During the Gospel Period, people had no spirit so the body-and-soul believers could only observe life from a senses point of view. Men in the gospels asked Jesus as recorded in John 6:30, “What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee?” Time and time again inquirers asked for tangible proof. Thomas insisted, “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails...I will not believe.” In the gospels, people had to see in order to believe. But the Church epistles establish the order that a person first believes and then he sees. Thus you and I do not first see and then believe; we first believe God’s Word and then we see the truth of it bear fruit in our lives as we walk on it. GMWD pg141 & 142
God’s Strength in Us
Victor Paul Wierwille
Steve, I was just wondering if you could show us the error in the objective reality cited above?
Love,
Jim
Sorry, he can't - nor can anyone else for that matter since all men are liars and only God is true.
My Post #166 in the “snow” thread contains the following addressed to you:
While your idea of slight variations not distorting the message may hold for SOME subjects, those subjects that matter the most MAY be catastrophically altered. If I were the adversary that's PRECISELY what I'd do: slightly alter many passages and so give the appearance of recover ability, and BIGTIME altering the crucial passages, even maybe deleting them, or inserting camouflaging phrases like we know happened with some trinity verses.
PLUS, the 400,000 differences between manuscripts should be more properly labeled "KNOWN differences between manuscripts." What about the UNknown differences? Silence?
I've been through all these arguments many times, even here on the board. I find them boring and going nowhere. I find the collateral study, with the advanced techniques I mentioned, very refreshing.
Now I’ll cut you some slack here. There was a computer glitch in that post and it’s not entirely clear that I wrote the above.
Still, I made it clear many times here that I do not belive that ALL the Word was lost in the scrambling of the first centuries, just the crucial part. This should be obvious. You didn’t seem to credit me with the obvious when last night you wrote:
Yes I saw your post. In my response to the original post in the snowstorm thread, I was addressing a different point, about how textual criticism shows that the overall message is not "irretrievably lost."
Besides the points I made there, I think you are still contradicting yourself. If "the original understanding of the ancient manuscripts was utterly lost and catastrophically irrecoverable" then there would be nothing VP or anyone could do to recover it. That's what irrecoverable means. If, on the other hand, God could guide him in how to recover the understanding of the Scriptures using keys from the Scriptures themselves, then the understanding was not "utterly lost and catastrophically irrecoverable." You can't have it both ways.
You see I never asserted that the OVERALL message was UTTERLY LOST, just the CRUCIAL part. You failed to understand that I was just talking about the parts that were the most threatening to the adversary that he really obliterated. This has always been the context of all talk of things being utterly lost: not the entirety of the message, just the crucial parts. See where you missed understanding my posting AGAIN?
Since you have yet to answer most of my direct questions or handle most of my specific points, I will respond only to the one point that really surprises me:
You gave me a multiplicity of existing published references: the Bible. Then you also gave me one pie-in-the-sky ideal non-existent reference: God's Word as it was first given in the first century and which you are presently trying to extract or get back to through various means but are still not totally finished with.
You get bent out of shape about me not understanding you, but here you completely misquote me. What I said was not "pie in the sky" nor was it what you present here. It was exactly what you yourself quoted VPW as saying was HIS rule of faith and practice, which I had quoted in post #420 - that is, "not the King James Version, but THE Word of God which was given when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit."
When you answer my direct questions, perhaps this can be a meaningful debate, rather than accusations and judgments about my motivation for asking them.
It's not my idea. Paul talks about Christ formed within in Gal. 4:19
Dr talked about this a bit in RHST.
Whenever you hear the phrase "the mind of Christ" that's the same thing as Christ formed within.
The natural man mind cannot know nor please God. The things of God are foolishness to the natural man mind. It can believe the Word in a natural selfish capacity only, but the deep spiritual things are not understood and are even rejected, even though pneuma hagion is present. Pneuma hagion does not affect the mind.
So, getting Christ formed within, or getting the mind of Christ, means a successful casting off of the old natural man's mind, and acquiring via God's grace and His Word, a NEW man. This is the purpose of PFAL, to build within the mind of Christ.
Christ formed within is Christ in you THE GLORY, whereas pneuma hagion is only the token, the hope of glory to come. It came.
Notice that Mike does NOT deny what I've written about his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit. His method of "studying" PFAL is to clear his mind of critical thinking, to read the words of PFAL, and to wait for his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit to explain the hidden meanings of the words.
