"Always wanting to try to prove that the founders where anti God and religion."
Jefferson? He was brought up in the Anglican church.
He was definitely anti-religion in his adult years and didn't have much respect for the Christian "religion" that believed in Jesus Christ as son of God and having a unique spiritual role as "messiah", didn't accept the doctrine of redemption by Jesus Christ, etc. etc. etc. He spoke out against the "Trinity" specifically (that fact was often used by VPW and The Way) but not to support their belief that Jesus was the " son of God and not God". Jefferson just didn't buy into any of that.
Anti - God? No, not by a long shot. He certainly wrote and spoke as if he believed in a God, a creator.
He stated in his writings that he attempted to draw moral and ethical lessons from the bible, and the teachings of Jesus without most of the spiritual baggage. He even re wrote his own version, stripping out what he considered parts that were added.
Oddly - I've read Christian writers note the fact that he produced his own version of the Bible as proof he was really a Christian, bible believin' man. Apparently they've never read it. I highly recommend it, for historical purposes. It's an interesting effort.
I really respect Jefferson, his thoughts and ideas and see him as one of the true lights of our country's foundation. Obviously most others do too -
But Jefferson gets adopted by many Christians today as if he would have supported the efforts of churches to take control of our government- as if that's what he was really proposing because he was a "Christian" by their standards - which he clearly wasn't, just the opposite in fact.
I've studied Jefferson, his history and his writings, have read most of his stuff, letters, published stuff, etc. etc. I'm not an expert by any means but more of a student of his life and writings.
Everyone wants to have him for their poster boy - even opposing sides! I suspect he might have liked that......
Remember when the rich guy (Matt.19:16) said to Jesus "good master, how do I get eternal life"? ........... Jesus DID need revelation to tell the guy to sell all he had and give to the poor. That would be word of wisdom.
Lots of problems with that explanation.
First, there is a glaringly apparent contradiction presented in Jesus' answer. Here, when addressing the subject of eternal life, we find him telling the man to follow the commandments. (works) When the man says he has followed the commandments, he tells him to sell his possessions and give aid to the poor. (more works)......How does this fit with salvation by grace, as presented in the epistles?...Simple, we just treat the Gospels as a predecessor of the Epistles....The "mystery" was not yet known...Except, the Gospels were actually written quite some time AFTER the Epistles. Well, then, let's just say say Jesus was speaking in response to revelation....So, why would this revelation require that Jesus present something contrary to what had already been presented in the (written) epistles?....Oh, I suppose you could say that, even though it was written in a "post-Jesus" time, it was depicting an event that was concurrent with Jesus' presence....However, it's contrary to John 3:16, as well....As presented in Wierwille's Advanced Class, revelation can never be in opposition to the written word........Even if we say it was revelation to a specific incident, as was Wierwille's explanation in the Advanced Class, this would have Jesus using/speaking a misrepresentation of scripture...Would God, being all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present have to give revelation to Jesus to tell a lie/misrepresentation to get His point across? Maybe the honest thing to do with something like this is just say, "I don't know." instead of creating scenarios that would have Jesus getting special revelation to lie to someone.
Is that off topic? I'm not sure. I think, though, it demonstrates how someone (VPW) could take a little bit of knowledge, misinterpret it, misrepresent it and spin an entirely theological concept (word of wisdom) around it.
"Always wanting to try to prove that the founders where anti God and religion."
Jefferson? He was brought up in the Anglican church.
He was definitely anti-religion in his adult years and didn't have much respect for the Christian "religion" that believed in Jesus Christ as son of God and having a unique spiritual role as "messiah", didn't accept the doctrine of redemption by Jesus Christ, etc. etc. etc. He spoke out against the "Trinity" specifically (that fact was often used by VPW and The Way) but not to support their belief that Jesus was the " son of God and not God". Jefferson just didn't buy into any of that.
Anti - God? No, not by a long shot. He certainly wrote and spoke as if he believed in a God, a creator.
He stated in his writings that he attempted to draw moral and ethical lessons from the bible, and the teachings of Jesus without most of the spiritual baggage. He even re wrote his own version, stripping out what he considered parts that were added.
Oddly - I've read Christian writers note the fact that he produced his own version of the Bible as proof he was really a Christian, bible believin' man. Apparently they've never read it. I highly recommend it, for historical purposes. It's an interesting effort.
I really respect Jefferson, his thoughts and ideas and see him as one of the true lights of our country's foundation. Obviously most others do too -
But Jefferson gets adopted by many Christians today as if he would have supported the efforts of churches to take control of our government- as if that's what he was really proposing because he was a "Christian" by their standards - which he clearly wasn't, just the opposite in fact.
I've studied Jefferson, his history and his writings, have read most of his stuff, letters, published stuff, etc. etc. I'm not an expert by any means but more of a student of his life and writings.
Everyone wants to have him for their poster boy - even opposing sides! I suspect he might have liked that......
My point was that it was a misquote and that both sides do this but usually people point to Christians for doing it (even if they are right)...... I don't think he (Jefferson) was a Christian by any means... Regardless they used false information in order to represent a claim right or wrong. Both sides do the same thing. Not only with Jefferson but the other signers as well to assemble how they viewed things. should be interpreted. TWI isn't the only one giving false information. Thats why it is important to do the research yourself :).
That's why it is important to do the research yourself :).
