the great research ministry

[What About It]

A series of articles in the Way magazine was written by the Presidunce's crabbinet on Keys to the Werd's Interpretation (yes, the same keys that were stolen from Bullinger in How to Enjoy the Bible:

http://philologos.org/__eb-htetb/

but that's ).

So one cabinet member writes an article on To Whom the Word is Addressed. It was a longer article, and covered the sections of the Werd addressed to all the administrations as the way taught them, as well as the second aspect of this topic as taught by the MOG on Jew, Gentile, Church of God.

The author of this Way Magazine article gets to examples of scriptures addressed to us in our administration. He shows an OT verse, Isaiah 53:5: "with his stripes we are healed" to teach that they in the OT looked forward to Jesus Christ's coming and "claimed" their healing based on his future realities. The companion verse in the NT, of course, is I Peter 2:24: "by whose stripes ye were healed," and the author of the article used this verse the same way every other MOG in the way did, to show that this is addressed to us today and we look back at his accomplishments to claim our healing.

So I'm editing this article, and I ask myself, "Is I Peter is addressed to us? I thought the Church Epistles are addressed to us. And the author of the article just taught that also." (Of course along with the "leadership" epistles of Timothy and Titus.) So I ask the obvious question "Is I Peter addressed to us? It's not one of the Church Epistles, yet we say it's addressed to us and that we can directly apply this verse." It turns out that no one in my department had an answer to this question, so it moves on to the great Research department.

What was their final answer? Yank the whole section out of the article because they don't have an answer either and neither can they get an answer....Why? After 50+ years of the "best Biblical research on the planet," no MOG has taught an answer to this. And of course because Victor Paul Wierwille didn't say who Peter was addressed to, then we don't really know what's true and what's not. This is what they call "proven ministry research" and if something new comes along that can't be compared to it then it will not see the light of day.

[Bolshevik]

Clearly, you were not 100% focused on your assignment . . . went and willfully had thoughts . . . started asking questions and causing confusion among the sheep (and who is the author of confusion?) . . . sure sign of spurt influence on your mind . . .

. . . I shall ignore your post . . . lest I also ponder . . .

[hiway29]

Even 20 some years removed, and not caring one way or the other, I could have answered that question better than that-I think

Since everything written after pentecost was addressed to the church in the grace administration, it's still 'for our learning', even if it's not a 'church epistle'. Peter was referring to the finished work of Jesus Christ, therefore we 'were' healed.

Wow, my head hurts from going back and trying to think like a wayfer.

[penworks]

Interesting...do they happen to know that nobody really knows who even wrote I Peter? Most scholars say II and II Peter were not written by Paul. But that doesn't matter to them because they think God was the author, right?

[TrustAndObey]

Most scholars say II and II Peter were not written by Paul.

:blink:

[OldSkool]

Then there is the perspective that "by his stripes ye were healed" is a Hebrew figure of speech known as the prophetic perfect, where future events are worded as happening in the past tense to emphasize the surety of the promises fulfillment. Just saying. We are obviously not healed in the biblical sense of no sickness or death. But I am sure this disagrees with whats is the way international's "storehouse of truth."

[teachmevp]

Christine Hayes talks about that, by his stripes you were healed, it is a free down load from Yale, this woman gets into some stuff, that will bless your life.

Edited July 23, 2010 by teachmevp

[OldSkool]

Thanks! I'll check it out.

[excathedra]

i think if your job is editing, you should stick to your job. no questions -- well, until after the class

;)

[penworks]

:blink:

Correction: I and II Peter.

Edited July 23, 2010 by penworks

[excathedra]

i knew what you meant :)

[bulldogdaddy]

A series of articles in the Way magazine was written by the Presidunce's crabbinet on Keys to the Werd's Interpretation (yes, the same keys that were stolen from Bullinger in How to Enjoy the Bible:

http://philologos.org/__eb-htetb/

It seems there are two issues underlying your thinking withwhich we are all familiar.