Mike wrote, "So, getting Christ formed within, or getting the mind of Christ, means successfully casting off the old man's natural mind [or common sense, our senses' grasp on objective reality], and acquiring via God's grace and His Word, a NEW man [another spirit]. This is the purpose of PFAL, to build within the mind of Christ...".
Reading PFAL mindlessly (or "anoetos" as the Bible puts it) "feeds" the "advanced Christ formed within" spirit, the same way Wierwille said speaking in tongues fed the gift of holy spirit.
The "advanced Christ formed within" spirit then reveals the hidden meaning of the words of PFAL, "the deep spiritual things that are not understood [by the natural mind], and are even rejected, even though pneuma hagion is present."
"Christ formed within is Christ in you THE GLORY, whereas pneuma hagion is only the token, the hope of glory to come. It came."
Mike's "Christ formed within" is a spirit. It is NOT the holy spirit that was first poured out on the day of Pentecost. It is another, different spirit. I don't know if Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit tells him it came into the world at some specific date, but we know it came for Mike on the day he received it for the first time.
Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit tells him that he can't trust what his senses, his "natural man mind", tell him PFAL says. Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit also tells him that he can't trust what God might be trying to tell him about PFAL by way of the gift of holy spirit, because "Pneuma hagion does not affect the mind."
Mike has ONLY one rule for faith and practice, and that rule is whatever his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit whispers to him in his hours of thoughtlessly pouring over the words of PFAL.
You see I never asserted that the OVERALL message was UTTERLY LOST, just the CRUCIAL part. You failed to understand that I was just talking about the parts that were the most threatening to the adversary that he really obliterated. This has always been the context of all talk of things being utterly lost: not the entirety of the message, just the crucial parts. See where you missed understanding my posting AGAIN?
You just confirmed his point- if the CRUCIAL part of the message was UTTERLY LOST,
then the OVERALL MESSAGE was UTTERLY LOST.
If all that's left of information is incidental and non-critical, it has been destroyed as a whole.
How about an Amtrak train that had everything-except the ENGINE?
Where's that going to take you?
How about instructions for operating a device where how to turn it on and off, and troubleshoot, are missing?
A flashlight missing batteries?
An automobile with no engine, but all tricked out?
If the CRUCIAL PART of something is lost, it is lost OVERALL.
============
In other words, what's inconvenient to you to be intact about God's Word- that's been irretrievably lost.
The parts you don't care about- that can survive.
Interesting how plenty of experts in the field have documented their findings, and come to the
opposite conclusions as you.
Obviously, you'll be smearing their character without learning anything about them- anything to try to
discredit information that is inconvenient to you, or contradicts your claims.
Since you have yet to answer most of my direct questions or handle most of my specific points, I will respond only to the one point that really surprises me:
You get bent out of shape about me not understanding you, but here you completely misquote me. What I said was not "pie in the sky" nor was it what you present here. It was exactly what you yourself quoted VPW as saying was HIS rule of faith and practice, which I had quoted in post #420 - that is, "not the King James Version, but THE Word of God which was given when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit."
When you answer my direct questions, perhaps this can be a meaningful debate, rather than accusations and judgments about my motivation for asking them.
It's very simple, you see.
When vpw said it, it's sacrosanct, since it was an utterance of God and beyond question.
When Steve L says it, it's to be vilified, since it's not what Mike wants to hear.
So, first of all, reading what is written (the most basic vpw rule) goes out the window-
what Mike WANTS IT TO SAY is now what it says.
That's why Mike remembers himself as having won all sorts of debates here,
never facing logic, and never facing reasonable questions.
Mike rewrites the threads in his mind
(or they're rewritten FOR him by his ACSFW spirit, I'm unclear which)
and he ends up reading completely different threads than we do (or any stranger can.)
So, all Mike HAS to offer is accusations, judgements, dodges, distractions, denials,
apparently jesus, too. according to vpw, jesus was a man, so he must be a liar... but wait, does that mean that maybe jesus wasn't a liar, since vpw was a liar, so perhaps he was lying when he said all men are liars, or maybe he was lying when he said jesus was a man, so that would mean jesus possibly wasn't a liar?
If we can't get back to the "original" Word as God gave it from studying the Bible using those keys, then why did he [VPW] spend all that time teaching those keys and how to use them?