And therein lies the crux of the issue. In The Way, we were told we were being given the necessary tools to do independent research (cough), yet if one were to venture outside the prescribed doctrine of "The Blue Book", chastisement was sure to rear it's ugly head quite quickly.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. In The Way, we were told we were being given the necessary tools to do independent research (cough), yet if one were to venture outside the prescribed doctrine of "The Blue Book", chastisement was sure to rear it's ugly head quite quickly.
Independent research has been redefined to mean RE-searching proven ministry research.
Having all the answers doesn't solve anything. Usually because when you are at the point you think you have all the answers is the point you stop considering you could be wrong. I heard this song earlier today and it hit me just how I had been exactly so set in the mind frame that twi had all the answers, and was I ever wrong!
"There's more than one answer to these questions
Pointing me in a crooked line
And the less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine."
Hope my link worked so you can hear it "in the original" but since I'm posting from my iPhone I am not sure...
But you really don't know that. Jesus could have said that because he was dealing with a rich person and he simply wanted to put him to the test, so to speak. Why would he need revelation for that? Simply stated there is no proof he needed revelation to tell the guy that.
I think it was revelation because Jesus didn't say that to EVERY rich person he spoke to. Zacchaeus was rich. Had a purer heart. Joseph of Aramathea was rich also. Being rich, in and of itself, is not evil.
quote:
Lots of problems with that explanation.
First, there is a glaringly apparent contradiction presented in Jesus' answer. Here, when addressing the subject of eternal life, we find him telling the man to follow the commandments. (works) When the man says he has followed the commandments, he tells him to sell his possessions and give aid to the poor. (more works)......How does this fit with salvation by grace, as presented in the epistles?...Simple, we just treat the Gospels as a predecessor of the Epistles....The "mystery" was not yet known...Except, the Gospels were actually written quite some time AFTER the Epistles. Well, then, let's just say say Jesus was speaking in response to revelation....So, why would this revelation require that Jesus present something contrary to what had already been presented in the (written) epistles?....Oh, I suppose you could say that, even though it was written in a "post-Jesus" time, it was depicting an event that was concurrent with Jesus' presence....However, it's contrary to John 3:16, as well....As presented in Wierwille's Advanced Class, revelation can never be in opposition to the written word........Even if we say it was revelation to a specific incident, as was Wierwille's explanation in the Advanced Class, this would have Jesus using/speaking a misrepresentation of scripture...Would God, being all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present have to give revelation to Jesus to tell a lie/misrepresentation to get His point across? Maybe the honest thing to do with something like this is just say, "I don't know." instead of creating scenarios that would have Jesus getting special revelation to lie to someone.
Lots of selective reasoning with this explanation.
During the Christ administration salvation was not by grace, it was by believing that Jesus was the Christ. That rich guy didn't really believe that. As I said, he was being phony. What Jesus asked him to do was basically a litmus test, a shibboleth, to see if the rich guy's stated desire, to have eternal life, was genuine. Obviously, it wasn't. There's no contradiction here, apparent or otherwise.
As for this supposed "lie", when the gospels were written is irrelevant to when they took place. It hadn't "already been presented" in actual fact at the time Jesus said this, therefore, it wasn't a "lie". Why were the gospels relevant after the epistles had been written? That's another question, and yes, much of what you posted on this page IS off topic.
Cara: I agree with you that the phrase 'old original self' could simply mean each individual's soul, but the way that phrase is used in the book reflects some form of "doctrine". I was saying that educated people's opinions can be manipulated as doctrine just as much as twi's. That the door swings both ways; kinda what Brokenarrow said.
First, there is a glaringly apparent contradiction presented in Jesus' answer. Here, when addressing the subject of eternal life, we find him telling the man to follow the commandments. (works) When the man says he has followed the commandments, he tells him to sell his possessions and give aid to the poor. (more works)......How does this fit with salvation by grace, as presented in the epistles?...Simple, we just treat the Gospels as a predecessor of the Epistles....The "mystery" was not yet known...Except, the Gospels were actually written quite some time AFTER the Epistles. Well, then, let's just say say Jesus was speaking in response to revelation....So, why would this revelation require that Jesus present something contrary to what had already been presented in the (written) epistles?....Oh, I suppose you could say that, even though it was written in a "post-Jesus" time, it was depicting an event that was concurrent with Jesus' presence....However, it's contrary to John 3:16, as well....As presented in Wierwille's Advanced Class, revelation can never be in opposition to the written word........Even if we say it was revelation to a specific incident, as was Wierwille's explanation in the Advanced Class, this would have Jesus using/speaking a misrepresentation of scripture...Would God, being all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present have to give revelation to Jesus to tell a lie/misrepresentation to get His point across? Maybe the honest thing to do with something like this is just say, "I don't know." instead of creating scenarios that would have Jesus getting special revelation to lie to someone.
Is that off topic? I'm not sure. I think, though, it demonstrates how someone (VPW) could take a little bit of knowledge, misinterpret it, misrepresent it and spin an entirely theological concept (word of wisdom) around it.
If it bothers us we should be careful we don't do the same thing......and miss the point of the entire passage by not reading it in context, over-all theme, and the point Jesus was actually making. We can easily create a contradiction that isn't really there.
Jesus wasn't telling the man works would work for him to gain eternal life....although we could pull that out to make a point. He was telling him, that he had not even done what he had claimed he already did ....which is the first commandment.........to sell his good would have been one of the evidences of this. It was a revelation TO this rich man. Jesus was showing him he couldn't justify himself. It is a great passage for exemplifying the futility of trying to earn our own salvation.
