ve been talked out of the treasure in PFAL?

I thought about it for over twenty years. Always striving for one more ounce of "mastery" of the materials, the classes.. "it's GOTTA be in there SOMEWHERE". Watching "the adversary's tricks" lest I should think vic's oil to be that of snake.. We even had little coordinator meetings trying to analyze where people "must be missing it".. after all, it supposedly worked for the vicster. Supposed to be easy as "falling off a log backwards".

I honestly think some of us were kicked out of twi because we were just an embarrassment. Some of us really BELIEVED it would work, using the same futile methods over, and over, and over.. it's bad advertising, ya know. Can't have sickness, weakness, or lack of "results" in da promised land. It damages the goods in the public eye. They need someone young, healthy, employed, and with a full set of teeth.

So where's the payoff? Now, maybe YOU saw the miraculous, the dead raised, healings.. money rain from heaven.. like the "teacher" PROMISED..

but, I didn't.

Over twenty years of futile effort, probably close to $75,000 or more in abs. Probably several years of time in volunteered labor. And at the end.. practically nothing to show for it. In a dead end job, going back to school in hopes of fulfilling my original life's dream. Don't think I'm moaning and complaining.. I can just take an honest look at it.

That's pretty much what people are asking others to forgive for. I honestly can't demand that of anyone.

[Ham]

This reminds me of the scene at a house fire.

"fellas, forget the kids, the wife, the pets, save the snake oil.. HURRRRRY.."

:)

[doojable]

He's not serious. He's pulling your chain and trying to rile the audience... Trying to get the crowd to chant, "YEA! Hang the SOB!"

sigh.....

All this mucking around and posturing for a show.

The temple is not the individual. The temple is the Church. "Ye" is the equivalent of "all of y'all" here in Texas. (T-Bone, that's "you guys" for us New Yawkers ;))

I still see a warning here for the likes of someone like VP.

Walter taught this to the 11th and 13th Corps in a Corps Night....

Edited March 4, 2008 by doojable

[T-Bone]

...The temple is not the individual. The temple is the Church. "Ye" is the equivalent of "all of y'all" here in Texas. (T-Bone, that's "you guys" for us New Yawkers ;) )

I still see a warning here for the likes of someone like VP...

Yeah, Dooj – you bring up a good point. Even with a cursory reading of I Corinthians 3 – I notice some distinctions between what's addressed in verses 11-15 and verses 16 & 17. Verses 11-15 talks about every man's work that builds on a foundation [Jesus Christ] – which is the analogy of a work in progress, and the man's choice of building materials, and the consequences of his choice of building materials [loss or reward, commensurate with the appropriateness of the building materials].

Verses 16 & 17 speaks of a temple [an existing structure], defiling the temple, and the consequences of defiling it – which are more serious than those of verses 11-15 because they directly impact the person [the person himself being "defiled, corrupted, destroyed, ruined" by God!] – whereas the worst case scenario of poor choice of building materials is loss of reward – only the person's inferior materials are destroyed. Also, I'm inclined to think the materials in question of the earlier verses are concerned with their effect on the individual's quality of life in the future - but the latter verses [on defilement] speak to a larger concern - when what someone does is harmful to everyone in the church.

It seems verses 11-15 addresses the quality of workmanship and making wise choices of what we build upon and what we build with. Verses 16 & 17 hit me as what God thinks about those who vandalize His church.

I think it would be an interesting study to look into Old Testament stuff on the design of the Temple, what the ceremonial laws said about defilement, and accounts of people defiling the Temple like:

II Chronicles 36:14, "Furthermore, all the leaders of the priests and the people became more and more unfaithful, following all the detestable practices of the nations and defiling the temple of the LORD, which he had consecrated in Jerusalem."

And the flip flop of defilement - Josiah's cleaning of the Temple in

II Kings 23:4-6 KJV

4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the LORD all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the grove, and for all the host of heaven: and he burned them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried the ashes of them unto Bethel.

5 And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven.

6 And he brought out the grove from the house of the LORD, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and stamped it small to powder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people.

Edited March 4, 2008 by T-Bone

[Mike]

...rather than this way which tends to ruin your credibility.

GOSH! I didn't know I even HAD credibility here! Thanks! :)

You also wrote: "It seems verses 11-15 addresses the quality of workmanship and making wise choices of what we build upon and what we build with. Verses 16 & 17 hit me as what God thinks about those who vandalize His church."

Yes, but remember, His church is the PEOPLE not the building. It's an act of "vandalizing" THE PEOPLE that God will not tolerate.