FIRST IS THE CONCEPT OF DISPENSATIONS, which in TWI doctrinewas refined and parsed so minutely that TWI followers were led to believe thatcertain Scriptures were specifically addressed to them, while others were not,and could be effectively ignored. Note that I use the term “effectively” as in,The Congress of the United States is pledged to uphold the Constitution (and is often vociferous in noting itsadherence to such) but effectively ignores it time and again in actuallegislation. Not a political statement, just a point of fact to demonstrate my meaning, and readily apparent to anyone who cares to notice. 

SECOND IS THE CONCEPT OF “APPLICATION”. This is, really,also a fruit of the type of dispensationalism taught by TWI. We can “apply”certain things, because they are “directly addressed” to us, etc. We are all too aware that VPW was a mere popularizer ofother writer’s thoughts. In this case, we are speaking of the ultra-dispensationaldoctrines that were either directly espoused by E.W. Bullinger, or the modificationsthereof adapted by his followers. VPW was just a follower, not an originalthinker. That being said, it would appear that his particular adaptation of Bullinger’sthinking may have had a few unique twists, as my opening words would suggest.

This might help. Download the Kindle for PC (free) and then,in the Kindle Store, find H.A. Ironside’s brief tract entitled “WronglyDividing the Word of Truth.” If you are unfamiliar with Ironside, he was awidely regarded conservative scholar whose work has been so enduring, that itis still available not only in print, but also through the Logos Bible softwaresystem - without a doubt the pre-eminent Biblical database and research systemavailable today. In “Wrongly Dividing”, Ironside SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES BULLINGERISM,AND ITS BYPRODUCT – ULTRA-DISPENSATIONALISM.

 There are two versions of Ironside’s version available forKindle. I bought the version priced at $1.99, which is specifically formattedfor the Kindle for PC. You may have to call Amazon to have them sort out adigital tag issue. This happens with older public domain (free from copyright)  source material which may be published byvolunteers, and other non-profit groups.

 

 

[TrustAndObey]

Correction: I and II Peter.

That clears up half of it.. lol.. Just ignore me..

(So it takes a scholar to realize the books of Peter weren't written by Paul!) lol..

(Yes, I knew what you meant too.. Just looked kinda funny..)

Ok, ignore me again!

[OldSkool]

It seems there are two issues underlying your thinking withwhich we are all familiar.

I don't think WhatAboutIt is stating a defense of their thinking in relation to the way international. But exposing their lies that they are a "biblical research ministry." I for one appreciate the perspective of an insider laying bare the lack of actual biblical research that take place in the way international, since they state that they are a biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry.

It also goes to show the very shallow command of scriptures they actually have all the while claiming to have "the truth."

[What About It]

Even 20 some years removed, and not caring one way or the other,

Yep, I hear ya, hwy29. I'm 2 years removed and don't really give a rat's arse either.

Edit: the curse checker changed it to "foot" but I like "arse" better.

Edited July 24, 2010 by What About It

[What About It]

i think if your job is editing, you should stick to your job. no questions -- well, until after the class

;)

Oh, yeah, forgot to "stay in my lane." I guess my mind wasn't renewed or I wasn't thinking spiritually or something. But the question was at least spiritual enough to stump the great research department. Oh, you all know who's in that department, right? It's not really called the research department, it's Presidunce's Publications. And it's basically run by two hormonal, menopausal women (one of whom is the dept. coordinator) and one man, whom I used to have respect for before he lost his nards after being at HQ for a couple years, who is on the Dunce Cabinet and was given the title of Research Department coordinator (did I mention there's no research department? Oh, I guess I did at least once, right?) just so he'd have a department to coordinate (even though there's no department? OMG, I'm so confused right now).

[What About It]

I don't think WhatAboutIt is stating a defense of their thinking in relation to the way international. But exposing their lies that they are a "biblical research ministry." I for one appreciate the perspective of an insider laying bare the lack of actual biblical research that take place in the way international, since they state that they are a biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry.

It also goes to show the very shallow command of scriptures they actually have all the while claiming to have "the truth."

Exactly, OldSkool! Plus, don't you think it's just a wee bit odd that this very foundational and fundamental "truth" that is taught as early as the FNC gets completely thrown out because it can't stand up to one little question? Thus, the title of the thread, "the great research ministry."