Good question - seeing how this was put across like VPW spent all that time teaching us those keys as: "a great big waste of someone's time."
Because we can get back to the original Word as God gave it. There's just one (well, maybe two) little problems here though:
1. People think they already know everything about those keys and they also think they know how to fully use them.
I on the other hand however, believe differently.
Boy - you're fooling yourself if you think "everybody" cares about getting back to the "original" Word as God gave it by studying the bible.
Here is one "key" to understanding the bible that wasn't mentioned in PFAL - but it is still "key" when it comes down to someone understanding the bible - which is also the second part of the forementioned problem.
2. Whatever it is people really DO care about is whatever they spend the majority of their time on/in/or with.
Mastering those keys, and sadly, even the bible and other materials for biblical study (even PFAL) doesn't come close to making the top of their list.
apparently jesus, too. according to vpw, jesus was a man, so he must be a liar... but wait, does that mean that maybe jesus wasn't a liar, since vpw was a liar, so perhaps he was lying when he said all men are liars, or maybe he was lying when he said jesus was a man, so that would mean jesus possibly wasn't a liar?
Who said that Jesus was just [only] a man? It sure wasn't VPW. VPW just said he wasn't God and that he [Jesus] was God's only begotten son - but not God Himself. (If you are going to argue a point you should get the facts straight first.)
Stop giving him bigger shovels to dig himself in deeper with.
Twinky,
I don't expect Mike to change his mind, but I was hoping he would at least answer direct questions so we could debate and discuss it rationally.
Notice that Mike does NOT deny what I've written about his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit. His method of "studying" PFAL is to clear his mind of critical thinking, to read the words of PFAL, and to wait for his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit to explain the hidden meanings of the words.
Mike wrote, "So, getting Christ formed within, or getting the mind of Christ, means successfully casting off the old man's natural mind [or common sense, our senses' grasp on objective reality], and acquiring via God's grace and His Word, a NEW man [another spirit]. This is the purpose of PFAL, to build within the mind of Christ...".
Reading PFAL mindlessly (or "anoetos" as the Bible puts it) "feeds" the "advanced Christ formed within" spirit, the same way Wierwille said speaking in tongues fed the gift of holy spirit.
The "advanced Christ formed within" spirit then reveals the hidden meaning of the words of PFAL, "the deep spiritual things that are not understood [by the natural mind], and are even rejected, even though pneuma hagion is present."
"Christ formed within is Christ in you THE GLORY, whereas pneuma hagion is only the token, the hope of glory to come. It came."
Mike's "Christ formed within" is a spirit. It is NOT the holy spirit that was first poured out on the day of Pentecost. It is another, different spirit. I don't know if Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit tells him it came into the world at some specific date, but we know it came for Mike on the day he received it for the first time.
Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit tells him that he can't trust what his senses, his "natural man mind", tell him PFAL says. Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit also tells him that he can't trust what God might be trying to tell him about PFAL by way of the gift of holy spirit, because "Pneuma hagion does not affect the mind."
Mike has ONLY one rule for faith and practice, and that rule is whatever his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit whispers to him in his hours of thoughtlessly pouring over the words of PFAL.
Love,
Steve
Steve,
Are these direct quotes from Mike's posts?
Who said that Jesus was just [only] a man? It sure wasn't VPW. VPW just said he wasn't God and that he [Jesus] was God's only begotten son - but not God Himself. (If you are going to argue a point you should get the facts straight first.)
What are the five steps the serpent used to deceive [fill in a name.]?
1. He questioned the integrity and accuracy of PFAL.
2.[fill in a name] responded to him, started participating by conversing and "reasoning".
3. [fill in a name] omitted a word.
If one word is omitted from PFAL, is it still the word of PFAL? No. it has become private interpretation. By omitting one word, [fill in the blank] no longer has the word of PFAL.
4. [fill in the blank] added a word.
When one adds to the word of PFAL, is it still the word of PFAL? Again, it becomes private interpretation. The moment a word is deleted or added, One no longer has the word of PFAL.
5. [fill in the blank] changed the word of PFAL.
This is the spiraling road downward. To this day, whenever Satan wants to attack men and women of PFAL, he always leads them to question the integrity of the word of PFAL and then change it so that the word of PFAL no longer exists.
Therefore I say unto you:
STAND!----Let nothing sway you from the word of PFAL.