***

So, maybe my treatment of verse 17 needs a little more work. Of course, that was not only a tongue in cheek translation I gave for verse 17, but it was also a quite common traditional and SERIOUS handling of that verse. How many of you folks smoke cigarettes and ever tried to go to a fundamentalist church? I might have overdone the ridiculous parts, but I've seen preachers and congregationalists who DO maintain that verse 17 is an anti-smoking verse. I've heard it quoted out of context just like I did it up for laughs, only they were dead serious.

I think I have shown how the traditional (and also the humorous) translation of that verse violates the context in which it resides. If no posters here want to admit that, I will find sufficient comfort in seeing the steady stream of visitors who can read without such egotistic blinders.

Yes, doojabble, the temple is "you" plural. That's not an issue here, though, so I didn't divert there.

The context of I Cor 3 is one of safety and comfort. Constant re-assurances are given that God's reward process does not involve human like retribution against the PERSON, but only a loss of rewards, even though that can be a substantial loss. Verse 17 violates that and needs help disparately. It's a sore thumb in the flow.

Doojabble, do you have the one word from Walter in verse 17 that is mistranslated in most of the texts?

Edited March 4, 2008 by Mike

[Mike]

T-Bone,

You wrote (facetiously): “...Watching ‘the adversary's tricks’ lest I should think vic's oil to be that of snake...”

I think it’s odd how often the doctrine taught in the class and collaterals is treated in some contexts (like you did here) as poisonous. Then the same posters can turn around in a different context on a different thread (or even the same one!) and bemoan how vpw “stole” good doctrine from good teachers like Bullinger, Kenyon, Styles, and Leonard.

So which is it? PFAL is poison doctrine, or stolen good doctrine?

I’ve noted this before here (without serious reply), like in Post #463:

You people crack me up sometimes. I wonder how difficult it would be to find a Ham post where the those same “ingredients” are praised. Kenyon, Bullinger, Leonard, Etc.

I know of many others here who will praise the content of those men’s writings, or symphonize with other posters who do the same, and lament that these wonderful teachers were plagiarized.

So, Ham, did Kenyon serve bad stew? Bullinger? Leonard? I’m trying to get you in trouble with posters who love those teachers.

This is why I could say to rascal in Post # 479

You wrote: “Mike It dies NOT apply to me.... *I* am not hurting people in the name of God. I am not lying stealing killing and destroying, using my reputation as God`s leader to intimidate and scriptures as my weapons to enforce compliance to my will... ...Not even CLOSE!!!!!”

If PFAL is God-breathed, then you are hurting people, and I’ll promise to help you heal from it all when you finally realize it.

If PFAL is not God-breathed, then I’m not hurting anyone any more than Kenyon, Bullinger, Stiles, or Leonard did.

I’m just bringing it up this third time now to show how desperate the criticisms of VPW here can be.

The Poison Doctrine Theory contradicts the Stolen Light Theory!

Edited March 4, 2008 by Mike

[rascal]

You know Mike, it COULD be both...I never ever said that it was all one or the other....gosh you seem to feel like you scored some sort of a point ...As far as me personally?? I think that he stol er borrowed from many sources...some genuine christians, others not...in short anything, or anyone that could add seeming legitimacy to him...that could be twisted into appearing to support whatever evil he wanted to imbibe in.

Did not Satan himself in the scriptures...use valid points and twist them to deceive eve and Jesus?

Edited March 4, 2008 by rascal

[Mike]

Lots of twisting DID occur, but it was always outside of the printed materials we were supposed to master.

If we had done our homework the twisting would have been arrested. For some of us, who did do some homework, some of the twisting was spotted and halted at least locally.

No one has been able to point out poison doctrine in the written collaterals. It was all in TVTs.

***

Just a little above, in Post #811, I had an exchange with T-Bone that went thusly:

T-Bone wrote: “It seems verses 11-15 addresses the quality of workmanship and making wise choices of what we build upon and what we build with. Verses 16 & 17 hit me as what God thinks about those who vandalize His church.”

Then I wrote: “Yes, but remember, His church is the PEOPLE not the building. It's an act of "vandalizing" THE PEOPLE that God will not tolerate.”

Seeing that the temple here is PEOPLE is a key to unscrambling the problem with verse 17. That God will not tolerate the desecration of His called out PEOPLE is an idea that comes up repeatedly in that chapter. The people are protected by God, so SOMETHING has to be wrong with the first half of verse 17 where a person seems to be in grave danger of being destroyed.

Just fix one little word and that verse fits seamlessly with all the rest of the chapter.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Mike

[doojable]

T-Bone,

You wrote (facetiously): “...Watching ‘the adversary's tricks’ lest I should think vic's oil to be that of snake...”

I think it’s odd how often the doctrine taught in the class and collaterals is treated in some contexts (like you did here) as poisonous. Then the same posters can turn around in a different context on a different thread (or even the same one!) and bemoan how vpw “stole” good doctrine from good teachers like Bullinger, Kenyon, Styles, and Leonard.

