VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?
VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?
52 members have voted
-
1. VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?
-
God miracled a snowstorm for VPW1
-
God miracled a snowstorm in VPW's head1
-
VPW hallucinated a snowstorm3
-
VPW saw a freak hailstorm and interpreted it as a miracle2
-
VPW made the whole thing up37
-
None of the above8
-
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
112
54
80
44
Popular Days
Jan 26
65
Jan 9
58
Jan 7
56
Jan 13
52
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 112 posts
Ham 54 posts
waysider 80 posts
potato 44 posts
Popular Days
Jan 26 2009
65 posts
Jan 9 2009
58 posts
Jan 7 2009
56 posts
Jan 13 2009
52 posts
Popular Posts
potato
4 or 5 what? shots of whiskey, hits off the pipe, what?
Bolshevik
wow, I would have guessed more.
potato
it's reruns of seaspray, circa 2003.
Mike
WOW! I agree COMPLETELY with this, and have said so many times here.
The latest is above where I mentioned guessing: "...if it's not by revelation then that's all there is, guesses, educated guesses at best, but then you have to guess which "educated" guess is the best educated and therefore correct."
The reason the loss of the originals is catastrophic is because they're UNRECOVERABLE!
Here's another way I've said it: If the devil scrambled up the original message, there's no way sense knowledge scholars can compete with that and restore it....
...UNLESS GOD ALMIGHTY, THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR, INTERVENES.......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
So, if I'm understanding correctly, Almighty GOD, who created the entire universe and everything therein, who knows every being in that universe intimately, down to keeping a running tally of the amount of their operable hair follicles, can't quite seem to figure out how to push "print" on his cosmic Xerox machine. NO! It's up to us to play "magic decoder ring" and make all sorts of profound guesses and surmisings to determine what His will REALLY is.
It's beyond absurd. Ludicrous, laughable, nonsensical, I dunno, words fail me when it comes to the yawning gap between religious dogma and basic, barnyard variety, common sense.
I guess ultimately, none of us is doing anything really meaningful (when viewed from a perspective of "eternity"), but do you really wanta spend your few years on earth totally absorbed in superstitious nonsense? Yer choice I guess...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
CAPITALIZATION IS NO GUARANTEE FOR TRUTH.
The mastery that has taken place here is not a mastery of PFAL or the Bible. It's a mastery of dodging, distracting, etc.
Whether you agree with the majority of PFAL or not, it is not "perfect." It is the flawed work of a (deeply) flawed man. That's plain and obvious for all to see, as long as they're not distracted by theories and questions that are designed with one purpose in mind: to lead you away from truths that would otherwise be obvious [that PFAL is the imperfect work of predatory charlatan]. Argue about VPW's character, argue about individual flaws in the person or the product, argue about all you want to argue about, and you will spend all your time counting basketball passes and missing the moonwalking bear [PFAL was, at best, the candy in "hey little boy, do you want some candy?"]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
George, what you are yearning for is the original setup, The Garden and/or the final return to same. The reason things are so convoluted right now is because there's a cosmic war to blame. But relax, it's only temporary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
It appears that you're indulging in a bit of projection again. I'm not yearning for much of anything right now, certainly not some sort of explanation for why a disparate collection of old fables doesn't "fit like a hand in a glove". I find religious arguments to be among the most absurd of mankind's endeavors, and yours especially so. Sorry...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
If what you say is right then I think we are all in deep dooo dooooooo.
But I continue to believe that the sins of the moonwalking bear didn't negate the nourishment in the porridge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
my mind boggles a bit at the idea that it took so long for a girl like Mary to come along so the messiah could be born, then that boy had to be pure enough to take on his job... just imagine what a disaster it would have been if he'd decided to become a drunkard and rapist like vpw... but god could somehow settle the responsibility of preserving his "word" on a man like vpw... and now apparently not just the preservation of his "word" since it was catestrophically lost, but the responsibility for receiving what is now actually new revelation that would get us back to the "original"... and vpw being constantly out of fellowship while drinking, bullying, preying on innocent girls and living a lavish lifestyle didn't at all stand in his way of carrying out this awesome responsibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'd say this is a emotionally wild extrapolation, not at all based on having experience working with the man, and totally ignoring the good he did for me and thousands of others.
******************************************************
Jim,
I can’t overemphasize what a huge HOME RUN you’ve hit with this post.
This perturbed me long ago, way in the back of my mind. One time in the 80’s the twig I was in did a word study together. It was maddening how may of us came to differing conclusions. It brought my deep hunch to the surface, but it wasn’t respolved until the events in 1998 happened that I’ve described here.
Information theory is the elegant mathematical way of proving what you just said: “I know that once information is lost, it's lost. And no amount of fiddling will bring it back.”
