So you take what I offer as constructive criticism and make me your straightman with it. Now how much do you think I want to listen to what you have to say? How much do you think I care what you have to say?
Did Jesus Christ ever do this?
Sorry for that. It's just too tempting. You make such a great straightman because you're so humorless. It's like Abbot and Costello with you.
I also thought you'd be proud as punch to be the poster who got me to finally find the 22 statements. So, from your laughless point of view, what do you think of the first 3 pieces of evidence, now posted here, that slipped under all of our radar back in the day?
I once witnessed to some churchy people who tightly held the belief that Jesus never laughed. Imagine that! They didn't smile either. THEN, I couldn't find ANY places in my KJV where Jesus laughed. Maybe you're on to something here.
Sorry for that. It's just too tempting. You make such a great straightman because you're so humorless. It's like Abbot and Costello with you.
You don't listen do you? Your "temptation" to make me your straightman quelled all desire for me to listen to your message.
Quote
I also thought you'd be proud as punch to be the poster who got me to finally find the 22 statements. So, from your laughless point of view, what do you think of the first 3 pieces of evidence, now posted here, that slipped under all of our radar back in the day?
I once witnessed to some churchy people who tightly held the belief that Jesus never laughed. Imagine that! They didn't smile either. THEN, I couldn't find ANY places in my KJV where Jesus laughed. Maybe you're on to something here.
(pointing over Mikes head and behind Mike)
Look Mike there goes the point.
It's not about Jesus laughing its about making fun of someone offering constructive criticism
Further, Saint Vic never recieved revelation from God. How do I know? I Cor 6:9-10 : Adulterers, nor theives, nor drunkards will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If He's not going to allow them to inherit the kingdom, why would he give them revelation?
But, Saint Vic repented, you say. Sorry, he never did. How do I know? A truely repentant person would make an effort to make things right (unlike the phoney repentant person who thinks sorry is enough). Saint Vic never tried to right his wrongs, therefore he never repented.
You don't listen do you? Not much here, but I do read a lot.
You don't read do you? Or is it you lost the location of your humor switch and just can't lighten up?
Your "temptation" to make me your straightman quelled all desire for me to listen to your message.
.Are you joking here?
How much unquelled desire for you to listen to my message did you actually HAVE 6 hours ago?
My estimate would have been zero. Maybe that was ME projecting my own emotions into your emogee free plain text! Maybe some, but probably not all.
You seem to come at me like gangbusters, like I'm hurting your and you loved ones. You seem like a prosecutor also, unable to move with the conversation, seeking total control, and generally interrogating from an accusatory angle.
Let's just ask the non-posting reading audience to clap real loud if they agree with me on this ........................................ Did you HEAR THAT! It was faint but I definitely heard a pause with applause there.
***
But all seriousness aside....
NO! Wait. I mean all SILLINESS ASIDE, I am slowly answering your questions, in spite of the prosecutorial perceptions your posts plague me with as I read.
Let's try resurrecting that sliver of unquelled interest you still had, and and try to work with it. It's only been dead for 6 hours, and it might still be warm.
What area of inquiry intrigues you most? And in interests of statesmanship can you please answer ME a question or two about your question, not including this question? I like to ask why people ask, and what do they want to do with the answer… sometimes.
Also in interests of statesmanship, I'll cut back on the seriousness.... I mean silliness, if you lighten up a bit.
And for my aging eyes, the nicer you can make the format, the more energy my eyes will have to read it. I'm serious here. I am trying to do that also. This red format is ugly to me and I want to modify it some, but it seems to work for many details. I'm not sure which colors work best for me and/or for other people.
So, instead of a barrage of hard hitting questions, how about just a few if they're on the same topic?
I don't know if you read my responses to others, but please look at the evolving styles as we get to know each other. Maybe you can get better style ideas. Also please note how many questions I have answered to them. How many of your questions would youestimate I answered so far?
***
It's not about Jesus laughing its about making fun of someone offering constructive criticism
. I realize that. I was just thinking of humorless people and the "Jesus Never Laughed" people came to mind. I wanted to ask them if Jesus ever went to the bathroom, but held back. They probably didn't have bathrooms back then.
I try to make fun sometimes when I see that constructive criticism looking too much like a wrecking ball. I believe in righteous dodges, and humor is a good way of doing it.
Further, Saint Vic never recieved revelation from God. How do I know? I Cor 6:9-10 : Adulterers, nor theives, nor drunkards will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If He's not going to allow them to inherit the kingdom, why would he give them revelation?
.It has to do with the goodness of God being unquestionably good. Phrases like“able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think" and "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love"
.God's forgiveness and grace are not like our forgiveness and grace, they are FAR beyond it.
Yes, much greater efficiency in God's ability to get through is had when in fellowship. But God can wait.
There have been some days when I've been in and out of fellowship a dozen times, and it was almost ALWAYS private. No one knew at all. Sometimes they did.
One of the biggest revelations in PFAL is that we get to SIT and other power NOT due to us deserving it, but because we NEED IT so much! This revelation is lost in religion all the time.
If I can find a the right kind of search engine I can find a similar topic that I’ve posted extensively on. It’s the criteria we use to hire a minister versus the criteria God uses when He issues a job to someone.
We can only do background checks, but God can also check the future for sins not yet committed. There’s something for a Catholic theologian to sink some teeth into. LONG topic.
But, Saint Vic repented, you say. Sorry, he never did. How do I know? A truely repentant person would make an effort to make things right (unlike the phoney repentant person who thinks sorry is enough). Saint Vic never tried to right his wrongs, therefore he never repented.
.Before I cast any stones on any one individual I require complete documentation of ALL good deeds and ALL bad deeds.
I think that's a nice way of dismissing myself from an impossible task, by demanding impossible stipulations.
I do cast stones at ideas and actions that are wrong, if I think it will help.
This topic I get drained in discussing, so that's all I'm doing for now. I will try to keep track of your comments, because I genuinely want to work this topic more.
I did much posting on this 10 years ago, but often had to find ways of getting away from it. One of the ways I did this was to befriend some of the ladies here in Private Messaging. Once we became real friends they received enough assurance that I was not a threat in that area, and they even helped me in posting to get away from some nasty sin topics that so many others wanted to shove in my face. Some I’m still in touch with a few of those ladies today.
