Here's the icon motto that has been mine since I signed up:
Friendly Opposition, Offering ANOTHER Other Side
If it was distraction I wanted, why would I offer to go into Doctrinal?
I think you are not thinking through the cognitive dissonance [proPFAL but antiTWI ] lurkers can get to see the Pure Evil model here versus the helping hand they saw in PFAL. I can help them separate VPW from PFAL.
Still judging and going on about Pure Evil Saint Vic.
With all this fixating, I have to ask: Who are you trying to convince Saint Vic wasn't evil? Us? Or you?
You obviously missed my post a few post back and I think a portion bears repeating
My original comments in black
Your response in red
My answer in bf large type
Once again your condemning others for judging Saint Vic's behavior, meanwhile you have no qualms judging their behavior.
.I'm not intentionally trying to judge people here. I judge whether I want JOIN you in condemning behavior and I judge that action FOR ME to be not my cup of tea. I have MORE important things to do. Sorry. I got my priorities; you got yours.
Yah, I see all that important stuff you have to do and your priorities, you'd rather judge people at GS, than Saint Vic.
Your constantly judging people at GS, when you accuse us of attacking the messenger or throwing stones or pouncing. But let's not look at Saint Vic's behavior and certainly let's not judge that.
You judge most when you try to sell the "pure evil" model. You don't know what's in the minds of all those proPLAF people who aren't posting, yet you know what's in the mind of all GS posters, right?
As I told you a couple of posts back, I can't judge the person as a whole. However, I can judge their behavior. And I can see what the bible says is the results of that behavior. So, being a drunk, a theif, and an adulterer the bible says Saint Vic will not inherit the Kingdom of God, which includes revelation.
I posit that Mike's function here is similar to that of a Russian bot. Not really to argue his alleged thesis but rather to undermine the entire purpose of GSC by way of distracting, not quite fully coherent propaganda so that lurkers get a sense of cognitive dissonance about the primary message of the website.
4 hours ago, OldSkool said:
Hes trolling.
I find the mental and emotional factors behind all that a fascinating study
mmmmmmm…yes…this post has been stuck in the back of my head for a while…must have been something subliminal about it – because I went back and started re-reading the first few pages of this thread…then another song popped into my head...I think an alternate title for this thread could be "will it go round in circles"
Mike, I know this is off, but I recently finished "Losing The Way", by KS. What an interesting, and eye-opening book!! You can find it, in Barnes&Noble. The writer knew VPW personally; she has a lot of intresting things to say about him, and TWI. Shalom!
First name Kris? I knew her a little from Rye NY. I am bracing myself to read it. But I already bought penworks' book, and just barely beginning it. I like the idea of possibly discussing parts of each book with each author, either here or e-mail. I go slow with these things. There's SO much to do in life.
This is horribly flawed logic. Do I really need to explain why?
You don't like the logic, because you think it associates VPW with Paul.
You see the phrase “VPW wrote PFAL” close to the phrase “Paul wrote Ephesians” and your emotional grasp on this makes you THINK that means think I associated VPW with Paul in my logic.
But actually I associated the SHORTHAND of my saying VPW wrote PFAL with the shorthand of us all saying Paul wrote Ephesians.
Is it wrong to say Paul wrote Ephesians? No.
There is a legitimate use of “wrote” there.
It’s also legitimate to say Paul is the author of Ephesians.
Is it wrong to say God was the real Author of Ephesians?
It’s also legitimate to say God is the author of Ephesians.
There is a legitimate use of “author” there.
It was a shorthand to say VPW wrote it, to avoid the unnecessary spelling out the whole sequence of how PFAL came to be.
I find the mental and emotional factors behind all that a fascinating study
To be fully honest, I was pondering denying or ignoring the trolling charge, when I realized I don’t really know what it means, except that it’s negative.
My shoot from the hip denial would have meant I was denying any and all ill intent. But then I decided to watch the video. I took notes.
These items in the video are NOT in my intentions:
Egads! As far as anonymity goes, PLEASE! Give me some credit!
Contrary to troll like behavior, 10 years ago I did a lot of private e-mails and even voice phone calls to make things an actual discussion here. I found that private communications helped 10 years ago to diffuse lots of tensions. I'd love to do that again.
Now I can, with more full honesty, deny being a troll.