No amount of biblical research, using all the methods we were taught, will ever put Humpty Dumpty back together again. It’s the same as making an .mp3 file from a full .wav file. Information is lost and it’s lost forever.
***
I’m convinced that THIS same perturbance is what VPW was so frustrated over when he was ready to throw in the towel in 1942.
There’s something interesting just before the well know phrase from Elena Whiteside’s book: “He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others.”
In addition to that set of words, in the early 70’s there was another set that we often repeated, but that later fell from use and became less and less known. WordWolf documented this on Post #51 of this thread: “I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on.”
The perturbance that brought VPW to the point of being ready to quit the ministry was that he couldn’t get “real genuine answers” and everything he researched he’d later “have to back up on.”
I’m convinced that, like you, Jim, the original understanding of the ancient manuscripts was utterly lost and catastrophically irrecoverable. Then God showed him His solution, revelation. Not just pure revelation, but revelation WHILE HE WORKED THE PRINCIPLES.
This point of senses research working ALONG WITH revelation is emphasized well in the “Light Began to Dawn” we all earlier looked at here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=1871
In that transcript VPW documents often that there was work involved. He had to do the research using the principles and tools, and then God would lend His hand where it was needed. This is something he often taught elsewhere.
I’m convinced that there are 4 reasons VPW taught us those research principles and tools, and it was NOT so that we could “get back” to the originals on our own 5 senses steam. That information, as Jim well put was “lost. And no amount of fiddling will bring it back.” No amount of 5 senses fiddling, that is. The Author could assist, though, and then it’s possible.
Here are the 4 reasons VPW taught us those research principles and tools:
1. To document the way scholars work to arrive at the multiplicity of answers they come up with, and then later have to “back up on.”
2. To document how he and God worked on getting back to the originals, that is, what part VPW had to do in the process. God had to guide him.
3. To give us a way we could REtrace or REsearch his work. Remember how he used to emphasize that Research was not to come up with something new, but to “see again” what god showd him?
4. To give us a method whereby we could work on fully absorbing the PFAL texts, where there wasn’t the catastrophic problem of loss of the originals, just befuddled heads that need clearing.
Using the research principles and tools on PFAL is new and novel, and it’s by this means I have seen more in the writings than I ever saw before, or anyone else has ever seen without using these research principles and tools.
This is what I meant in Post #135 to Twinky when I said: “Like I said, I did study before similar to or more than the Corps, yet I was stunned when I returned to try it again. My credentials are that I have engaged in deeper the study and can hold my own quite well with anyone who posts here, as well as in many e-mails and phone conversations I’ve had with many of the research luminaries of the ministry past. I simply employ advanced techniques others have only used on the ancient scriptures."
***
I’ve said all these things before, multiple times, and in different ways. Last night I really thought we’d finished seeing this thread’s lifetime. I thought I’d be all well (cough, cough) today and back to work and no more reminiscing the Mike Wars.
So how DO we end this? Call a cease fire, or someone put forth the definitive argument?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Mike, you quoted VP out of context! You referred to where he said "there are no original texts in existence today," but glossed over where he said, "At best, we have copies of the originals" (note - "copies of the originals" not "mis-copies of WHATEVER.") If we have copies of copies of the originals, then the Word communicated by the originals is only slightly changed, not lost, even though the original physical documents may be gone.
Furthermore, he never said that the Scriptures were so corrupted that the only way we can know the Word was by the specially anointed insight God gave him. Had he ever said such a thing, I am confident that far fewer people would have followed him. WordWolf's quotation from the orange book shows that VP claimed we could study the Bible and use the same principles he did to arrive at the truth as it was originally God-breathed. We trusted him because we thought he was teaching us what the Greek and Hebrew said. Few of us knew enough Greek and Hebrew to realize his errors.
As for your claim that the manuscripts are at "extreme variance with each other" I would refer you to any number of apologetics sources (which, by the way does NOT mean "apologizing for being a Christian" - he couldn't even get his English definitions straight!). Just for starters, in his book Misquoting Truth,
Timothy Paul Jones responds to the claim that there are as many as 400,000 differences between manuscripts, stating that those differences have very little significance for three reasons:
There is actually amazing agreement among the many manuscripts, considering their age and the number of them in extant. Craig L. Blomberg, in Jesus of Nazareth: How Historians Can Know Him and Why it Matters, states the following:
This is why Jason David BeDuhn, in Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament can say with confidence:
Far from being "catastrophically lost," the New Testament has been amazingly preserved down through the years. And besides, if the Scriptures were that corrupted, why would VP keep telling us to read the Word for ourselves and check out what he was saying? I honestly don't know where you got the idea that God's solution to the hopelessly lost Scriptures was to give VPW special revelation. VP himself never claimed such a thing. He always said not to take his word for it - "Just read it for yourself, keeds!" (The problem was that we read the Bible to try to corroborate what he said instead of reading it to see what it said for itself.)