Having a very rigorous RC upbringing steeped in sin comparison, I welcome and insist on the revelation that all sin is equally repugnant to God.
<knee jerk reaction time>
NO! I am not saying that God thinks it’s ok to abuse people.
Nothing is different in my theology there.Where I differ is I think we ALL commit little sins (little to us) that are EQUALLY REPUGNANT to God.
Mistrust, unbelief, and anxiety are just as fellowship marring and sabotaging as sex can be, from God’s perspective.
You don't listen do you? Not much here, but I do read a lot. You don't read do you? Or is it you lost the location of your humor switch and just can't lighten up?
Your "temptation" to make me your straightman quelled all desire for me to listen to your message. .Are you joking here?
How much unquelled desire for you to listen to my message did you actually HAVE 6 hours ago?
My estimate would have been zero. Maybe that was ME projecting my own emotions into your emogee free plain text! Maybe some, but probably not all.
You seem to come at me like gangbusters, like I'm hurting your and you loved ones. You seem like a prosecutor also, unable to move with the conversation, seeking total control, and generally interrogating from an accusatory angle.
Let's just ask the non-posting reading audience to clap real loud if they agree with me on this ........................................ Did you HEAR THAT! It was faint but I definitely heard a pause with applause there.
***
But all seriousness aside....
NO! Wait. I mean all SILLINESS ASIDE, I am slowly answering your questions, in spite of the prosecutorial perceptions your posts plague me with as I read.
Let's try resurrecting that sliver of unquelled interest you still had, and and try to work with it. It's only been dead for 6 hours, and it might still be warm.
What area of inquiry intrigues you most? And in interests of statesmanship can you please answer ME a question or two about your question, not including this question? I like to ask why people ask, and what do they want to do with the answer… sometimes.
Also in interests of statesmanship, I'll cut back on the seriousness.... I mean silliness, if you lighten up a bit.
And for my aging eyes, the nicer you can make the format, the more energy my eyes will have to read it. I'm serious here. I am trying to do that also. This red format is ugly to me and I want to modify it some, but it seems to work for many details. I'm not sure which colors work best for me and/or for other people.
So, instead of a barrage of hard hitting questions, how about just a few if they're on the same topic?
I don't know if you read my responses to others, but please look at the evolving styles as we get to know each other. Maybe you can get better style ideas. Also please note how many questions I have answered to them. How many of your questions would youestimate I answered so far?
***
It's not about Jesus laughing its about making fun of someone offering constructive criticism
. I realize that. I was just thinking of humorless people and the "Jesus Never Laughed" people came to mind. I wanted to ask them if Jesus ever went to the bathroom, but held back. They probably didn't have bathrooms back then.
I try to make fun sometimes when I see that constructive criticism looking too much like a wrecking ball. I believe in righteous dodges, and humor is a good way of doing it.
Further, Saint Vic never recieved revelation from God. How do I know? I Cor 6:9-10 : Adulterers, nor theives, nor drunkards will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If He's not going to allow them to inherit the kingdom, why would he give them revelation?
.It has to do with the goodness of God being unquestionably good. Phrases like“able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think" and "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love"
.God's forgiveness and grace are not like our forgiveness and grace, they are FAR beyond it.
Yes, much greater efficiency in God's ability to get through is had when in fellowship. But God can wait.
There have been some days when I've been in and out of fellowship a dozen times.
One of the biggest revelations in PFAL is that we get SIT and other power NOT due to us deserving it, but because we NEED IT so much! This revelation is lost in religion all the time.
If I can find a the right kind of search engine I can find a similar topic that I’ve posted extensively on. It’s the criteria we use to hire a minister versus the criteria God uses when He issues a job to someone.We can only do background checks, but God can also check the future for sins not yet committed. There’s something for a Catholic theologian to sink some teeth into. LONG topic.
But, Saint Vic repented, you say. Sorry, he never did. How do I know? A truely repentant person would make an effort to make things right (unlike the phoney repentant person who thinks sorry is enough). Saint Vic never tried to right his wrongs, therefore he never repented.
.Before I cast any stones on any one individual I require complete documentation of ALL goo deed and ALL bad deeds. I think that's a nice way of dismissing myself from an impossible task: by demanding impossible stipulations.
I do cast stones at ideas and actions that are wrong, if I think it will help.
This topic I get drained in discussing, so that's all I'm doing for now. I will try to keep track of your comments, because I genuinely want to work this topic more. I did much posting on this 10 years ago, but had to find ways of getting away from it. One of the ways I did this was to befriend some of the ladies here in Private Messaging. Once we became real friends they received enough assurance that I was not a threat in that area they helped me get away from nasty sin topics that so many others wanted to shove in my face. Some I’m still in touch with today.
Having a very rigorous RC upbringing steeped in sin comparison, I welcome and insist on the idea that all sin is equally repugnant to God.
<knee jerk reaction time>
NO! I am not saying that God thinks it’s ok to abuse people. Nothing is different in my theology there.Where I differ is I think we ALL commit little sins (little to us) that are EQUALLY REPUGNANT to God. Mistrust, unbelief, and anxiety are just as fellowship marring and sabotaging as sex can be, from God’s perspective.
NO! I am not saying that God thinks it’s ok to abuse people.
Yes you are. Saint Vic sets the example. As I said, a truely repentful person tries to right his wrong. Did he ever try to write his wrong? So where are all the people telling us about the transgressions he's righted?
What your saying is its okay to do evil as long as your sure you say your sorry and be repentful afterward.
Before I cast any stones on any one individual I require complete documentation of ALL goo deed and ALL bad deeds. I think that's a nice way of dismissing myself from an impossible task: by demanding impossible stipulations.
The stipulation is only impossible because you make it impossible. Like I told you before, the truths of God are simple. If they weren't we wouldn't understand them. The simple truth of fellowship and repentance is when you transgress your responsible to right your wrong (Faith without works is dead, remember?) No attempt to right your wrong, no repentance, which means your out of fellowship an don't recieve the gifts of God, including revelation.