Here are a few items I would put in a list of positive reasons I am here:
* Sharpen my understanding of my thesis in myltiple ways through dealing with all conceivable attacks. You folks are good for that, that’s for sure
*give me boilerplate for future writings, even writings not connected with Biblical matters.
*To inform TWI how they missed the boat, and how they can correct SOME things. (the biggest IMO)
*To meet old lost friends from 10 years ago here at GS
*To meet old lost friends from longer ago.
*Nostalgia. I miss everybody with a passion. I miss the GREAT co-operation we all had for a little while, in a few places. I saw a lot of it. It’s the greatest memories of my life… excepting… maybe… the girls I got to dance with last night.
I think you are not thinking through the cognitive dissonance [proPFAL but antiTWI ] lurkers can get to see the Pure Evil model here versus the helping hand they saw in PFAL. I can help them separate VPW from PFAL.
Pure Evil model is a construct solely of the mind of Mike. Nothing more, nothing less.
DWBH, this very thought is one of the tiny points I am showing is incorrect.
It is definitely not of my own making. It comes from VPW quotes that he hid it from us until now.
Yes, there are some details that I am still working out the best I can as I go, but the major idea is stamped into VPW's whole ministry, and THAT's where I got it.
I'm not done proving this tiny point. It gets proved by the entirety of the list, not by any one item separately. If you can examine the 22 statements then you can see I picked up on what is in the texts and tapes.
You've not even started proving anything but that you're a Wierwille acolyte.
To be fully honest, I was pondering denying or ignoring the trolling charge, when I realized I don’t really know what it means, except that it’s negative.
My shoot from the hip denial would have meant I was denying any and all ill intent. But then I decided to watch the video. I took notes.
These items in the video are NOT in my intentions:
irritant, upset, bully, threats, discord, anonymous (your net effect here)
Here are a few items I would put in a list of positive reasons I am here:
* Sharpen my understanding of my thesis in myltiple ways through dealing with all conceivable attacks. You folks are good for that, that’s for sure (you admit to behavior that constitutes trolling)
*give me boilerplate for future writings, even writings not connected with Biblical matters.
*To inform TWI how they missed the boat, and how they can correct SOME things. (the biggest IMO) (HAHAHAHAHA... as if they'll pay ANY attention)
*To meet old lost friends from 10 years ago here at GS
*To meet old lost friends from longer ago.
*Nostalgia. I miss everybody with a passion. I miss the GREAT co-operation we all had for a little while, in a few places. I saw a lot of it. It’s the greatest memories of my life… excepting… maybe… the girls I got to dance with last night.
In discussion here this #8 statement already came up. This statement is printed at the end of JCNG's Introduction, where Dr claims Jesus Christ appointed him a spokesman. It's in the large italic print section.
That Introduction closes thusly (but with my bold fonts):
JCNG p.8,9 Before closing, let me bare my soul. To say that Jesus Christ is not God does not in my mind degrade the importance and significance of Jesus Christ in any way. It simply elevates God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to His unique, exalted and unparalleled position. He alone is God.
I do believe the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of man because he had a human for a mother; and he is the Son of God because of his created conception by God. So on the basis of the parentage of God alone, besides his choosing to live a perfect life, Jesus Christ is by no means a run-of-the-mill, unmarked human being. Thus, to say that I do not elevate and respect the position of the Lord Jesus Christ simply because I do not believe the evidence designates Jesus Christ as God is to speak the judgment of a fool, for to the very depth of my being I love him with all my heart, soul, mind and strength.
It is he who sought me out from darkness.
It is he who gave me access to God; even now he is my mediator.
It is he who saved me when I was dead in trespasses and sin.
It is he who gave me the new birth of God’s eternal life–which is Christ in me, the hope of glory.
It is he who gave me remission of sins and continues to give forgiveness of sins.
It is he who filled me to capacity by God’s presence in Christ in all the fullness of God’s gift of holy spirit.
It is he who was made unto me my wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption.
It is he who called me and set me in the heavenlies.
It is he who gave me his joy, peace and love. It is he who appointed me as a spokesman of God’s accurate Word;
may I be found faithful in that calling.
It is he who is all in all to me that I might give my all for him.
It is he who is God’s only begotten Son.
I admit that the four Prefaces are weakly implied “thus saith” statements compared to the first three “thus saith” statements.
In the 70’s I was sensitive to the then false charges that the ministry was cultish in it’s behavior. I’d read all the latest cult expose books, and TWI sometimes had it’s own chapter. The cult expose writers had most of their facts completely wrong, and that made me feel good, but little things like these Prefaces and the way they were worded bothered me.