As for the disagreement with Paul, it is not just MY stance to disregard Dispensationalism. It cannot be demonstrated from the Scriptures. Believe me, I've tried. It's not even a matter of selecting different manuscripts, translations, or interpreters. The plain English verses that were used to prove Dispensationalism were taken out of context and in some cases completely misquoted, all the while contradicting many clear verses that show that Paul preached the same Gospel as Jesus. Again, since this isn't the Doctrinal forum, I'll just point out that I have dealt with this in detail on my web site, if you are interested:
Dispensationalism
One Gospel
But as I said, the Dispensationalism issue is only one of many issues. There are others which even moderately competent Biblical scholars can see right through, but we were always warned not to listen to scholars because they were all full of head knowledge and didn't really believe God and His Word. We were told not to consider outside sources, lest we get tricked by the adversary. Most of us never even knew what the opposing viewpoints were on all the major doctrines, so we had nothing to compare VP's doctrine to, except for his filtered version of what they said.
One last thought. Why would God, after miraculously inspiring many different men to write the Scriptures, put our only means of understanding them in the hands of one man? Let alone a man whose lifestyle went completely against the things that he preached? Fortunately God had better sense than that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Looks like a moon walking strawman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
why assume I'm being emotional when I deduce he must have been constantly out of fellowship to live the lifestyle he did? what does the supposed "good" have to do with his state of fellowship? I've seen real @$$holes do seemingly nice things for people, but there were almost always strings attached. doesn't mean they were in fellowship at all when they were doing "good". and if the good you're talking about is writing all those books... well then. our definitions of good differ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Nor is anyone claiming that God spoke to John Entwhistle and told him, "I will teach you to play bass like it has not been played since the first century if you will in turn teach others."
If Mike wants to hold to his faith in VPW's writings more than the Bible, that's his choice. I'm glad he's not running a ministry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
As I've often said, Jeffrey Dahmer ate only a miniscule percentage of the people he met in his life. Why, then, do we insist on calling him a cannibalistic murderer?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think that is kind of a strawman in itself.
The claim was that God would work with VP; NOT that God would work with VP ONLY. If God worked with other folks (which I certainly think he did) Vp doesn't disprove that by his words or experience; all he is claiming is his own experience and not disproving anyone elses claims.
I am weary of these claims that purport to show that vp and twi claimed they were the ONLY source of truth; I think that is a false premise designed to mislead and that never came from vp or twi. Besides, VP said "lots of the stuff I teach is not original" so how in the world can he think he's the ONLY source or means to understand the truth if lots of his stuff came from elsewhere? Just knowing that lots of the stuff came from other men disproves them being the ONLY source.
Most accurate, ok. ONLY means, no.
...I think that is irrelevant as to whether his teachings are truth or of benefit to the student of biblical research. I think the teachings stand or fall on their own merit. King Solomon (who did much worse evil than VP ever DREAMED of) sins didn't negate the truths in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon; obviously God wants truth communicated regardless of the sins of the communicator.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
He does, so you can believe him - or do you need more witnesses?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Here's one answer: to get rid of all the theologians... at least for a little while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mike is perfectly capable of responding to anything I say to or about him. Despite our opposing viewpoints we get along pretty well. And he owes me a Leinenkugel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
No, a strawman argument is when you present an position that is different and usually weaker than your opponenent's actual argument as his actual argument.
You have a point about Mark's point...but it's not a strawman.
Carry on...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I can imagine VERY SIMILAR gut wrenching debate and hair pulling arguments among the relatives and friends of Uriah, among the relatives and friends of Solomon's victim's, and among the relatives and friends of Saul of Tarsus' victims.
It gives God glory to proclaim that He can do many might things with and for terrible sinners like us. We ALL have failed to love God first MANY times in our lives, we all are guilty of breaking the greatest commandment. Praise GOD for His goodness to us all!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Again the VPW as David claim.
And the basketball passes on. Pay no attention to the moonwalking bear!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well it does seem to be a popular opinion here at least when someone documents a fact that doesn't fit with the mission or invalidates a claim. It's common to hear at that point, well what VP said and what was meant were two different things. I guess now that it does not fit with the mission here you want us to believe the opposite. By GreaseSpot standards yes when he said WE he must have meant ME, cause we all know what he said and what he meant or did were never the same. Or does that only apply when it works in your favor?
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Setting aside all the details, Raf,
I think I can speak for THOUSANDS of grads
and say that no matter what you all say,
WE WERE BLESSED by the sum and substance of VPW’s ministry,
WE CONTINUE TO BE BLESSED by it,
and none of you CAN’T talk us out of it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I agree. As I said, Jeffrey Dahmer only ate a FEW of the people he met. Miniscule compared to the number of people he didn't eat. That makes him a non-murderer and non-cannibal FAR more times than he was a murderer and cannibal.
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.