If I can find a the right kind of search engine I can find a similar topic that I’ve posted extensively on. It’s the criteria we use to hire a minister versus the criteria God uses when He issues a job to someone. We can only do background checks, but God can also check the future for sins not yet committed. There’s something for a Catholic theologian to sink some teeth into. LONG topic.
What you've posted on. Has anybody bothered to ask God? I did: I Cor 6:9-10. James 2:14-26.
Even Saint Vic wrote in PLAF, if your out of fellowship with God He can't bless you.
Further proof of this is Saint Vic's comment: "Sign, miracles, and wonders follow the man of God the way a tail follows a dog."
So where were all those signs, miracles, and wonders?
Once again, I think you need to study your PLAF materials a little more.
Ok, the "it's somewhere in a thread, now go find it" homework thing was classic Mike, so it didn't suprise me. Give a vague answer and some homework, deflect, and change the subject, and later announce that you answered it directly. However, he actually followed up by answering something, which was a real shocker for those who've been watching the same episode of this show over and over.
Doesn't mean it was RIGHT, but at least it was something that can be discussed.
Now then, there's a few things I like to remember about making claims about how super-special vpw claimed his stuff was. (Not an exclusive or complete list.)
1) vpw was a homiletician. He spent his time at work at the podium with a Bible in his hand, teaching (generally, teaching other people's research from one source or another, as has been documented across his iife.) Sometimes he would set things up. He had a receptive audience in his church and in his ministry. So, who's going to disagree with him? He set things up with that in mind. From time to time, he'd read something from the Bible, announce what it was about (correctly or not but never in doubt), and if it was supposedly something slightly controversial, he would disavow his responsibility for it and claim that any objectors were arguing with God Almighty. "Don't blame me-I didn't write the book!" Obviously, he was saying that the contents were in the Bible, and that he wasn't responsible for the contents of that book- rather, God Almighty was responsible. Much later, someone came along and said "He's saying he didn't write the book- the Orange Book is obviously not his writing, but God Almighty wrote it. Can't you see it? It's so simple!"
2) vpw ripped off the styles of others as well as their substance. If he'd heard any of us do a great teaching, he might later teach it and even ape our speech patterns and vocabulary shamelessly. Was it intentional (it worked for them) or unintentional (I don't understand this but I can regurgitate it as well as they taught it)? So, for example, when Stiles spent several HOURS working with vpw on sit, going over all his objections and doubts, vpw was mentally taking notes. Later, he bought Stiles' book. Between the 2, vpw taught Stiles' words from both forms, both the substance and the style, regurgitating them whether the context was apt or not. , Naturally, Stiles had to tell him things like "If this is really what God wants, then you have to think of this not as my words, but God's words" and other things of that nature. Later, someone came along and said "He obviously means the contents of the book this appeared in contains the words of God Almighty in a direct sense, not just expositing about the Bible. (What's really sad about that was that vpw and Stiles were BOTH wrong. Stiles was very sincere and well-intentioned. In fact, he based his life around it. And, as it turns out, he was wrong. It's sad to really base your life around something that is just plain wrong.
3) vpw was a lazy student, a lazy researcher, and a lazy plagiarist. So, when "he wrote a book", often HE did no such thing. The collaterals of pfal (except the White Book) were others taking vpw's sermons and typing them up and editing them. (The White Book was vpw doing a cut-and-paste on Stiles' book, at least 1 book of Bulliger's, and some of Leonard's work. ) So, when pfal as a class had vpw say "this is a class on keys", the Orange Book reads "this is a book on keys." Why did vpw change his focus, and what's the deeper meaning? Ridiculous questions. Others came along and tried to make sense of his work, and sometimes succeeded. Since they weren't him, they had to make certain assumptions here and there, best guesses, since the other approach meant he'd have to be actively involved with every page- and we know he spent his entire life getting away with as little of that as he could manage.
I have to take off for a few days. It's a shame that we finally have something to discuss just as I'm stepping out, but that's life. I'll rejoin the dance at the next song. I bet I won't miss much/
Has anyone seen the first three of 22 statements that are now posted?
I see many comments on me and my style of posting, but nothing on those SO WELL HIDDEN "thus saith the Lord" statements that so many grads (not just here) have told me are not in there.
Has anyone seen the first three of 22 statements that are now posted?
I see many comments on me and my style of posting, but nothing on those SO WELL HIDDEN "thus saith the Lord" statements that so many grads (not just here) have told me are not in there.
I saw them. Looks to me like you may have mischaracterized them.
In each of the three, you're REALLY stretching it when you claim that they are anything but Dictor using the expression as anything but a communication device. By that I mean, the point he's making is that he wants the student/reader/listener to get the point. So he's representing the point as being from God himself.
I do vaguely recall teachings on Figures of Speech that address that very communication device.
In each of the three, you're REALLY stretching it when you claim that they are anything but Dictor using the expression as anything but a communication device. By that I mean, the point he's making is that he wants the student/reader/listener to get the point. So he's representing the point as being from God himself.
I do vaguely recall teachings on Figures of Speech that address that very communication device.
I can see your point. But the pattern I lean towards is repeated in the other 19 statements. I'll post more of them them soon.
Might the figure of speech you have in mind be the one where Thomas said "My Lord and my God" when feeling Jesus's wounds? It's related to the OT place where Moses was made a god to Israel and Aaron was his prophet?
towards is repeated in the other 19 statements. I'll post more of them them soon.
Quote
Might the figure of speech you have in mind be the one where Thomas said "My Lord and my God" when feeling Jesus's wounds?
.Are you sure Thomas didn't say: "You are truely a hole-y man."
It's related to the OT place where Moses was made a god to Israel and Aaron was his prophet?
.And the winner in the close no cigar category: You probably meant mean the fact that Moses was made a god to pharaoh is real.
I notice you change the subject, that's the figure of speeech avoidis defactos.
It occurs when people encounter facts that don't fit their dogma so they ignore the facts, right?
Which, interestingly enough, is exactly the same thing Saint Vic did with adultry, theft, and boozing. They didn't fit what he wanted the bible to say, so he ignored them.