Maybe it’s not poor grammar that bothered me, just what I thought was poor PR style in the face of a hostile world wanting to pin a cult charge on us. In those days I was strongly opposed to the idea that written PFAL was anything like God-breathed, and those Prefaces looked like they crossed at least a PR safety line, if not also a grammar line, making it look too much like Dr was making a veiled “thus saith” claim.
In those days I’d have re-written those sentences, or at least inserted cult-charge deflecting text in between them. Now I see that Dr meant them to be that way, and that’s why they never were tweaked like may other lines were in those books.
Not all of these "thus saith" statements are necessarily as strong as the first three, but some are.
I’m not trying to prove that these claims of Dr's are accurate, and that the PFAL writings ARE God-breathed. I’ve backed off trying to rigorously prove things many years ago. How is it proved that the original manuscripts of Paul's Epistles are God-breathed?
Remember, I’m mostly trying to show grads here is that there are vast tracts of written PFAL still relatively virgin to them. Dr said many things we forgot or missed, and these "Thus saith" statements are only the tip of the iceberg.
Several of the “thus saith” statements here are solid, but most are subtle, and somewhat need a boost of meek believing to see most clearly.
I don’t mind admitting to the weak statements in my collection because of the existence of the strong ones.
You don't like the logic, because you think it associates VPW with Paul.
You see the phrase “VPW wrote PFAL” close to the phrase “Paul wrote Ephesians” and your emotional grasp on this makes you THINK that means think I associated VPW with Paul in my logic.
But actually I associated the SHORTHAND of my saying VPW wrote PFAL with the shorthand of us all saying Paul wrote Ephesians.
Is it wrong to say Paul wrote Ephesians? No.
There is a legitimate use of “wrote” there.
It’s also legitimate to say Paul is the author of Ephesians.
Is it wrong to say God was the real Author of Ephesians?
It’s also legitimate to say God is the author of Ephesians.
There is a legitimate use of “author” there.
It was a shorthand to say VPW wrote it, to avoid the unnecessary spelling out the whole sequence of how PFAL came to be.
It's flawed because it is a false equivalence.
"A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to showequivalence, especially inorder of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2]False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be used."....SOURCE
You don't like the logic, because you think it associates VPW with Paul.
You see the phrase “VPW wrote PFAL” close to the phrase “Paul wrote Ephesians” and your emotional grasp on this makes you THINK that means think I associated VPW with Paul in my logic.
Once again your judging somebody,
How do you know what goes on in his mind? How do you know his reason for rejecting the statement?
Yet, when it comes to Saint Vic all his drunkeness, wantoness, and theif are beyond reproach, right?
12 hours ago, Mike said:
Writing about me is not the message I want to get into.
But that's all you do is write about you.
Don't think so?
Shall we put it to a vote? Go back over the 22 pages of this thread and tally the times God or Jesus Christ are mentioned and compare that to the times you say "I".
You'll see the "I"s easily have it.
So, this tread is about little old you, not God nor Jesus Christ.
Here are a few examples off the top of my head:
I disagree. Not the bible disagrees
I don't accept those as errors. Not the bible says....
Read the paper I wrote on....Not this is what the bible or God wrote
I'm trying to make my writing Mike-lite. Not quoting from the bible
Yet, when Waysider or Twinky asks you to state one thing PLAF has done for you it's time to clam up and clam this thread isn't about you.
Everybody reading this should start asking themselves if PLAF has done anything for Mike. If so, why the resistance?
This lends credence to my observation that you're not here to prove anything.
Another fascinating subject...and is food for thought on the long term effect of holding in such high regard someone like wierwille who was clearly a textbook case of Delusional disorder
Way in the back of the "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" book can be found an isolated "hidden" set of passages. When I happened upon them just several years ago, I could only think "What are these passages doing all the way back HERE?"
I could remember seeing them many, many years prior, back in 1972 in my first reading, but in those days EVERYTHING seemed so cosmic and amazing that it blended into the background in no time. But lately, when I came back to PFAL, this set of paragraphs totally astounded me in how oddly they seemed to be hidden in the back of the book.
If you were specially attentive, you might have noticed that in the middle of Dr’s 1979 Our Times article, "How the Word Works," he hints to us that doing word studies in the PFAL writings would be a useful thing to do. I don't mean normal word studies with the KJV and a concordance. I mean a PFAL word study, looking at previous usages of a word in PFAL (not in the KJV) for deeper meaning.