(paraphrased from pages 253 and 254 of "The Orange Book".)
Who said that Jesus was just [only] a man? It sure wasn't VPW. VPW just said he wasn't God and that he [Jesus] was God's only begotten son - but not God Himself. (If you are going to argue a point you should get the facts straight first.)
Also, "all men are liars" the "all" must be interpreted "all with distinction". "All without exception" men are NOT liars, Jesus being the distinctive exception.
Since you have yet to answer most of my direct questions or handle most of my specific points, I will respond only to the one point that really surprises me:
You get bent out of shape about me not understanding you, but here you completely misquote me. What I said was not "pie in the sky" nor was it what you present here. It was exactly what you yourself quoted VPW as saying was HIS rule of faith and practice, which I had quoted in post #420 - that is, "not the King James Version, but THE Word of God which was given when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit."
When you answer my direct questions, perhaps this can be a meaningful debate, rather than accusations and judgments about my motivation for asking them.
You can only have the original understanding of the scriptures as a GOAL you seek, not as a rule you use. It's not available in a bookstore. You need to do research to recover it.
The only reason VPW could have that as his only rule was because God offered it to him. You were not offered to have God's special assistance at using that kind of only rule. It was revelation guidance offered to VPW only. For you to try and take that as your only rule you must first FIND it, and you can't. You can try a lifetime to recover it, but you can't do it. It requires revelation. The reason you wont get that kind of revelation in your recovery research is because it was already given to VPW and he gave it to us in written form, which you've rejected.
I'm not getting bent out of shape over this, I'm just going to match your challenges. I don't trust your ability to work within PFAL because you have not demonstrated an understanding of my posting. If you go back and read them all with this in mind you'll see what I'm talking about. There's OODLES of things you have missed because your idea of a rational discussion is to prove PFAL wrong, and that doesn't require you to get my posting down accurately. I do require it if you want to discuss these things with me. I will continue to show you that you don't get it, and that's the reason I refuse to participate in a discussion style suited to your goals.
You assume I have no message of substance so you skim my posts and don't digest them. I've shown numerous instances of this. I will continue until you get it right. So far you show me that you aren't paying attention enough.
A long time ago Oakspear and Abigail were the only ones who got it, that Dr's only rule for faith and practice was revelation based, or at least that's what he claimed. No other posters got it. You don't yet either.
Until you can give me a printed text or texts that is your only rule you don't have one. If you say your rule is revelation based then I challenge you to minister it to people and stop wasting time here.
WHEN will you at least get it, what Dr claimed and what I am reporting?
If you say the printed Bible is your rule, then I say it's a multiple bending rule,
If you say the original content of the scriptures is your rule, then I say it's not printed and it's not in usable (able to rule) form.
So, give me your single rule that's absolutely finished and unbendable; give me the Library of Congress Number(s). If it doesn't have one scan and post the first page and tell me how I can get the remaining pages. Otherwise I say you don't have one.
I'm not getting bent out of shape over this, I'm just going to match your challenges. I don't trust your ability to work within PFAL because you have not demonstrated an understanding of my posting.
Why would you trust my ability to work within PFAL when the whole debate started with whether or not PFAL is God breathed? I have put forth several challenges which you have not met yet. When you put forth straight answers to those questions then we can proceed. But you can't use your faith in PFAL to prove PFAL is God-breathed. That's circular reasoning and begging the question.
Part of your definition of God-breathed is that it has no errors. You claim that PFAL in fact has no errors, and the apparent errors that we see are due to our misunderstanding of PFAL. Fine. Prove that. Get specific. Address the issues we have brought up and demonstrate how you handle them in light of your methodology and determine that they are not errors.
Who said that Jesus was just [only] a man? It sure wasn't VPW. VPW just said he wasn't God and that he [Jesus] was God's only begotten son - but not God Himself. (If you are going to argue a point you should get the facts straight first.)
I'm not arguing whether jesus was JUST a man, or the son of god or whatever. what I'm saying is it's a stupid argument to discount the ability to use our brains and compare opinions just because we're human. you said:
Sorry, he can't - nor can anyone else for that matter since all men are liars and only God is true.
Haven't you been listening?
so I'm saying that if you say Steve isn't smart enough to find an error in something you deem to be objective by virtue of being written by vpw because "all men are liars", how can you uphold the validity of vpw's writings if vpw is a liar and by extension using your logic, jesus is as well because if you believe vpw, jesus ain't god.