This recorded event in the gospels fits perfectly with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians..... If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Why would I say "I don't know"? I can know what Jesus was saying and learn from this passage....it does absolutely fit with God's grace.
And Zaccheus was only going to give a portion back......according to the OT law. So, what gets you in? A tenth? Abundant sharing? Selling everything?
As far as Jesus needing "revelation" or word of wisdom.....that is ridiculous. The scriptures tell us that Jesus was full of grace and truth....He didn't commit Himself to any man because He knew what was in man.....But, He knowing their hearts.....He didn't need revelation to explain God's grace to this man and to reveal the man's heart. Jesus IS the revelation and the embodiment of all truth.
IMO our putting more faith in our understanding of the words in the bible rather than the subject of the bible is what was so problematic in TWI ....a supposed Christian group.
My two cents........back to topic........I thought the article was fascinating.
Anyway I was listening to VPW speak on You Tube in his accuracy vs religion for some research and he said this.... and I quote ..... to the best of my ability "Your believing is because of what you have been taught and no one can go beyond what they have been taught"
and I was thinking really.......
I always thought it was the goal of the teacher for the student to go beyond what he was taught and be independent.
Sounded like it would go well with the idea "too little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
Anyway I was listening to VPW speak on You Tube in his accuracy vs religion for some research and he said this.... and I quote ..... to the best of my ability "Your believing is because of what you have been taught and no one can go beyond what they have been taught"
You know, I haven't thought about that statement in any critical manner since leaving the way international. It is really a load of garbage. If no one goes beyond what they are taught then there is no real creativity. Not to mention countless inventors who went beyond what they were taught. To say the only mode of learning is a teacher is nuts. Thanks for bringing that up.
And of course victor pig wierwille didn't really want anyone to go beyond what he taught them. That is still how it is in the way international to this very day. If it was penned in one of wierwille's books it is above question and considered proven ministry research. It is above the bible and above question.
Yes, it's absurd. Wierwille was fond of saying this because (IMO) he wanted to be our primary source for knowledge. At one point he said, "If you don't know what something means (scripturally speaking), ask ME."....."Write The Teacher at P.O. Box-------" This is typical of cult-like figure heads. They present themselves as possessing some sort of proprietary knowledge.....Now, as to why that situation HAD to be revelation it's because that's how Wierwille was able to deal with what, in my opinion, still appears to be a contradiction. Along with the revelation "theory", one must, of neccessity, subscribe, as well, to Wierwille's delineation of administration/dispensationalism to make this fit. (ie: You have to accept Wierwille's concept of the Gospels being addressed to The Christ Administration,but, not to the administration of The Church/Grace Administration .)
edit:
One of the most flagrant problems with the idea of the Gospels being addressed to those who were alive during Christ's life is that, by the time they were written, the vast majority of those people were already long deceased.
Yes, it's absurd. Wierwille was fond of saying this because (IMO) he wanted to be our primary source for knowledge. At one point he said, "If you don't know what something means (scripturally speaking), ask ME."....."Write The Teacher at P.O. Box-------" This is typical of cult-like figure heads. They present themselves as possessing some sort of proprietary knowledge.....Now, as to why that situation HAD to be revelation it's because that's how Wierwille was able to deal with what, in my opinion, still appears to be a contradiction. Along with the revelation "theory", one must, of neccessity, subscribe, as well, to Wierwille's delineation of administration/dispensationalism to make this fit. (ie: You have to accept Wierwille's concept of the Gospels being addressed to The Christ Administration,but, not to the administration of The Church/Grace Administration .)
I always talk to my wife about points in the gospels about something that contradicts something that TWI teaches and then she tells me it wouldn't matter for me to bring it up because they were taught that the gospels where not made for this administration. I have to hit myself in the face..... I forgot the "logic" if something dose not agree with your presupposition in scripture say it was meant for another time.
I always talk to my wife about points in the gospels about something that contradicts something that TWI teaches and then she tells me it wouldn't matter for me to bring it up because they were taught that the gospels where not made for this administration.
Christ being the rock on which the church is built, it would stand to reason that the epistles would be based on the gospels, so to speak. Since no other foundation can any man lay, which is Jesus Christ. Ephesians says Jesus is the chief cornerstone. Yet, in handling the scripture, the way international counts Christ as absent and fancies themselves directing the affairs of the church. Then they ignore the gospels as written to someone else. Nice. Anywho, not to shoot too far into doctrinal.
..... I forgot the "logic" if something dose not agree with your presupposition in scripture, say it was meant for another time.
Not just any other time...any time OTHER than the Grace Administration, in which we live.
There's plenty of dogma in Way theology dealing with our "Sonship Rights" and inalienable priviledges, as God's chosen people, having been given a free pass to live above the law.....all made possible by a correct understanding of what is written to us and what is simply for our learning...As Wierwille was fond of saying, you are free to "do what you like as long as you like what you do"....How much handier could it possibly be?
Not just any other time...any time OTHER than the Grace Administration, in which we live.
...as God's chosen people, having been given a free pass to live above the law.....you are free to "do what you like as long as you like what you do"
Never mind "live above the law" - most of these self-appointed gurus live and lived way below the law - that's both God's law, and the law of the land.