An example of a PFAL word study, only partially completed, was how we tracked down Dr's previous usage of the word "master" in other PFAL writings and thus gained a better understanding of how he used that word in his last teaching when he told us to “master” the material.
Now, in these passages tucked away in the back of RHST, Dr will again hint to the usefulness of doing PFAL word studies. Watch close for the word studies, or previous usage, issue to come up in the middle of all this, because there is a lot of action going on here.
***
Let's look at the "Introduction to Appendixes" in RHST to see these TWO ways that Dr says, in essence, "Thus saith the Lord."
One first point to keep in consideration is that the first such appendix is titled "The Word Receive" and is about dechomai and lambano. This will come up later.
Now I hope you all have a paper copy of this and can read along. We're in RHST "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" page 223 in the 7th edition 1982 (p.257 in the 6th ed. 1972). Hold on to your hats, this gets intense:
Let's examine the opening lines of the “Introduction to the Appendices” closely.
"If we believe that throughout the Scriptures we have the words of God and not man, many difficulties will disappear."
This is just as true with Dr's books as with the ancient scriptures. In fact, it's MORE true with Dr's books, because we don't really HAVE original scriptures to work with, just slightly mis-copied fragments, scholarly compilations, questionable translations, and religious versions. At best we only have man's translations, or versions like the KJV.
If we had believed that Dr's books were of God, we would have obeyed his final instructions to master them, and the ministry would have straightened out, instead of careening into the big meltdown. But we did NOT do this and as a result many difficulties appeared. I believe as we return to a meek receiving of the PFAL books "MANY DIFFICULTIES WILL DISAPPEAR."
Reading on in RHST:
"We must allow the Divine Author the rights and privileges claimed and operated by every human author -- that He may quote, adapt, or repeat in varied forms His own previously written or spoken words. God could have used other forms had He chosen to do so, but it has pleased Him to repeat His own word or words, introducing them in different contexts, with new applications and connotations."
How many traditionalists want to confine God to the KJV or some other version? How many want to forbid God to re-issue, improve the surviving remnants, and forbid Him to further clarify to our culture HIS OWN original words, and forbid Him to teach us how to walk into the next administration?
Many to most is the answer. Many to most people DO FORBID God these options. That's why we have "many difficulties." As a body we pretty much have all forbidden God the above liberties we would easily grant any human author. Tradition hates to admit the above. Tradition is a prison. The above sentences are talking about Dr's books, NOT the ancient scriptures and their derivatives. How do I know that? Next sentences (with my ALL-CAPS and bold fonts):
"Thus it obligates us to study the context, the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION where the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see if it is used in a different sense or not."
How many people have Bible versions that are organized into paragraphs and sections? Not too many. How about none? Traditional Bibles are organized into books, chapters, and verses. Look in the table of contents of your Holy Spirit book. It's organized into chapters and SECTIONS and, or course, PARAGRAPHS.
How many times have you ever heard anybody refer to a "paragraph" or a "section" in their Bible version? Oh, they COULD be referring to a Bible version. But then why didn’t Dr use the usual construction and say here "Thus it obligates us to study the context, the VERSES, and the CHAPTER where the same word appears...”?
I believe he used the unusual construction of “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION” to alert us to something, that these words are primarily talking about the very book they appear in, "Receiving The Holy Spirit Today."
Can “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION” also apply to a Bible version’s verses and chapters? Yes, as long as it's rightly divided via the PFAL guidance that started in 1942. These words can also apply to the other PFAL collateral books which are organized into "PARTS."
This passage mentioning "PARAGRAPH" and "SECTION" is telling us that doing word studies within this very book, "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today," is a worthwhile thing to do. Thus I count this as the hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement #10.
The phrase "...the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see if it is used in a different sense or not." refers to the process of doing a PFAL word study.
***
Now, let’s take a break.
I am beginning to point out on this thread that often we seem to be finding things that were HIDDEN in Dr's books, and that this is a prime example, being tucked away in the very back of the Holy Spirit Book. Interestingly, the very topic of this passage centers on the HIDDEN element in God's Word.
Also above, I made brief mention at the first that the appendix following this introduction deals with dechomai and lambano.