So which is it? PFAL is poison doctrine, or stolen good doctrine?

I’ve noted this before here (without serious reply), like in Post #463:

This is why I could say to rascal in Post # 479

I’m just bringing it up this third time now to show how desperate the criticisms of VPW here can be.

The Poison Doctrine Theory contradicts the Stolen Light Theory!

Peanut butter is good food. It's deadly if you are allergic to peanuts.

The doctrine has some good and some evil in it. The main problem is that vp built the whole shabang on himself - a rather sandy foundation if you ask me. The faulty foundation made it poison.

Anytime any doctrine is set forth in the context of "don't question it and don't question the Teacher," you got Trouble in River City - or any other city for that matter.

And that starts with "T"

And that rhymes with "V" +"P"

and that stands for "VP"

*variation on a song from the Music Man.

Edited March 4, 2008 by doojable

[WhiteDove]

Doojabble, do you have the one word from Walter in verse 17 that is mistranslated in most of the texts?

Him

[Mike]

...The doctrine has some good and some evil in it. ...

The evil is all in the TVTs.

Better researchers than us have tried to find darkness in the collaterals and couldn't. If the books were contaminated this website would have thousands more page references pointing this out.

All the evil was in the TVTs and those who didn't do their homework with the written materials, relying on winging it from listening, were broadsided bigtime.

***

Him

THAT'S the WORD!

Thank you White Dove.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Mike

[WhiteDove]

I think it’s odd how often the doctrine taught in the class and collaterals is treated in some contexts (like you did here) as poisonous. Then the same posters can turn around in a different context on a different thread (or even the same one!) and bemoan how vpw “stole” good doctrine from good teachers like Bullinger, Kenyon, Styles, and Leonard.

So which is it? PFAL is poison doctrine, or stolen good doctrine?

I’ve noted this before here (without serious reply), like in Post #463:

Good luck ......... we all know that the theory blows like the wind depending on which argument is made against popular opinion that day. Theories are like that though that's why it is not good sense to believe them on oral authority

[rascal]

Mike his written versions are as much crap as his verbal versions. The written versions weren`t even written BY him, as one of his editors has told you.

I am sorry that you must ignore those whom knew and wrote for him...

Edited March 4, 2008 by rascal

[WhiteDove]

THAT's the WORD!

Thank you White Dove.

I had to do it the suspense was killing me!!!!

[Mike]

Let it be noted that rascal thinks Bullinger, Kenyon, Styles, Leonard, etc... are crap and sand.

I had to do it the suspense was killing me!!!!

Yeah, I was feeling a little cruel allowing all the empty criticisms against me to pile up in the record.

If I had just stated it weeks ago, though, it would have come and gone and been forgotten by now.

Thanks again, though.

Do you have any documentation on that word? I have a little, but I'd like more.

What do you have as the proper Greek word there and its proper translation?

Edited March 4, 2008 by Mike

[rascal]

That is what MIKE said that I said....that makes you either mistaken or a liar...which is it? What else are you mistaken about friend?

I don`t recall Jesus telling Satan ...*I forgive you* when he manipulated the scriptures to try to trick him....

What`d he tell him??

What should we tell the fellow who is still trying to usescriptures to tell the same lies to lure us away?

[Mike]

rascal,

Have you been following the treatment of I Cor 3 here?

Just wondering.

[rascal]

I am following the theme of this thread..ie forgivness. It seems to me that your point is in trying to get corinthians to support your position by claiming that it can be twisted into lending legitimacy to your argument.

I don`t care to address that since everything you do is a pfal infomercial anyway...what I CAN address is your lack of understanding in regards to my post and position, I have corrected the perception..please feel free to apologize now, unless the misleading was deliberate.

[Mike]

I am following the theme of this thread..ie forgivness. It seems to me that your point is in trying to get corinthians to support your position by claiming that it can be twisted into lending legitimacy to your argument.

I've been only trying to show what Corinthians says in general. I've stated that this is useful for forgiveness in general, and not specific to Dr.

If your mission is to expose the old man nature of VPW you're a little late. It was exposed in Romans 7 2000 years ago, and it died over 20 years ago.

My mission is to show forth (to those who have not had the chance to see it yet) the Christ in VPW ministering to us by revelation.

When Dr walked God was able to teach him His light, which he taught to us, especially in written form. That written form is here still, for many to be blessed. Dr's old man nature is not working any more, so I see little to no profit in what you're doing.

***

I can see value in distancing myself from surviving top leadership that drifted from the written doctrine to the TVTs. Those TVTs are very nasty, and still doing dirty work.

But the collaterals are pure!

Edited March 4, 2008 by Mike