Why would you trust my ability to work within PFAL when the whole debate started with whether or not PFAL is God breathed? I have put forth several challenges which you have not met yet.
I am under no obligation to do so. In my opinion it would waste my time.
When you put forth straight answers to those questions then we can proceed.
If what you mean by "straight" is proceeding along in directions and to ends pleasing to you, I'd then say we cannot proceed.
But you can't use your faith in PFAL to prove PFAL is God-breathed. That's circular reasoning and begging the question.
How many times have I not only agreed with this, but said it myself? I know I can't use my faith in PFAL to prove PFAL is God-breathed. I've never tried. I'd denied trying. I've said that would be "bunk deriving." Want me to show you 5 places where I agree that this is never going to happen? Have you READ and UNDERSTOOD that I have said I'm not going to try and prove PFAL is God-breathed? Have you READ and UNDERSTOOD that I have said this is my starting point, not my ending point? Have you READ and UNDERSTOOD that I have said PFAL being God-breathed is my POSTULATE? Want me to show it to you and sound out the words with you, holding your hand and going real slow? Why OH WHY would you say this to me when I've said it myself several times? Are you trying to drive me crazy? Can you read at all? Are you a robot programed to be obtuse? Will you give me a dollar for every place I can show you I have said I "can't use ... faith in PFAL to prove PFAL is God-breathed"? Are you trying to be cute or deliberately annoying?
So, we agree on this one thing FROM NOW ON, OK? I will not, can not, dare not try to prove PFAL is God-breathed.
GOT IT????
Part of your definition of God-breathed is that it has no errors. You claim that PFAL in fact has no errors, and the apparent errors that we see are due to our misunderstanding of PFAL. Fine. Prove that.
Get specific.
I'll prove your misunderstanding one point at at time and in my order and my selection. I got specific about your "only rule." I proved you don't understand it by your two wrong answers. Because you STILL don't understand it, you don't yet understand the proof. I'm patient on this. I'll keep trying to explain "only rule" to you until you see that you didn't understand it.
I specifically demand to see page #1 of your "only rule."
If you have an "only rule" then show it to me. You must have access to this rule if you are going to use it to judge other things by. That's what a rule is. It's used to judge other things. And it must be unchangeable. If you have to change any of it then it's not a rule, it's a "rule in the making" at best.
Address the issues we have brought up and demonstrate how you handle them in light of your methodology and determine that they are not errors.
No. I'll address the issues I bring up. Right now it's "only rule."
I don't have the time to bother with your selections of subject matter and to prove you don't understand them. I'd be wasting time on people who don't want to know, just find errors.
It is instructive to all readers of this and all grads that I prove you don't understand "only rule" here so I have challenged you. I can demonstrate you don't know what this key point in PFAL is because so you've so far failed to produce your rule. Why should I bother with further discussion with critics of PFAL who can't prove to me they even KNOW the basic most crucial material?
So give me page #1 of your rule, so we can get you into at least SOME understanding of what an only rule for faith and practice is. You must be able to come up with AT LEAST page one in order to begin using it as a rule. Actually, you must have access to ALL the pages if you want to use it as a rule, but I'll let you off easy. Just post page #1 of your only rule.
"I'll only discuss this in PM's so I can control the secrecy."
"You guys are wasting my time."
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
Unless you can approach this, or any other subject, like a rational human being and have a healthy respect for others opinions, I see no valid reason to attempt engaging in this thinly veiled PFAL "info-mmercial" any longer.
"I'll only discuss this in PM's so I can control the secrecy."
"You guys are wasting my time."
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
Unless you can approach this, or any other subject, like a rational human being and have a healthy respect for others opinions, I see no valid reason to attempt engaging in this thinly veiled PFAL "info-mmercial" any longer.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
74
42
33
32
Popular Days
Feb 2
66
Jan 30
53
Feb 1
50
Feb 3
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 74 posts
waysider 42 posts
potato 33 posts
Bolshevik 32 posts
Popular Days
Feb 2 2009
66 posts
Jan 30 2009
53 posts
Feb 1 2009
50 posts
Feb 3 2009
23 posts
Popular Posts
potato
the snowstorm thread branches yet again... my question is: is it necessary in life to have one sole source for your rule of faith and practice? Mike seems to contend that everyone needs to have on
waysider
Would that include VP Wierwille? Would that include VP Wierwille?
geisha779
Wordwolf, So glad that is what you took away rom my heart felt and honest post. Because I reject this doctrine and do not have any interest in reading the theology. . . I am hiding and possibly afra
Posted Images
What The Hey
Sorry, he can't - nor can anyone else for that matter since all men are liars and only God is true.