In PFAL'77 (and I think also in the Advanced Class) Dr explained how God started revealing directly to him the teaching on dechomai and lambano. He explains that he was reading a text that was open to a place that had both dechomai and lambano on the same page. God showed him a vision and made the printed letters of those two words stand out inches above all the other words on the page to get Dr's attention.
God used many means to deliver His Word to Dr "like it has not been known since the first century." God gave Dr revelation as to WHOSE research he should spend any time on, checking it out, and whose research should be avoided altogether.
God also gave him revelation as to WHICH PARTS of another researcher's material was to be accepted by Dr, and which to reject, and God's ownership of these revelations superseded all human copyright questions. Sometimes in this process God gave Dr phenomena like the vision of heightened letters of dechomai and lambano. And God gave Dr what he often described as a spiritual awareness. You know, the stuff we THINK we have at times too.
In this "Introduction to the Appendixes" of the Holy Spirit book, Dr points out that a person can get some facts from 5-senses tracking, but some truths can ONLY come by direct revelation. What he's really aiming at getting to in the first Appendix , what he is introducing here is the Appendix on dechomai and lambano and the revelations God gave him on that subject.
Coupling this PFAL’77 story of Dr’s about getting revelation on dechomai and lambano with what is written in this Introduction and Appendix I, is what brings me to believe what I said above about the unusual construction of “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION.”
This background on dechomai and lambano helps set the tone that brings out the hidden “thus saith” statement #10 above, and #11 below.
***
Next lines:
"The greatest satisfaction of any Biblical scholar is to fathom what can be searched out from God's Word and to quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out."
How many people can find a passage in the Bible that discusses "free will"? What Dr taught us about "free will" and "foreknowledge" and many other subjects cannot be easily traced in the Bible with great surety. Dr got the surety of those things by revelation, not by merely tracking them with his 5-senses in the Bible. There are many other items like this that I may someday write a post about, but here I will mention one more untrackable item. It's about what is coming in the NEXT two pages in the Holy Spirit book. The passage we're examining is the "Introduction to the Appendixes" and two pages later is Appendix I "The word Receive" on dechomai and lambano.
Several paragraphs above I mentioned a little of how Dr got what he got on dechomai and lambano. He did not track down all of this information via his 5-senses; he got some by revelation. This information can't be totally figured out by scholars or by 5-senses methods. Scholars who are meek can read this book on "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" and then they can "quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out."
We can quietly accept the PFAL revelations on dechomai and lambano because they are from God. This is hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement #11.
***
Last lines:
"These appendixes have been added to this volume for those who desire to search out and explore the deeper reason for the way in which God has set truth in perfect order in His Word."
We desire this deeper, spiritual understanding of God's Word. A 5-senses understanding is too limited to defeat the adversary, who has run the 5-senses realm for many centuries. By meekly searching out and systematically mastering the treasure God has provided in English for us in PFAL we will see "many difficulties disappear." We have the pure Word of God.
@ Mike. You say you miss posts - hard to see how, as you're running this thread. It seems to me to be disrespectful to not bother to check if you have missed any posts, before "pouncing" on a few posts that you don't like, and never commenting on posts that might be asking you something.
However, if you really don't know how to read a thread and see all the posts, here's a beginner guide.
Arrive at GSC, even in the About the Way forum. Refresh the page (F5 key on your computer). Page will refresh. If there are new posts, the forum name or thread name will be in bold type.
At the side of each thread, you will see something like a star, or other symbol (spot) on less active threads. Hover over that; it will tell you that if you click it, it will take you to the First Unread Post. Click on the star. Hey presto, you will see any posts you "missed."
If someone posts while you are posting yourself, you will get a message saying there has been a reply or replies. You can click in that, or repeat the Refresh action as above. (I find refreshing is a better choice, as otherwise, posts are sometimes not in correct order: but that might be something to do with my browser or other software.)
So now you have no excuses for "missing" questions posed to you.
Have you ever actually tried to keep up with many posters, each with multiple posts, chasing you for responses? If so, can you point it out to me with a link? I'd like to look at the timestamps for inspiration in efficiency.
Here is one that I think is real special. This one again is hidden where few readers ever go. Who ever RE-reads the introduction or the preface of a book? Many don't even bother with preliminaries like that on the FIRST reading. But WE read them.
This statement is "hidden" in the Preface of "Receiving The Holy Spirit Today" on page x in the 7th edition.
There we read:
"If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book. Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God’s best. If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this life, you may find your answer while reading this book. It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted and comforted."