John Quincy Adams said: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
As Saint Vic himself admitted, when your out of fellowship, God can't bless you, including recieving the gifts of God.
Bottom line: If Saint Vic couldn't recieve the gifts of God, including revelation, you could show 2000 places where you claim he said thus saith the Lord and they would all be moot.
So now, back on track:
What of I Cor 6:9-10 and James 2:14-26?
Where were those "signs. miracles, and wonders that were supposed to follow a man of God like a tail follows a dog"?
Is there an account that Saint Vic tried to right his wrongs, as anybody truely repentant would do?
So then how can you claim Saint Vic repented and could recieve revelation?
And, since your not the one supposedly granting absolution, give me the chapter and verse where it says, line by line and word by word, that you can be out of fellowship and still recieve revelation.
In each of the three, you're REALLY stretching it when you claim that they are anything but Dictor using the expression as anything but a communication device. By that I mean, the point he's making is that he wants the student/reader/listener to get the point. So he's representing the point as being from God himself.
I do vaguely recall teachings on Figures of Speech that address that very communication device.
I'm having trouble understanding the device you refer to.
I also wanted to ask you for more info on the idea of people needing stories. It seems related to some science issues I've been working on.
I'm having trouble understanding the device you refer to.
I also wanted to ask you for more info on the idea of people needing stories. It seems related to some science issues I've been working on.
So, let's continue Saint Vic's dishonesty by using his tactics.
You can't explain away I Cor 6:9-10 and James 2:14-26 so let's ignore them and talk about anything else. Nor can you explain what happened to all those "signs, miracles, and wonders that follow a man of God the way a tail follows a dog".
It unfortunate that by refusing to address these points it casts suspicion on the rest of your "thesis."
So, let's continue Saint Vic's dishonesty by using his tactics.
You can't explain away I Cor 6:9-10 and James 2:14-26 so let's ignore them and talk about anything else. Nor can you explain what happened to all those "signs, miracles, and wonders that follow a man of God the way a tail follows a dog".
It unfortunate that by refusing to address these points it casts suspicion on the rest of your "thesis."
With my RC background so steeped in sin consciousness, I considered it a miracle to be set free of guilt. For those first 6 or 10 months when I first stumbled into a PFAL fellowship my facial muscles actually ached from the unfamiliar exercise of smiling.
I've also considered it a miracle that I heard that the dead were dead and that God was all light and no darkness at all. These were the things I'd witness to, not material abundance.
The verses you mention I am familiar with and believe. VPW himself said several times and in several ways that he failed to become the man he knew to be. He missed out on some big things by his own admission.
Have you considered I Corinthians 3:15 and it's context in the mix with those two passages you mentioned? There one word poorly translated in I Cor 3:17 that throws many readers off. In that verse the word "him" should be translated "it."
The passage is about the things that God's people can miss out on, even though they have eternal life. VPW was very unhappy at the end. Things did not go well for him, and he knew the ministry was in great trouble. I think that if he had been more successful in becoming the man he knew to be, then he would have reaped more happy results.
Now to introduce the next "Thus saith the Lord" statements I must take a little break.
Now that you're relaxed, here's a surprise spot quiz: Who can point out the hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement in the Preface of the Blue Book?
Hidden in the sense that it's not stated outright, like with the first three overt “thus saith” statements. Hidden in the sense that it's implied. You can't read it, but as you think it through the implication appears.
There's a subtle implication the last two sentences in the Preface of BTMS convey. For years I used to wince with pain whenever I'd see them, thinking that they were incredibly poor writing style. When you put these two sentences together something is implied.
***
Let's look at those two adjacent sentences in BTMS page ix and see what we can see.
The sentences are:
(1) "I know the contents of Volume I of Studies in Abundant Living will not only open up more
of God's Word for you, but will also uplift you - mentally and physically and spiritually."
(2) "Let us put God's Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance
from the darkness of this world."
Sentence (1) says the contents of BTMS will uplift us - mentally and physically and spiritually. That sounds like pretty complete upliftance. Upliftance from what? The world and it's darkness, of course.
Sentence (2) says that ONLY God's Word can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world.
Decades ago I would cringe while reading these two sentences. I thought it was poor writing to so strongly associate the contents of BTMS with God's Word. Now I see that it is right and proper.
***
Aside from each individual Preface having specific opening lines regarding that volume's contents, the wording for each "Thus saith the Lord" statement is nearly the same for all three Prefaces. All three of these early volumes were released in book form in 1971.
However, when Volume IV (GMWD) came out in 1977 there were two small but significant differences to be found in it's "Thus saith the Lord" statement. Here is that statement with the changes in my bold fonts:
(1) "I know that the contents of Volume IV of 'Studies in Abundant Living' will not only unveil more
of God’s Word for you, but, in doing so, will also uplift you - mentally and physically and spiritually."
(2) "Let us put God’s Word in our hearts and minds, for it alone can give us complete deliverance and dispel the darkness of this world."
This is part of the evolution of revelation that was happening while we snoozed. God was making more available to us bu this 1977 date and telling us in a quiet and discrete manner. It was a secret. We’ll get into more of this later.
Setting aside that interesting variation in Vol.IV GMWD’s Preface, the root preface for that and the Preface for the first three volumes is:
I know the contents of Volume [fill in the blank] of Studies in Abundant Living will not only open up more of God’s Word for you, but will also uplift you – mentally and physically and spiritually. ... Let us put God’s Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world.
Let’s diagram the first compound sentence.
The first subject is “contents” (of Volume [ ] of Studies in Abundant Living)
The first verb is “will ... open up”
The second subject is “contents” (implied from above)
The second verb is “will ... uplift”
Then the next sentence asserts that “it alone can give,” where it refers to God’s Word.
It just always looked odd that “it alone can give” is placed right next to an assertion that the “contents” were also going to do some giving. When I keep in mind the other “Thus Saith” statements, these seem to fit right in.
BTMS p. ix I know the contents of Volume I of Studies in Abundant Living will not only open up more of God’s
Word for you, but will also uplift you – mentally and physically and spiritually. ... Let us put God’s
Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world.