Haven't you been listening?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Would that include VP Wierwille?
Would that include VP Wierwille?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Mark,
My Post #166 in the “snow” thread contains the following addressed to you:
Now I’ll cut you some slack here. There was a computer glitch in that post and it’s not entirely clear that I wrote the above.
Still, I made it clear many times here that I do not belive that ALL the Word was lost in the scrambling of the first centuries, just the crucial part. This should be obvious. You didn’t seem to credit me with the obvious when last night you wrote:
You see I never asserted that the OVERALL message was UTTERLY LOST, just the CRUCIAL part. You failed to understand that I was just talking about the parts that were the most threatening to the adversary that he really obliterated. This has always been the context of all talk of things being utterly lost: not the entirety of the message, just the crucial parts. See where you missed understanding my posting AGAIN?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
David Blaine breaks world record for holding breath.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...b=Entertainment
I'll bet even he wouldn't be foolish enough to think he could hold his breath until he got a logical answer here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike:
It sure would be a nice contrast to the Mikean system, where the rules are determined by taking a stack of books
with various editions, a stack of tapes, and a pile of magazines, and then rank information as having GREATER
or LESSER authority.
That's why Mike can't give a straight answer on anything.
vpw claimed the Bible/Word functioned "with a mathematical exactness and with a scientific precision",
and that nearly all of it explained itself "in the verse right where it is written."
That would mean truth in one book would be internally consistent- and equally-reliable--
as truth in any tape, and so on. Each would stand alone as truth- if somehow the stack of
books, tapes, and magazines was meant to be a single unbreakable book.
The truth in Chapter 2 stands on its own, as does the truth in Chapter 22.
But in the Mikean system, reading something in one book right where it's written is NOT authoritative-
the Orange Book is NOT authoritative by itself-
it must be interpreted in light of HUNDREDS of pounds of materials across a variety of media,
and only in light of the Mikean belief system-a system missing from the Orange Book's keys
to understand Scripture.
So, ACCORDING TO THE MIKEAN SYSTEM, NONE of the books of vpw is actually
"unbreakable" or "authoritative." It all has to be interpreted by Mike's system-
and it's the Mikean system that's the single, authoritative standard.
Those of you who want that system actually quantified, well, you'll be disappointed.
The only PERMANENT parts are:
"vpw's books are God-breathed."
"Error in vpw's books are not actually error-but demonstrate a flaw in the reader."
"Dodging, distracting are fine, but not admitting an error is an error."
"Giving a straight answer rather than lots of vague questions is forbidden."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Since you have yet to answer most of my direct questions or handle most of my specific points, I will respond only to the one point that really surprises me:
You get bent out of shape about me not understanding you, but here you completely misquote me. What I said was not "pie in the sky" nor was it what you present here. It was exactly what you yourself quoted VPW as saying was HIS rule of faith and practice, which I had quoted in post #420 - that is, "not the King James Version, but THE Word of God which was given when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit."
When you answer my direct questions, perhaps this can be a meaningful debate, rather than accusations and judgments about my motivation for asking them.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Notice that Mike does NOT deny what I've written about his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit. His method of "studying" PFAL is to clear his mind of critical thinking, to read the words of PFAL, and to wait for his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit to explain the hidden meanings of the words.
Mike wrote, "So, getting Christ formed within, or getting the mind of Christ, means successfully casting off the old man's natural mind [or common sense, our senses' grasp on objective reality], and acquiring via God's grace and His Word, a NEW man [another spirit]. This is the purpose of PFAL, to build within the mind of Christ...".
Reading PFAL mindlessly (or "anoetos" as the Bible puts it) "feeds" the "advanced Christ formed within" spirit, the same way Wierwille said speaking in tongues fed the gift of holy spirit.
The "advanced Christ formed within" spirit then reveals the hidden meaning of the words of PFAL, "the deep spiritual things that are not understood [by the natural mind], and are even rejected, even though pneuma hagion is present."