Can someone tell me how this MultiQuote button works so that I don't keep spamming up threads like I've done here?

[waysider]

Geeze, I wish you guys would quit being so negative. VP (You know he wasn't really a doctor, don't you?) Wierwille said right there in PLAF (the wonder class) that if The Way ever discovered evidence that contradicted their previous teachings, they would immediately make the necessary changes. See? That's why it's called The New DYNAMIC ("ever changing") Church.

Please save all your questions until the final post of this thread. And remember, if you are ever in a position of just needing to know, feel free to write:

The Lecher

P.O. Box 328/Cloud #9

Old Dead Guy, Ohio 45871

Edited July 24, 2010 by waysider

[OldSkool]

This is so good I wanted it established!!

Geeze, I wish you guys would quit being so negative. VP (You know he wasn't really a doctor, don't you?) Wierwille said right there in PLAF (the wonder class) that if The Way ever discovered evidence that contradicted their previous teachings, they would immediately make the necessary changes. See? That's why it's called The New DYNAMIC ("ever changing") Church.

Please save all your questions until the final post of this thread. And remember, if you are ever in a position of just needing to know, feel free to write:

The Lecher

P.O. Box 328/Cloud #9

Old Dead Guy, Ohio 45871

[Broken Arrow]

i think if your job is editing, you should stick to your job. no questions -- well, until after the class

;)

Yeah, write 'em down. By that time, hopefully you'll have forgotten about them.

[Broken Arrow]

Interesting...do they happen to know that nobody really knows who even wrote I Peter? Most scholars say II and II Peter were not written by Paul. But that doesn't matter to them because they think God was the author, right?

They think I & II Peter were written by John Mark if I'm not mistaken, right?

Edited July 24, 2010 by erkjohn

[OldSkool]

I dunno. I always thought Peter wrote them. :P

[waysider]

Well, if your name actually happens to be Peter, maybe they were written to you.

I'm just sayin'

[Human without the bean]

Penworks wrote:

Interesting...do they happen to know that nobody really knows who even wrote I Peter? Most scholars say II and II Peter were not written by Paul. But that doesn't matter to them because they think God was the author, right?

My American Standard Version say that Peter wrote 1, 11 Peter. Why would anyone think that Paul wrote 1, 11 Peter and called them Peter?

Just asking? :unsure:

Well, if your name actually happens to be Peter, maybe they were written to you.

I'm just sayin'

Maybe Peter robbed it from Paul only to then gave it back to Peter.

[penworks]

Penworks wrote:

Interesting...do they happen to know that nobody really knows who even wrote I Peter? Most scholars say II and II Peter were not written by Paul. But that doesn't matter to them because they think God was the author, right?

My American Standard Version say that Peter wrote 1, 11 Peter. Why would anyone think that Paul wrote 1, 11 Peter and called them Peter?

Just asking? :unsure:

Maybe Peter robbed it from Paul only to then gave it back to Peter.

I admit my point was not made very clearly...VPW said Paul was the man of god for the church administration. Given that, the church epistles, to my mind would be the ones he wrote. But this conversation is now reminding me that VPW meant ANY books written during this church age, I guess (which he defined as after Pentecost). As someone pointed out, this does present a problem, actually many, because some of these books include quotes from the O.T. etc. and of course, Hebrews is totally off topic if you go by VP's theories of who it was written for, which I believe would have been the "believers of Israel" left here after the gathering together. Something like that. My memory of what VP taught about that book is fading. Anyway...

The two books attributed to Peter most probably were written by two different people. Some scholars say many NT books are "pseudonymous" and these two books are in that group most probably. Here's some info I've found helpful for those interested:

Pseudonymouse books are " forgeries by people who claim to be someone else. Included in this group is almost certainly 2 Peter, probably the pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, quite likely the deutero-Pauline Epistles of 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians, and possibly 1 Peter and Jude. But why would someone claim to be a famous person from the past? ...it was principally in order to get a hearing for his views."

This info is from Lost Christianities by Bart D. Ehrman, pg. 235. Great reading if you want to know more about how the books of the Bible were determined to be in the canon and who wrote them.

Cheers!

Edited July 24, 2010 by penworks