If they didn't/don't know - they ought to have done - therefore they are not worthy to teach others.
If they did/do know - then the usual word is "hypocrite."
Jesus DID need revelation to tell the guy to sell all he had and give to the poor. That would be word of wisdom. If the guy had done that he either would have been blessed enough to absorb the loss of his goods and/or he would have gotten more earthly riches back. Not Jesus' problem the guy made the wrong choice.
Hmmmm.....actually, Jesus didn't say anything about that johniam. Nothing about being "blessed" enough to absorb loss of his stuff or that he woudl have gotten "more".............right after the he spoke to the difficulty that a person of wealth has to "enter the kingdom of God"....................when you or I say things like that we are doing exactly what Jesus said NOT to do and what would be a PROBLEM for people - that is attaching earthly wealth and goods to God's kingdom. There was no quarantee of anything to that guy in the record as far as his wealth went - that's what he was to give away.......capiche?
I was talking to someone about this once and they were apparently brain dead from having listened too many times to VPW saying "Dahts right, kids!" because they immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was saying that there was something wrong with money or having stuff or that God didn't want to "bless" people with "abundance". Which isn't what I'm saying and has nothing to do with this.......as geisha has noted, the issues are different.
"Research can be defined as the search for knowledge, or as any systematic investigation, to establish novel facts, solve new or existing problems, prove new ideas, or develop new theories, usually using a scientific method."
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research
"Definition of RESEARCH
1
: careful or diligent search
2
: studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws
3
: the collecting of information about a particular subject "
"In the broadest sense of the word, the definition of research includes any gathering of data, information and facts for the advancement of knowledge."
"Reading a factual book of any sort is a kind of research. Surfing the internet or watching the news is also a type of research.
Science does not use this word in the same way, preferring to restrict it to certain narrowly defined areas. The word ‘review’ is more often used to describe the learning process which is one of the underlying tenets of the rigid structures defining scientific research.
THE SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION
The strict definition of scientific research is performing a methodical study in order to prove a hypothesis or answer a specific question. Finding a definitive answer is the central goal of any experimental process.
Research must be systematic and follow a series of steps and a rigid standard protocol. These rules are broadly similar but may vary slightly between the different fields of science.
Scientific research must be organized and undergo planning, including performing literature reviews of past research and evaluating what questions need to be answered.
Any type of ‘real’ research, whether scientific, economic or historical, requires some kind of interpretation and an opinion from the researcher. This opinion is the underlying principle, or question, that establishes the nature and type of experiment.
The scientific definition of research generally states that a variable must be manipulated, although case studies and purely observational science do not always comply with this norm. "
I always talk to my wife about points in the gospels about something that contradicts something that TWI teaches and then she tells me it wouldn't matter for me to bring it up because they were taught that the gospels where not made for this administration. I have to hit myself in the face..... I forgot the "logic" if something dose not agree with your presupposition in scripture say it was meant for another time.
[You should remember to ask us.
Ex-twi'ers who still drink the Kool-Aid tend to make the same few dozen mistakes,
no matter who, down the decades.
Several of those mistakes have been definitively disproven using simple Bible techniques
Dr. Wierwille taught that the OT was only "for our learning" and that the NT was for "doctrine", distinguishing between the two.
He used Romans 15:4 for his proof text.
Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
However what VPW failed to tell us was that "learning" in Romans 15: 4 is the Greek - didaskalia. This same Greek word is translated "doctrine" 19 times elsewhere in the Bible. This is the only verse where it is translated "learning".
In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the gospels are written to Israel and/or to the church of the gospels.
In truth, the gospels are all written after the resurrection, and they are written to practicing Christians. There was nothing written specifically TO the church of the gospels.
=================================================
[so, what does that mean?
It means that vpw was completely wrong on this.
A) He said that the Gospels didn't apply to us because one verse says that what was written aforetime
was for our learning. Therefore, the Gospels were for our learning.
This fails because Genesis-Malachi were written aforetime. The Gospels were written after Pentecost
and concurrently with the Epistles. So "written aforetime" doesn't apply to the Gospels,
making them as relevant to Christians as the Church Epistles.
vpw made a simple mistake that any Divinity School student should be able to avoid, let alone a
supposed graduate. (Some people keep calling him some sort of "Dr" but he should be above
elementary mistakes if he really was one.)
B) He said that the Gospels didn't apply to us because one verse says that what was written aforetime
was for our learning. Therefore, it's not for our doctrine, it's merely something we may learn from,
and it wasn't addressed to us.
This fails because vpw once again ignored an error in the KJV and based a doctrine on it.
The phrase "for our learning" contains the word "learning", which is translated (poorly) from
the Greek word "didaskalia." That's the same word consistently translated "doctrine" elsewhere
in the Epistles. So, that sentence should read that what was written aforetime was
"for our DOCTRINE."
So, that verse didn't address the Gospels at all, and if it did, it would make the opposite
point vpw claimed it made. The Bible is a united whole, so it's all profitable for the
Christian, for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness. ]
quote: If no one goes beyond what they are taught then there is no real creativity. Not to mention countless inventors who went beyond what they were taught. To say the only mode of learning is a teacher is nuts.