"Christ formed within is Christ in you THE GLORY, whereas pneuma hagion is only the token, the hope of glory to come. It came."
Mike's "Christ formed within" is a spirit. It is NOT the holy spirit that was first poured out on the day of Pentecost. It is another, different spirit. I don't know if Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit tells him it came into the world at some specific date, but we know it came for Mike on the day he received it for the first time.
Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit tells him that he can't trust what his senses, his "natural man mind", tell him PFAL says. Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit also tells him that he can't trust what God might be trying to tell him about PFAL by way of the gift of holy spirit, because "Pneuma hagion does not affect the mind."
Mike has ONLY one rule for faith and practice, and that rule is whatever his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit whispers to him in his hours of thoughtlessly pouring over the words of PFAL.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You just confirmed his point- if the CRUCIAL part of the message was UTTERLY LOST,
then the OVERALL MESSAGE was UTTERLY LOST.
If all that's left of information is incidental and non-critical, it has been destroyed as a whole.
How about an Amtrak train that had everything-except the ENGINE?
Where's that going to take you?
How about instructions for operating a device where how to turn it on and off, and troubleshoot, are missing?
A flashlight missing batteries?
An automobile with no engine, but all tricked out?
If the CRUCIAL PART of something is lost, it is lost OVERALL.
============
In other words, what's inconvenient to you to be intact about God's Word- that's been irretrievably lost.
The parts you don't care about- that can survive.
Interesting how plenty of experts in the field have documented their findings, and come to the
opposite conclusions as you.
Obviously, you'll be smearing their character without learning anything about them- anything to try to
discredit information that is inconvenient to you, or contradicts your claims.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's very simple, you see.
When vpw said it, it's sacrosanct, since it was an utterance of God and beyond question.
When Steve L says it, it's to be vilified, since it's not what Mike wants to hear.
So, first of all, reading what is written (the most basic vpw rule) goes out the window-
what Mike WANTS IT TO SAY is now what it says.
That's why Mike remembers himself as having won all sorts of debates here,
never facing logic, and never facing reasonable questions.
Mike rewrites the threads in his mind
(or they're rewritten FOR him by his ACSFW spirit, I'm unclear which)
and he ends up reading completely different threads than we do (or any stranger can.)
So, all Mike HAS to offer is accusations, judgements, dodges, distractions, denials,
non-informative questions, and so on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
apparently jesus, too. according to vpw, jesus was a man, so he must be a liar... but wait, does that mean that maybe jesus wasn't a liar, since vpw was a liar, so perhaps he was lying when he said all men are liars, or maybe he was lying when he said jesus was a man, so that would mean jesus possibly wasn't a liar?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Good question - seeing how this was put across like VPW spent all that time teaching us those keys as: "a great big waste of someone's time."
Because we can get back to the original Word as God gave it. There's just one (well, maybe two) little problems here though:
1. People think they already know everything about those keys and they also think they know how to fully use them.
I on the other hand however, believe differently.
Boy - you're fooling yourself if you think "everybody" cares about getting back to the "original" Word as God gave it by studying the bible.
Here is one "key" to understanding the bible that wasn't mentioned in PFAL - but it is still "key" when it comes down to someone understanding the bible - which is also the second part of the forementioned problem.
2. Whatever it is people really DO care about is whatever they spend the majority of their time on/in/or with.
Mastering those keys, and sadly, even the bible and other materials for biblical study (even PFAL) doesn't come close to making the top of their list.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Who said that Jesus was just [only] a man? It sure wasn't VPW. VPW just said he wasn't God and that he [Jesus] was God's only begotten son - but not God Himself. (If you are going to argue a point you should get the facts straight first.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Twinky,
I don't expect Mike to change his mind, but I was hoping he would at least answer direct questions so we could debate and discuss it rationally.
Steve,
Are these direct quotes from Mike's posts?
What the Hey,
I have to agree with you here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What are the five steps the serpent used to deceive [fill in a name.]?
1. He questioned the integrity and accuracy of PFAL.
2.[fill in a name] responded to him, started participating by conversing and "reasoning".
3. [fill in a name] omitted a word.
If one word is omitted from PFAL, is it still the word of PFAL? No. it has become private interpretation. By omitting one word, [fill in the blank] no longer has the word of PFAL.
4. [fill in the blank] added a word.