#5 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement
TNDC p. ix, x Preface I know the contents of Volume II of Studies in Abundant Living will not only open up more of God’s
Word for you, but will also uplift you – mentally and physically and spiritually. ... Let us put God’s
Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world.
#6 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement
WWAY p. ix Preface I know the contents of Volume III of “Studies in Abundant Living” will not only open up more of God’s
Word for you, but will also lift you – mentally and physically and spiritually. ... Let us put God’s
Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world.
#7 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement
GMWD p. viii Preface I know that the contents of Volume IV of “Studies in Abundant Living” will not only unveil more of God’s Word for you, but, in doing so, will also uplift you–mentally and physically and spiritually. ... Let us put God’s
Word in our hearts and minds, for it alone can give us complete deliverance and dispel the darkness of this world.
Notice that the upgrade for Vol. IV applies to BOTH sentences: The "contents" of Vol.IV is upgraded from "open up" to "unveil." The action of "it alone" (God's Word") is upgraded with the addition of "and dispel."
Now we can look at the change in the revelation in how that Preface was presented to us and know that something changed around 1977 for the better.
AC Key#13 (from 16 Keys to walking in the spirit) Revelation once given may change (God changes the
revelation after the circumstances change). Jonah 3:1-10
From what we've seen there were OTHER changes for the better in printed PFAL. We've seen another flurry of changes around 1982.
With my RC background so steeped in sin consciousness, I considered it a miracle to be set free of guilt. For those first 6 or 10 months when I first stumbled into a PFAL fellowship my facial muscles actually ached from the unfamiliar exercise of smiling.
I've also considered it a miracle that I heard that the dead were dead and that God was all light and no darkness at all. These were the things I'd witness to, not material abundance.
And this has what to do with the price of bull in PLAF? Rather than addressing the subject let's go around the block and look at a few trees.
What you saw wasn't because of Saint Vic, it was in spite of him. There were some people working in the trenches that weren't boozing, weren't stealing others intellectual property, and weren't womanizing and they reaped the rewards.
Quote
The verses you mention I am familiar with and believe. VPW himself said several times and in several ways that he failed to become the man he knew to be. He missed out on some big things by his own admission.
And yet he insisted on continuing in his evil ways. As I said, if I buy what your attempting to sell I can be as evil as I want to everyone as long as I say I'm sorry afterwards. Isn't that taking advantaage of God's grace?
Quote
Have you considered I Corinthians 3:15 and it's context in the mix with those two passages you mentioned? There one word poorly translated in I Cor 3:17 that throws many readers off. In that verse the word "him" should be translated "it."
And your source for this retranslation? The very person who did not want to be judged, but was really good about judging everyone else. Unfortunately, the way you translate the verse puts it in direct conflict with I Cor 6:3 which tell us we'll judge angels, so how much more the thing that pertain to this life. Does Saint Vic's behavior pertain to this life? I would say so. Some people are an example of what not to be. So he showed us how a man can have a godly appearance, yet not have any godliness. No revelation, no signs, no miracles, no wonders.
Quote
The passage is about the things that God's people can miss out on, even though they have eternal life. VPW was very unhappy at the end. Things did not go well for him, and he knew the ministry was in great trouble. I think that if he had been more successful in becoming the man he knew to be, then he would have reaped more happy results.
We're not talking about the end of his life. We're talking about his behavior throughout his life and how that prevents him from inheriting the Kingdom of God, including revelation.
BTMS p. ix I know the contents of Volume I of Studies in Abundant Living will not only open up more of God’s
Word for you, but will also uplift you – mentally and physically and spiritually. ... Let us put God’s
Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world.
#5 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement
TNDC p. ix, x Preface I know the contents of Volume II of Studies in Abundant Living will not only open up more of God’s
Word for you, but will also uplift you – mentally and physically and spiritually. ... Let us put God’s
Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world.
#6 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement
WWAY p. ix Preface I know the contents of Volume III of “Studies in Abundant Living” will not only open up more of God’s
Word for you, but will also lift you – mentally and physically and spiritually. ... Let us put God’s
Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world.
#7 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement
GMWD p. viii Preface I know that the contents of Volume IV of “Studies in Abundant Living” will not only unveil more of God’s Word for you, but, in doing so, will also uplift you–mentally and physically and spiritually. ... Let us put God’s
Word in our hearts and minds, for it alone can give us complete deliverance and dispel the darkness of this world.
Notice that the upgrade for Vol. IV applies to BOTH sentences: The "contents" of Vol.IV is upgraded from "open up" to "unveil." The action of "it alone" (God's Word") is upgraded with the addition of "and dispel."
Now we can look at the change in the revelation in how that Preface was presented to us and know that something changed around 1977 for the better.
AC Key#13 (from 16 Keys to walking in the spirit) Revelation once given may change (God changes the
revelation after the circumstances change). Jonah 3:1-10
From what we've seen there were OTHER changes for the better in printed PFAL. We've seen another flurry of changes around 1982.
How in the world did you ever conclude that these phrases are divinely inspired? I don't care how long and intently you squint, there is nothing there to suggest what you are implying. It's your OPINION. Okay, we all have opinions.Just say it's your opinion. Problem solved. If you want to say your opinion is TRUE, however, you have to provide some sort of evidence , not some cyclical exercise in reasoning.
How in the world did you ever conclude that these phrases are divinely inspired? I don't care how long and intently you squint, there is nothing there to suggest what you are implying. It's your OPINION. Okay, we all have opinions.Just say it's your opinion. Problem solved. If you want to say your opinion is TRUE, however, you have to provide some sort of evidence , not some cyclical exercise in reasoning.
I'm NOT concluding that these statements are divinely inspired. You're not tracking with what I am proving.
I am proving that VPW told us that he was giving us divinely inspired material, and that we didn't hear it with understanding.
See the difference? VPW telling us that PFAL is God-breathed does NOT prove that PFAL is God-breathed.
I'm only taking a baby step towards proving or demonstrating my thesis here. I'm proving that it is NOT my thesis, but something I saw VPW say in more than 22 ways.
Once it is seen that VPW was TOTALLY on to the same thesis I have been proclaiming, THEN we can move on to other aspects of making the God-breathed nature of PFAL understood.