Nope. The inventor sees something in what he was taught that others don't see. Same for the creative person. What does "what they were taught" mean? We all have been taught things by parents, older siblings, teachers, ministers, Sunday school teachers, cartoon characters on TV, the list is endless. So, if I am taught something by a minister, and taught something else(separately) by an older sibling, then, without any "teacher" personally present, I can compare what I was taught by each one (minister and older sibling) and reach my own conclusions. And this is part of "what I was taught". The possibilities are endless. But it all started with......parents, older siblings, etc. No, you CAN'T go beyond "what you were taught". This is a no brainer when you remove the anti VP filter.
quote: If no one goes beyond what they are taught then there is no real creativity. Not to mention countless inventors who went beyond what they were taught. To say the only mode of learning is a teacher is nuts.
Nope. The inventor sees something in what he was taught that others don't see. Same for the creative person. What does "what they were taught" mean? We all have been taught things by parents, older siblings, teachers, ministers, Sunday school teachers, cartoon characters on TV, the list is endless. So, if I am taught something by a minister, and taught something else(separately) by an older sibling, then, without any "teacher" personally present, I can compare what I was taught by each one (minister and older sibling) and reach my own conclusions. And this is part of "what I was taught". The possibilities are endless. But it all started with......parents, older siblings, etc. No, you CAN'T go beyond "what you were taught". This is a no brainer when you remove the anti VP filter.
[Any true innovator has taken things in directions that defy "what they were taught."
To say otherwise does a great disservice to them and belittles their accomplishments.
Any person who learned through independent study went "beyond what they were taught" because there
was no teacher. Anyone who learned "hands-on" through experience with nobody over their shoulder
went "beyond what they were taught" because there was no teacher.
On the other hand, one can go around REDEFINING what it means to be a teacher or to have
a teacher. However, isn't redefining a term or concept just so it agrees with vpw
an awfully long step to make just to justify another factual mistake?
He said something that was technically incorrect. It was also self-serving, as in
"I'm 'The Teacher' and you'll only go as far as I teach you."
Accept it was an error and get past it. I recognized this decades ago and the most
thought I've ever given it was explaining it now and dismay that some people would
rather come up with creative reinterpretations of the common usage of words rather
than accept vpw made mistakes and this was one of them.]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
9
32
13
Popular Days
Oct 28
15
Nov 7
14
Nov 1
13
Oct 27
13
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 12 posts
johniam 9 posts
waysider 32 posts
Naten00 13 posts
Popular Days
Oct 28 2011
15 posts
Nov 7 2011
14 posts
Nov 1 2011
13 posts
Oct 27 2011
13 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
And therein lies the crux of the issue. In The Way, we were told we were being given the necessary tools to do independent research (cough), yet if one were to venture outside the prescribed doctrine
WordWolf
I prefer to say that "the Theory of Evolution" HAS NOT MADE ITS CASE. If it is true and correct, I have not been presented with sufficient evidence to support the major points that are claimed. Adhe
waysider
As would I, as well.....ALL is much too far-reaching a word to use. My point was simply this: We often hear the argument being presented that this country was based on Christian principles. That is n
socks
"Always wanting to try to prove that the founders where anti God and religion."
Jefferson? He was brought up in the Anglican church.
He was definitely anti-religion in his adult years and didn't have much respect for the Christian "religion" that believed in Jesus Christ as son of God and having a unique spiritual role as "messiah", didn't accept the doctrine of redemption by Jesus Christ, etc. etc. etc. He spoke out against the "Trinity" specifically (that fact was often used by VPW and The Way) but not to support their belief that Jesus was the " son of God and not God". Jefferson just didn't buy into any of that.
Anti - God? No, not by a long shot. He certainly wrote and spoke as if he believed in a God, a creator.
He stated in his writings that he attempted to draw moral and ethical lessons from the bible, and the teachings of Jesus without most of the spiritual baggage. He even re wrote his own version, stripping out what he considered parts that were added.
Oddly - I've read Christian writers note the fact that he produced his own version of the Bible as proof he was really a Christian, bible believin' man. Apparently they've never read it. I highly recommend it, for historical purposes. It's an interesting effort.
I really respect Jefferson, his thoughts and ideas and see him as one of the true lights of our country's foundation. Obviously most others do too -
But Jefferson gets adopted by many Christians today as if he would have supported the efforts of churches to take control of our government- as if that's what he was really proposing because he was a "Christian" by their standards - which he clearly wasn't, just the opposite in fact.
I've studied Jefferson, his history and his writings, have read most of his stuff, letters, published stuff, etc. etc. I'm not an expert by any means but more of a student of his life and writings.
Everyone wants to have him for their poster boy - even opposing sides! I suspect he might have liked that......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Lots of problems with that explanation.
First, there is a glaringly apparent contradiction presented in Jesus' answer. Here, when addressing the subject of eternal life, we find him telling the man to follow the commandments. (works) When the man says he has followed the commandments, he tells him to sell his possessions and give aid to the poor. (more works)......How does this fit with salvation by grace, as presented in the epistles?...Simple, we just treat the Gospels as a predecessor of the Epistles....The "mystery" was not yet known...Except, the Gospels were actually written quite some time AFTER the Epistles. Well, then, let's just say say Jesus was speaking in response to revelation....So, why would this revelation require that Jesus present something contrary to what had already been presented in the (written) epistles?....Oh, I suppose you could say that, even though it was written in a "post-Jesus" time, it was depicting an event that was concurrent with Jesus' presence....However, it's contrary to John 3:16, as well....As presented in Wierwille's Advanced Class, revelation can never be in opposition to the written word........Even if we say it was revelation to a specific incident, as was Wierwille's explanation in the Advanced Class, this would have Jesus using/speaking a misrepresentation of scripture...Would God, being all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present have to give revelation to Jesus to tell a lie/misrepresentation to get His point across? Maybe the honest thing to do with something like this is just say, "I don't know." instead of creating scenarios that would have Jesus getting special revelation to lie to someone.