When one adds to the word of PFAL, is it still the word of PFAL? Again, it becomes private interpretation. The moment a word is deleted or added, One no longer has the word of PFAL.
5. [fill in the blank] changed the word of PFAL.
This is the spiraling road downward. To this day, whenever Satan wants to attack men and women of PFAL, he always leads them to question the integrity of the word of PFAL and then change it so that the word of PFAL no longer exists.
Therefore I say unto you:
STAND!----Let nothing sway you from the word of PFAL.
(paraphrased from pages 253 and 254 of "The Orange Book".)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Also, "all men are liars" the "all" must be interpreted "all with distinction". "All without exception" men are NOT liars, Jesus being the distinctive exception.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I'll have to get back to you after a bit.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You can only have the original understanding of the scriptures as a GOAL you seek, not as a rule you use. It's not available in a bookstore. You need to do research to recover it.
The only reason VPW could have that as his only rule was because God offered it to him. You were not offered to have God's special assistance at using that kind of only rule. It was revelation guidance offered to VPW only. For you to try and take that as your only rule you must first FIND it, and you can't. You can try a lifetime to recover it, but you can't do it. It requires revelation. The reason you wont get that kind of revelation in your recovery research is because it was already given to VPW and he gave it to us in written form, which you've rejected.
I'm not getting bent out of shape over this, I'm just going to match your challenges. I don't trust your ability to work within PFAL because you have not demonstrated an understanding of my posting. If you go back and read them all with this in mind you'll see what I'm talking about. There's OODLES of things you have missed because your idea of a rational discussion is to prove PFAL wrong, and that doesn't require you to get my posting down accurately. I do require it if you want to discuss these things with me. I will continue to show you that you don't get it, and that's the reason I refuse to participate in a discussion style suited to your goals.
You assume I have no message of substance so you skim my posts and don't digest them. I've shown numerous instances of this. I will continue until you get it right. So far you show me that you aren't paying attention enough.
A long time ago Oakspear and Abigail were the only ones who got it, that Dr's only rule for faith and practice was revelation based, or at least that's what he claimed. No other posters got it. You don't yet either.
Until you can give me a printed text or texts that is your only rule you don't have one. If you say your rule is revelation based then I challenge you to minister it to people and stop wasting time here.
WHEN will you at least get it, what Dr claimed and what I am reporting?
If you say the printed Bible is your rule, then I say it's a multiple bending rule,
If you say the original content of the scriptures is your rule, then I say it's not printed and it's not in usable (able to rule) form.
So, give me your single rule that's absolutely finished and unbendable; give me the Library of Congress Number(s). If it doesn't have one scan and post the first page and tell me how I can get the remaining pages. Otherwise I say you don't have one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
*munches on popcorn*
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Whether or not I have a rule of faith and practice or can cite an LOC number is really irrelevant to your premise regarding PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Why would you trust my ability to work within PFAL when the whole debate started with whether or not PFAL is God breathed? I have put forth several challenges which you have not met yet. When you put forth straight answers to those questions then we can proceed. But you can't use your faith in PFAL to prove PFAL is God-breathed. That's circular reasoning and begging the question.
Part of your definition of God-breathed is that it has no errors. You claim that PFAL in fact has no errors, and the apparent errors that we see are due to our misunderstanding of PFAL. Fine. Prove that. Get specific. Address the issues we have brought up and demonstrate how you handle them in light of your methodology and determine that they are not errors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I'm not arguing whether jesus was JUST a man, or the son of god or whatever. what I'm saying is it's a stupid argument to discount the ability to use our brains and compare opinions just because we're human. you said:
so I'm saying that if you say Steve isn't smart enough to find an error in something you deem to be objective by virtue of being written by vpw because "all men are liars", how can you uphold the validity of vpw's writings if vpw is a liar and by extension using your logic, jesus is as well because if you believe vpw, jesus ain't god.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Your patronizing insults have worn thin.
"I'm too busy to be bothered with you.."
"You guys don't have the necessary brainpower."
"None of you ever learned how to study."
"You're all too lazy to work at this."
"No one was paying attention."
"I'll only discuss this in PM's so I can control the secrecy."
"You guys are wasting my time."
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
Unless you can approach this, or any other subject, like a rational human being and have a healthy respect for others opinions, I see no valid reason to attempt engaging in this thinly veiled PFAL "info-mmercial" any longer.
Good luck, Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
ditto.
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.