I'm NOT concluding that these statements are divinely inspired. You're not tracking with what I am proving.
No, your not tracking what both Waysider and I are saying.
Me: Saint Vic couldn't have recieved divinely inspired material as he was out of fellowship and never got back in as he never repented.
Waysider: It's your opinion that these phrases are Saint Vic claiming he was giving us divinely inspired material
There is nothing in which you showed us to suggest Saint Vic is saying this is divinely inspired, just an opinion and an attempt to read between lines.
Your doing the same thing many English majors do. That's why we have so many thesises (thesi?) on what the white whale in Moby Dick means. If you asked Melville he'd probably tell you it sounded good.
The same thing we were warned in PLAF not to do. Remember, "we prayed the holy spirit into the meeting"? "Praying in the holy spirit."
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
63
252
68
130
Popular Days
Jan 25
114
Jan 6
58
Jan 9
51
Jan 3
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 63 posts
Mike 252 posts
waysider 68 posts
So_crates 130 posts
Popular Days
Jan 25 2018
114 posts
Jan 6 2018
58 posts
Jan 9 2018
51 posts
Jan 3 2018
45 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."........Thomas Paine.
penworks
Here's an idea: we each drop out of this topic and go read a book.
DontWorryBeHappy
Can anyone tell me dictor paul's scriptural position on the word "Covfefe"? What is the true meaning of that word?? Mike's textual criticism, and use of the basic dictor "keys to research", is as made
Posted Images
waysider
The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sorry for that. It's just too tempting. You make such a great straightman because you're so humorless. It's like Abbot and Costello with you.
I also thought you'd be proud as punch to be the poster who got me to finally find the 22 statements. So, from your laughless point of view, what do you think of the first 3 pieces of evidence, now posted here, that slipped under all of our radar back in the day?
I once witnessed to some churchy people who tightly held the belief that Jesus never laughed. Imagine that! They didn't smile either. THEN, I couldn't find ANY places in my KJV where Jesus laughed. Maybe you're on to something here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You don't listen do you? Your "temptation" to make me your straightman quelled all desire for me to listen to your message.
(pointing over Mikes head and behind Mike)
Look Mike there goes the point.
It's not about Jesus laughing its about making fun of someone offering constructive criticism
Further, Saint Vic never recieved revelation from God. How do I know? I Cor 6:9-10 : Adulterers, nor theives, nor drunkards will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If He's not going to allow them to inherit the kingdom, why would he give them revelation?
But, Saint Vic repented, you say. Sorry, he never did. How do I know? A truely repentant person would make an effort to make things right (unlike the phoney repentant person who thinks sorry is enough). Saint Vic never tried to right his wrongs, therefore he never repented.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
WOW..............just WOW.
Crazy stuff here.
I just finished watching STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT..............(again) on Netflix.
You guys might want to hit the pause button on all this.........and go watch it yourselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Mikes quotes in red
My responses in black
NO! I am not saying that God thinks it’s ok to abuse people.
Yes you are. Saint Vic sets the example. As I said, a truely repentful person tries to right his wrong. Did he ever try to write his wrong? So where are all the people telling us about the transgressions he's righted?
What your saying is its okay to do evil as long as your sure you say your sorry and be repentful afterward.
Before I cast any stones on any one individual I require complete documentation of ALL goo deed and ALL bad deeds. I think that's a nice way of dismissing myself from an impossible task: by demanding impossible stipulations.
The stipulation is only impossible because you make it impossible. Like I told you before, the truths of God are simple. If they weren't we wouldn't understand them. The simple truth of fellowship and repentance is when you transgress your responsible to right your wrong (Faith without works is dead, remember?) No attempt to right your wrong, no repentance, which means your out of fellowship an don't recieve the gifts of God, including revelation.
If I can find a the right kind of search engine I can find a similar topic that I’ve posted extensively on. It’s the criteria we use to hire a minister versus the criteria God uses when He issues a job to someone. We can only do background checks, but God can also check the future for sins not yet committed. There’s something for a Catholic theologian to sink some teeth into. LONG topic.
What you've posted on. Has anybody bothered to ask God? I did: I Cor 6:9-10. James 2:14-26.
Even Saint Vic wrote in PLAF, if your out of fellowship with God He can't bless you.
Further proof of this is Saint Vic's comment: "Sign, miracles, and wonders follow the man of God the way a tail follows a dog."
So where were all those signs, miracles, and wonders?
Once again, I think you need to study your PLAF materials a little more.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
yes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, the "it's somewhere in a thread, now go find it" homework thing was classic Mike, so it didn't suprise me. Give a vague answer and some homework, deflect, and change the subject, and later announce that you answered it directly. However, he actually followed up by answering something, which was a real shocker for those who've been watching the same episode of this show over and over.
Doesn't mean it was RIGHT, but at least it was something that can be discussed.
Now then, there's a few things I like to remember about making claims about how super-special vpw claimed his stuff was. (Not an exclusive or complete list.)
1) vpw was a homiletician. He spent his time at work at the podium with a Bible in his hand, teaching (generally, teaching other people's research from one source or another, as has been documented across his iife.) Sometimes he would set things up. He had a receptive audience in his church and in his ministry. So, who's going to disagree with him? He set things up with that in mind. From time to time, he'd read something from the Bible, announce what it was about (correctly or not but never in doubt), and if it was supposedly something slightly controversial, he would disavow his responsibility for it and claim that any objectors were arguing with God Almighty. "Don't blame me-I didn't write the book!" Obviously, he was saying that the contents were in the Bible, and that he wasn't responsible for the contents of that book- rather, God Almighty was responsible. Much later, someone came along and said "He's saying he didn't write the book- the Orange Book is obviously not his writing, but God Almighty wrote it. Can't you see it? It's so simple!"