Is that off topic? I'm not sure. I think, though, it demonstrates how someone (VPW) could take a little bit of knowledge, misinterpret it, misrepresent it and spin an entirely theological concept (word of wisdom) around it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
My point was that it was a misquote and that both sides do this but usually people point to Christians for doing it (even if they are right)...... I don't think he (Jefferson) was a Christian by any means... Regardless they used false information in order to represent a claim right or wrong. Both sides do the same thing. Not only with Jefferson but the other signers as well to assemble how they viewed things. should be interpreted. TWI isn't the only one giving false information. Thats why it is important to do the research yourself :).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
And therein lies the crux of the issue. In The Way, we were told we were being given the necessary tools to do independent research (cough), yet if one were to venture outside the prescribed doctrine of "The Blue Book", chastisement was sure to rear it's ugly head quite quickly.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Independent research has been redefined to mean RE-searching proven ministry research.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
Having all the answers doesn't solve anything. Usually because when you are at the point you think you have all the answers is the point you stop considering you could be wrong. I heard this song earlier today and it hit me just how I had been exactly so set in the mind frame that twi had all the answers, and was I ever wrong!
"There's more than one answer to these questions
Pointing me in a crooked line
And the less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine."
Hope my link worked so you can hear it "in the original" but since I'm posting from my iPhone I am not sure...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
But you really don't know that. Jesus could have said that because he was dealing with a rich person and he simply wanted to put him to the test, so to speak. Why would he need revelation for that? Simply stated there is no proof he needed revelation to tell the guy that.
I think it was revelation because Jesus didn't say that to EVERY rich person he spoke to. Zacchaeus was rich. Had a purer heart. Joseph of Aramathea was rich also. Being rich, in and of itself, is not evil.
quote:
Lots of problems with that explanation.
First, there is a glaringly apparent contradiction presented in Jesus' answer. Here, when addressing the subject of eternal life, we find him telling the man to follow the commandments. (works) When the man says he has followed the commandments, he tells him to sell his possessions and give aid to the poor. (more works)......How does this fit with salvation by grace, as presented in the epistles?...Simple, we just treat the Gospels as a predecessor of the Epistles....The "mystery" was not yet known...Except, the Gospels were actually written quite some time AFTER the Epistles. Well, then, let's just say say Jesus was speaking in response to revelation....So, why would this revelation require that Jesus present something contrary to what had already been presented in the (written) epistles?....Oh, I suppose you could say that, even though it was written in a "post-Jesus" time, it was depicting an event that was concurrent with Jesus' presence....However, it's contrary to John 3:16, as well....As presented in Wierwille's Advanced Class, revelation can never be in opposition to the written word........Even if we say it was revelation to a specific incident, as was Wierwille's explanation in the Advanced Class, this would have Jesus using/speaking a misrepresentation of scripture...Would God, being all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present have to give revelation to Jesus to tell a lie/misrepresentation to get His point across? Maybe the honest thing to do with something like this is just say, "I don't know." instead of creating scenarios that would have Jesus getting special revelation to lie to someone.
Lots of selective reasoning with this explanation.
During the Christ administration salvation was not by grace, it was by believing that Jesus was the Christ. That rich guy didn't really believe that. As I said, he was being phony. What Jesus asked him to do was basically a litmus test, a shibboleth, to see if the rich guy's stated desire, to have eternal life, was genuine. Obviously, it wasn't. There's no contradiction here, apparent or otherwise.
As for this supposed "lie", when the gospels were written is irrelevant to when they took place. It hadn't "already been presented" in actual fact at the time Jesus said this, therefore, it wasn't a "lie". Why were the gospels relevant after the epistles had been written? That's another question, and yes, much of what you posted on this page IS off topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Cara: I agree with you that the phrase 'old original self' could simply mean each individual's soul, but the way that phrase is used in the book reflects some form of "doctrine". I was saying that educated people's opinions can be manipulated as doctrine just as much as twi's. That the door swings both ways; kinda what Brokenarrow said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
If it bothers us we should be careful we don't do the same thing......and miss the point of the entire passage by not reading it in context, over-all theme, and the point Jesus was actually making. We can easily create a contradiction that isn't really there.
Jesus wasn't telling the man works would work for him to gain eternal life....although we could pull that out to make a point. He was telling him, that he had not even done what he had claimed he already did ....which is the first commandment.........to sell his good would have been one of the evidences of this. It was a revelation TO this rich man. Jesus was showing him he couldn't justify himself. It is a great passage for exemplifying the futility of trying to earn our own salvation.
This recorded event in the gospels fits perfectly with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians..... If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Why would I say "I don't know"? I can know what Jesus was saying and learn from this passage....it does absolutely fit with God's grace.
And Zaccheus was only going to give a portion back......according to the OT law. So, what gets you in? A tenth? Abundant sharing? Selling everything?
As far as Jesus needing "revelation" or word of wisdom.....that is ridiculous. The scriptures tell us that Jesus was full of grace and truth....He didn't commit Himself to any man because He knew what was in man.....But, He knowing their hearts.....He didn't need revelation to explain God's grace to this man and to reveal the man's heart. Jesus IS the revelation and the embodiment of all truth.
IMO our putting more faith in our understanding of the words in the bible rather than the subject of the bible is what was so problematic in TWI ....a supposed Christian group.
My two cents........back to topic........I thought the article was fascinating.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I think it wasn't revelation so it seems my opinion cancels your opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
I love the sarcasm
Anyway I was listening to VPW speak on You Tube in his accuracy vs religion for some research and he said this.... and I quote ..... to the best of my ability "Your believing is because of what you have been taught and no one can go beyond what they have been taught"
and I was thinking really.......
I always thought it was the goal of the teacher for the student to go beyond what he was taught and be independent.
Sounded like it would go well with the idea "too little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
You know, I haven't thought about that statement in any critical manner since leaving the way international. It is really a load of garbage. If no one goes beyond what they are taught then there is no real creativity. Not to mention countless inventors who went beyond what they were taught. To say the only mode of learning is a teacher is nuts. Thanks for bringing that up.
And of course victor pig wierwille didn't really want anyone to go beyond what he taught them. That is still how it is in the way international to this very day. If it was penned in one of wierwille's books it is above question and considered proven ministry research. It is above the bible and above question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yes, it's absurd. Wierwille was fond of saying this because (IMO) he wanted to be our primary source for knowledge. At one point he said, "If you don't know what something means (scripturally speaking), ask ME."....."Write The Teacher at P.O. Box-------" This is typical of cult-like figure heads. They present themselves as possessing some sort of proprietary knowledge.....Now, as to why that situation HAD to be revelation
it's because that's how Wierwille was able to deal with what, in my opinion, still appears to be a contradiction. Along with the revelation "theory", one must, of neccessity, subscribe, as well, to Wierwille's delineation of administration/dispensationalism to make this fit. (ie: You have to accept Wierwille's concept of the Gospels being addressed to The Christ Administration,but, not to the administration of The Church/Grace Administration .)
edit:
One of the most flagrant problems with the idea of the Gospels being addressed to those who were alive during Christ's life is that, by the time they were written, the vast majority of those people were already long deceased.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
I always talk to my wife about points in the gospels about something that contradicts something that TWI teaches and then she tells me it wouldn't matter for me to bring it up because they were taught that the gospels where not made for this administration. I have to hit myself in the face..... I forgot the "logic" if something dose not agree with your presupposition in scripture say it was meant for another time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Christ being the rock on which the church is built, it would stand to reason that the epistles would be based on the gospels, so to speak. Since no other foundation can any man lay, which is Jesus Christ. Ephesians says Jesus is the chief cornerstone. Yet, in handling the scripture, the way international counts Christ as absent and fancies themselves directing the affairs of the church. Then they ignore the gospels as written to someone else. Nice. Anywho, not to shoot too far into doctrinal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Not just any other time...any time OTHER than the Grace Administration, in which we live.
There's plenty of dogma in Way theology dealing with our "Sonship Rights" and inalienable priviledges, as God's chosen people, having been given a free pass to live above the law.....all made possible by a correct understanding of what is written to us and what is simply for our learning...As Wierwille was fond of saying, you are free to "do what you like as long as you like what you do"....How much handier could it possibly be?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Never mind "live above the law" - most of these self-appointed gurus live and lived way below the law - that's both God's law, and the law of the land.
If they didn't/don't know - they ought to have done - therefore they are not worthy to teach others.
If they did/do know - then the usual word is "hypocrite."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Jesus DID need revelation to tell the guy to sell all he had and give to the poor. That would be word of wisdom. If the guy had done that he either would have been blessed enough to absorb the loss of his goods and/or he would have gotten more earthly riches back. Not Jesus' problem the guy made the wrong choice.
Hmmmm.....actually, Jesus didn't say anything about that johniam. Nothing about being "blessed" enough to absorb loss of his stuff or that he woudl have gotten "more".............right after the he spoke to the difficulty that a person of wealth has to "enter the kingdom of God"....................when you or I say things like that we are doing exactly what Jesus said NOT to do and what would be a PROBLEM for people - that is attaching earthly wealth and goods to God's kingdom. There was no quarantee of anything to that guy in the record as far as his wealth went - that's what he was to give away.......capiche?
I was talking to someone about this once and they were apparently brain dead from having listened too many times to VPW saying "Dahts right, kids!" because they immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was saying that there was something wrong with money or having stuff or that God didn't want to "bless" people with "abundance". Which isn't what I'm saying and has nothing to do with this.......as geisha has noted, the issues are different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The word "research" was redefined by lcm. For those who aren't aware of it,
lcm's academic credentials was his Bachelor's Degree in Psychology,
and riding the bench on the football team.
lcm declared (with no justification) that "research" meant the same as "re-search"
or "search again", and that instead of academic "research", we were supposed to
reread twi materials and whatever vpw said.
I'd have to check my syllabus from the "Renewed Mind" class, however. I'm having the
impression that it came up in that as well, and that Walter endorsed this foolishness
long before lcm hit his "fog."
=======================
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Research
"Research can be defined as the search for knowledge, or as any systematic investigation, to establish novel facts, solve new or existing problems, prove new ideas, or develop new theories, usually using a scientific method."