2) vpw ripped off the styles of others as well as their substance. If he'd heard any of us do a great teaching, he might later teach it and even ape our speech patterns and vocabulary shamelessly. Was it intentional (it worked for them) or unintentional (I don't understand this but I can regurgitate it as well as they taught it)? So, for example, when Stiles spent several HOURS working with vpw on sit, going over all his objections and doubts, vpw was mentally taking notes. Later, he bought Stiles' book. Between the 2, vpw taught Stiles' words from both forms, both the substance and the style, regurgitating them whether the context was apt or not. , Naturally, Stiles had to tell him things like "If this is really what God wants, then you have to think of this not as my words, but God's words" and other things of that nature. Later, someone came along and said "He obviously means the contents of the book this appeared in contains the words of God Almighty in a direct sense, not just expositing about the Bible. (What's really sad about that was that vpw and Stiles were BOTH wrong. Stiles was very sincere and well-intentioned. In fact, he based his life around it. And, as it turns out, he was wrong. It's sad to really base your life around something that is just plain wrong.
3) vpw was a lazy student, a lazy researcher, and a lazy plagiarist. So, when "he wrote a book", often HE did no such thing. The collaterals of pfal (except the White Book) were others taking vpw's sermons and typing them up and editing them. (The White Book was vpw doing a cut-and-paste on Stiles' book, at least 1 book of Bulliger's, and some of Leonard's work. ) So, when pfal as a class had vpw say "this is a class on keys", the Orange Book reads "this is a book on keys." Why did vpw change his focus, and what's the deeper meaning? Ridiculous questions. Others came along and tried to make sense of his work, and sometimes succeeded. Since they weren't him, they had to make certain assumptions here and there, best guesses, since the other approach meant he'd have to be actively involved with every page- and we know he spent his entire life getting away with as little of that as he could manage.
I have to take off for a few days. It's a shame that we finally have something to discuss just as I'm stepping out, but that's life. I'll rejoin the dance at the next song. I bet I won't miss much/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Has anyone seen the first three of 22 statements that are now posted?
I see many comments on me and my style of posting, but nothing on those SO WELL HIDDEN "thus saith the Lord" statements that so many grads (not just here) have told me are not in there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I saw them. Looks to me like you may have mischaracterized them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
In each of the three, you're REALLY stretching it when you claim that they are anything but Dictor using the expression as anything but a communication device. By that I mean, the point he's making is that he wants the student/reader/listener to get the point. So he's representing the point as being from God himself.
Edited by RockyI do vaguely recall teachings on Figures of Speech that address that very communication device.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I can see your point. But the pattern I lean towards is repeated in the other 19 statements. I'll post more of them them soon.
Might the figure of speech you have in mind be the one where Thomas said "My Lord and my God" when feeling Jesus's wounds? It's related to the OT place where Moses was made a god to Israel and Aaron was his prophet?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Bible fans please take note: Exodus 7:1 says The Lord made Moses like God to Pharaoh NOT to Israel.
Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet....Exodus 7:1 NIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I notice you change the subject, that's the figure of speeech avoidis defactos.
It occurs when people encounter facts that don't fit their dogma so they ignore the facts, right?
Which, interestingly enough, is exactly the same thing Saint Vic did with adultry, theft, and boozing. They didn't fit what he wanted the bible to say, so he ignored them.
John Quincy Adams said: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
As Saint Vic himself admitted, when your out of fellowship, God can't bless you, including recieving the gifts of God.
Bottom line: If Saint Vic couldn't recieve the gifts of God, including revelation, you could show 2000 places where you claim he said thus saith the Lord and they would all be moot.
So now, back on track:
What of I Cor 6:9-10 and James 2:14-26?
Where were those "signs. miracles, and wonders that were supposed to follow a man of God like a tail follows a dog"?
Is there an account that Saint Vic tried to right his wrongs, as anybody truely repentant would do?
So then how can you claim Saint Vic repented and could recieve revelation?
And, since your not the one supposedly granting absolution, give me the chapter and verse where it says, line by line and word by word, that you can be out of fellowship and still recieve revelation.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thank you. I remember making that mistake before. Got some thinking to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'm having trouble understanding the device you refer to.
I also wanted to ask you for more info on the idea of people needing stories. It seems related to some science issues I've been working on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So, let's continue Saint Vic's dishonesty by using his tactics.
You can't explain away I Cor 6:9-10 and James 2:14-26 so let's ignore them and talk about anything else. Nor can you explain what happened to all those "signs, miracles, and wonders that follow a man of God the way a tail follows a dog".
It unfortunate that by refusing to address these points it casts suspicion on the rest of your "thesis."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
With my RC background so steeped in sin consciousness, I considered it a miracle to be set free of guilt. For those first 6 or 10 months when I first stumbled into a PFAL fellowship my facial muscles actually ached from the unfamiliar exercise of smiling.
I've also considered it a miracle that I heard that the dead were dead and that God was all light and no darkness at all. These were the things I'd witness to, not material abundance.
The verses you mention I am familiar with and believe. VPW himself said several times and in several ways that he failed to become the man he knew to be. He missed out on some big things by his own admission.
Have you considered I Corinthians 3:15 and it's context in the mix with those two passages you mentioned? There one word poorly translated in I Cor 3:17 that throws many readers off. In that verse the word "him" should be translated "it."
The passage is about the things that God's people can miss out on, even though they have eternal life. VPW was very unhappy at the end. Things did not go well for him, and he knew the ministry was in great trouble. I think that if he had been more successful in becoming the man he knew to be, then he would have reaped more happy results.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Now to introduce the next "Thus saith the Lord" statements I must take a little break.
Now that you're relaxed, here's a surprise spot quiz: Who can point out the hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement in the Preface of the Blue Book?
Hidden in the sense that it's not stated outright, like with the first three overt “thus saith” statements. Hidden in the sense that it's implied. You can't read it, but as you think it through the implication appears.
There's a subtle implication the last two sentences in the Preface of BTMS convey. For years I used to wince with pain whenever I'd see them, thinking that they were incredibly poor writing style. When you put these two sentences together something is implied.
***
Let's look at those two adjacent sentences in BTMS page ix and see what we can see.
The sentences are:
(1) "I know the contents of Volume I of Studies in Abundant Living will not only open up more
of God's Word for you, but will also uplift you - mentally and physically and spiritually."
(2) "Let us put God's Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance
from the darkness of this world."
Sentence (1) says the contents of BTMS will uplift us - mentally and physically and spiritually. That sounds like pretty complete upliftance. Upliftance from what? The world and it's darkness, of course.