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research
"Definition of RESEARCH
1
: careful or diligent search
2
: studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws
3
: the collecting of information about a particular subject "
www.experiment-resources.com/definition-of-research.html
"In the broadest sense of the word, the definition of research includes any gathering of data, information and facts for the advancement of knowledge."
"Reading a factual book of any sort is a kind of research. Surfing the internet or watching the news is also a type of research.
Science does not use this word in the same way, preferring to restrict it to certain narrowly defined areas. The word ‘review’ is more often used to describe the learning process which is one of the underlying tenets of the rigid structures defining scientific research.
THE SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION
The strict definition of scientific research is performing a methodical study in order to prove a hypothesis or answer a specific question. Finding a definitive answer is the central goal of any experimental process.
Research must be systematic and follow a series of steps and a rigid standard protocol. These rules are broadly similar but may vary slightly between the different fields of science.
Scientific research must be organized and undergo planning, including performing literature reviews of past research and evaluating what questions need to be answered.
Any type of ‘real’ research, whether scientific, economic or historical, requires some kind of interpretation and an opinion from the researcher. This opinion is the underlying principle, or question, that establishes the nature and type of experiment.
The scientific definition of research generally states that a variable must be manipulated, although case studies and purely observational science do not always comply with this norm. "
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[You should remember to ask us.
Ex-twi'ers who still drink the Kool-Aid tend to make the same few dozen mistakes,
no matter who, down the decades.
Several of those mistakes have been definitively disproven using simple Bible techniques
that many ex-twi'ers should find familiar.
This is one of them.]
============================
www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/4227-actual-errors-in-pfal/page__st__120
Dr. Wierwille taught that the OT was only "for our learning" and that the NT was for "doctrine", distinguishing between the two.
He used Romans 15:4 for his proof text.
Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
However what VPW failed to tell us was that "learning" in Romans 15: 4 is the Greek - didaskalia. This same Greek word is translated "doctrine" 19 times elsewhere in the Bible. This is the only verse where it is translated "learning".
www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/4227-actual-errors-in-pfal/
Number 9
In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the gospels are written to Israel and/or to the church of the gospels.
In truth, the gospels are all written after the resurrection, and they are written to practicing Christians. There was nothing written specifically TO the church of the gospels.
=================================================
[so, what does that mean?
It means that vpw was completely wrong on this.
A) He said that the Gospels didn't apply to us because one verse says that what was written aforetime
was for our learning. Therefore, the Gospels were for our learning.
This fails because Genesis-Malachi were written aforetime. The Gospels were written after Pentecost
and concurrently with the Epistles. So "written aforetime" doesn't apply to the Gospels,
making them as relevant to Christians as the Church Epistles.
vpw made a simple mistake that any Divinity School student should be able to avoid, let alone a
supposed graduate. (Some people keep calling him some sort of "Dr" but he should be above
elementary mistakes if he really was one.)
B) He said that the Gospels didn't apply to us because one verse says that what was written aforetime
was for our learning. Therefore, it's not for our doctrine, it's merely something we may learn from,
and it wasn't addressed to us.
This fails because vpw once again ignored an error in the KJV and based a doctrine on it.
The phrase "for our learning" contains the word "learning", which is translated (poorly) from
the Greek word "didaskalia." That's the same word consistently translated "doctrine" elsewhere
in the Epistles. So, that sentence should read that what was written aforetime was
"for our DOCTRINE."
So, that verse didn't address the Gospels at all, and if it did, it would make the opposite
point vpw claimed it made. The Bible is a united whole, so it's all profitable for the
Christian, for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness. ]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: If no one goes beyond what they are taught then there is no real creativity. Not to mention countless inventors who went beyond what they were taught. To say the only mode of learning is a teacher is nuts.
Nope. The inventor sees something in what he was taught that others don't see. Same for the creative person. What does "what they were taught" mean? We all have been taught things by parents, older siblings, teachers, ministers, Sunday school teachers, cartoon characters on TV, the list is endless. So, if I am taught something by a minister, and taught something else(separately) by an older sibling, then, without any "teacher" personally present, I can compare what I was taught by each one (minister and older sibling) and reach my own conclusions. And this is part of "what I was taught". The possibilities are endless. But it all started with......parents, older siblings, etc. No, you CAN'T go beyond "what you were taught". This is a no brainer when you remove the anti VP filter.
Go Cardinals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[Any true innovator has taken things in directions that defy "what they were taught."
To say otherwise does a great disservice to them and belittles their accomplishments.
Any person who learned through independent study went "beyond what they were taught" because there
was no teacher. Anyone who learned "hands-on" through experience with nobody over their shoulder
went "beyond what they were taught" because there was no teacher.
On the other hand, one can go around REDEFINING what it means to be a teacher or to have
a teacher. However, isn't redefining a term or concept just so it agrees with vpw
an awfully long step to make just to justify another factual mistake?
He said something that was technically incorrect. It was also self-serving, as in
"I'm 'The Teacher' and you'll only go as far as I teach you."
Accept it was an error and get past it. I recognized this decades ago and the most
thought I've ever given it was explaining it now and dismay that some people would
rather come up with creative reinterpretations of the common usage of words rather
than accept vpw made mistakes and this was one of them.]
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The expectation of a mentor is that their protege will rise to new levels that surpass what they were taught.
In the absence of exploration and creativity, we would all sing the same song.... over and over and over and over.....
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.