Sentence (2) says that ONLY God's Word can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world.
Decades ago I would cringe while reading these two sentences. I thought it was poor writing to so strongly associate the contents of BTMS with God's Word. Now I see that it is right and proper.
***
Aside from each individual Preface having specific opening lines regarding that volume's contents, the wording for each "Thus saith the Lord" statement is nearly the same for all three Prefaces. All three of these early volumes were released in book form in 1971.
However, when Volume IV (GMWD) came out in 1977 there were two small but significant differences to be found in it's "Thus saith the Lord" statement. Here is that statement with the changes in my bold fonts:
(1) "I know that the contents of Volume IV of 'Studies in Abundant Living' will not only unveil more
of God’s Word for you, but, in doing so, will also uplift you - mentally and physically and spiritually."
(2) "Let us put God’s Word in our hearts and minds, for it alone can give us complete deliverance
and dispel the darkness of this world."
This is part of the evolution of revelation that was happening while we snoozed. God was making more available to us bu this 1977 date and telling us in a quiet and discrete manner. It was a secret. We’ll get into more of this later.
I know the contents of Volume [fill in the blank] of Studies in Abundant Living will not only open up more of God’s Word for you, but will also uplift you – mentally and physically and spiritually. ... Let us put God’s Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world.
Let’s diagram the first compound sentence.
The first subject is “contents” (of Volume [ ] of Studies in Abundant Living)
The first verb is “will ... open up”
The second subject is “contents” (implied from above)
The second verb is “will ... uplift”
Then the next sentence asserts that “it alone can give,” where it refers to God’s Word.
It just always looked odd that “it alone can give” is placed right next to an assertion that the “contents” were also going to do some giving. When I keep in mind the other “Thus Saith” statements, these seem to fit right in.
Break time’s over.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
#4 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement
BTMS p. ix
I know the contents of Volume I of Studies in Abundant Living will not only open up more of God’s
Word for you, but will also uplift you – mentally and physically and spiritually. ... Let us put God’s
Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world.
#5 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement
TNDC p. ix, x Preface
I know the contents of Volume II of Studies in Abundant Living will not only open up more of God’s
Word for you, but will also uplift you – mentally and physically and spiritually. ... Let us put God’s
Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world.
#6 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement
WWAY p. ix Preface
I know the contents of Volume III of “Studies in Abundant Living” will not only open up more of God’s
Word for you, but will also lift you – mentally and physically and spiritually. ... Let us put God’s
Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world.
#7 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement
GMWD p. viii Preface
I know that the contents of Volume IV of “Studies in Abundant Living” will not only unveil more of God’s Word for you, but, in doing so, will also uplift you–mentally and physically and spiritually. ... Let us put God’s
Word in our hearts and minds, for it alone can give us complete deliverance and dispel the darkness of this world.
Notice that the upgrade for Vol. IV applies to BOTH sentences:
The "contents" of Vol.IV is upgraded from "open up" to "unveil."
The action of "it alone" (God's Word") is upgraded with the addition of "and dispel."
Now we can look at the change in the revelation in how that Preface was presented to us and know that something changed around 1977 for the better.
AC Key#13 (from 16 Keys to walking in the spirit)
Revelation once given may change (God changes the
revelation after the circumstances change). Jonah 3:1-10
From what we've seen there were OTHER changes for the better in printed PFAL. We've seen another flurry of changes around 1982.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And this has what to do with the price of bull in PLAF? Rather than addressing the subject let's go around the block and look at a few trees.
What you saw wasn't because of Saint Vic, it was in spite of him. There were some people working in the trenches that weren't boozing, weren't stealing others intellectual property, and weren't womanizing and they reaped the rewards.
And yet he insisted on continuing in his evil ways. As I said, if I buy what your attempting to sell I can be as evil as I want to everyone as long as I say I'm sorry afterwards. Isn't that taking advantaage of God's grace?
And your source for this retranslation? The very person who did not want to be judged, but was really good about judging everyone else. Unfortunately, the way you translate the verse puts it in direct conflict with I Cor 6:3 which tell us we'll judge angels, so how much more the thing that pertain to this life. Does Saint Vic's behavior pertain to this life? I would say so. Some people are an example of what not to be. So he showed us how a man can have a godly appearance, yet not have any godliness. No revelation, no signs, no miracles, no wonders.
We're not talking about the end of his life. We're talking about his behavior throughout his life and how that prevents him from inheriting the Kingdom of God, including revelation.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
How in the world did you ever conclude that these phrases are divinely inspired? I don't care how long and intently you squint, there is nothing there to suggest what you are implying. It's your OPINION. Okay, we all have opinions.Just say it's your opinion. Problem solved. If you want to say your opinion is TRUE, however, you have to provide some sort of evidence , not some cyclical exercise in reasoning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'm NOT concluding that these statements are divinely inspired. You're not tracking with what I am proving.
I am proving that VPW told us that he was giving us divinely inspired material, and that we didn't hear it with understanding.
See the difference? VPW telling us that PFAL is God-breathed does NOT prove that PFAL is God-breathed.
I'm only taking a baby step towards proving or demonstrating my thesis here. I'm proving that it is NOT my thesis, but something I saw VPW say in more than 22 ways.
Once it is seen that VPW was TOTALLY on to the same thesis I have been proclaiming, THEN we can move on to other aspects of making the God-breathed nature of PFAL understood.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
No, your not tracking what both Waysider and I are saying.
Me: Saint Vic couldn't have recieved divinely inspired material as he was out of fellowship and never got back in as he never repented.
Waysider: It's your opinion that these phrases are Saint Vic claiming he was giving us divinely inspired material
There is nothing in which you showed us to suggest Saint Vic is saying this is divinely inspired, just an opinion and an attempt to read between lines.
Your doing the same thing many English majors do. That's why we have so many thesises (thesi?) on what the white whale in Moby Dick means. If you asked Melville he'd probably tell you it sounded good.
The same thing we were warned in PLAF not to do. Remember, "we prayed the holy spirit into the meeting"? "Praying in the holy spirit."
Edited by So_cratesLink 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.