***
Let's look at this paragraph closely, sentence by sentence. I'm stunned, even now after seeing it many times in the past. There's so much in here.
"If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book."
This exhortation applies to us now as much as it did back then. We were often told by Dr to master the class materials. This is just one more place. Here he used the word "study" which is used in II Timothy 2:15, our point of departure (PFAL p.115).
"Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God’s best."
This encouragement applies to us now MORE than it did back then. Connecting this sentence with the previous one leads to two possible understandings: either "this book" IS God's best, or/and "this book" is instrumental to receiving "God's best." Looks like both are true to me.
"If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this life, you may find your answer while reading this book."
There it is again: This book is God's answer to the how of the power, just like the above sentence. God's answer is God's Word. God's Word is the power of God. Twice establishes it. We may find our answer while reading "this book." Or how about MASTERING it?
"It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted and comforted."
WOW!!! That's what prophecy does! Edify, exhort, comfort! This book, RHST, is prophecy! Hey! I didn't write the book! It's been sitting there all that time, unnoticed. Think how many other treasures await us, hidden there by God.
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
So_crates
Still judging and going on about Pure Evil Saint Vic.
With all this fixating, I have to ask: Who are you trying to convince Saint Vic wasn't evil? Us? Or you?
You obviously missed my post a few post back and I think a portion bears repeating
My original comments in black
Your response in red
My answer in bf large type
Once again your condemning others for judging Saint Vic's behavior, meanwhile you have no qualms judging their behavior.
.I'm not intentionally trying to judge people here. I judge whether I want JOIN you in condemning behavior and I judge that action FOR ME to be not my cup of tea. I have MORE important things to do. Sorry. I got my priorities; you got yours.
Yah, I see all that important stuff you have to do and your priorities, you'd rather judge people at GS, than Saint Vic.
Your constantly judging people at GS, when you accuse us of attacking the messenger or throwing stones or pouncing. But let's not look at Saint Vic's behavior and certainly let's not judge that.
You judge most when you try to sell the "pure evil" model. You don't know what's in the minds of all those proPLAF people who aren't posting, yet you know what's in the mind of all GS posters, right?
As I told you a couple of posts back, I can't judge the person as a whole. However, I can judge their behavior. And I can see what the bible says is the results of that behavior. So, being a drunk, a theif, and an adulterer the bible says Saint Vic will not inherit the Kingdom of God, which includes revelation.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Lol....im very comfortable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I find the mental and emotional factors behind all that a fascinating study
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
mmmmmmm…yes…this post has been stuck in the back of my head for a while…must have been something subliminal about it – because I went back and started re-reading the first few pages of this thread…then another song popped into my head...I think an alternate title for this thread could be "will it go round in circles"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
First name Kris? I knew her a little from Rye NY. I am bracing myself to read it. But I already bought penworks' book, and just barely beginning it. I like the idea of possibly discussing parts of each book with each author, either here or e-mail. I go slow with these things. There's SO much to do in life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Mike, that's her.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You don't like the logic, because you think it associates VPW with Paul.
You see the phrase “VPW wrote PFAL” close to the phrase “Paul wrote Ephesians” and your emotional grasp on this makes you THINK that means think I associated VPW with Paul in my logic.
But actually I associated the SHORTHAND of my saying VPW wrote PFAL with the shorthand of us all saying Paul wrote Ephesians.
Is it wrong to say Paul wrote Ephesians? No.
There is a legitimate use of “wrote” there.
It’s also legitimate to say Paul is the author of Ephesians.
Is it wrong to say God was the real Author of Ephesians?
It’s also legitimate to say God is the author of Ephesians.
There is a legitimate use of “author” there.
It was a shorthand to say VPW wrote it, to avoid the unnecessary spelling out the whole sequence of how PFAL came to be.Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
To be fully honest, I was pondering denying or ignoring the trolling charge, when I realized I don’t really know what it means, except that it’s negative.
My shoot from the hip denial would have meant I was denying any and all ill intent. But then I decided to watch the video. I took notes.
These items in the video are NOT in my intentions:
irritant, upset, bully, threats, discord, anonymous
Egads! As far as anonymity goes, PLEASE! Give me some credit!
Contrary to troll like behavior, 10 years ago I did a lot of private e-mails and even voice phone calls to make things an actual discussion here. I found that private communications helped 10 years ago to diffuse lots of tensions. I'd love to do that again.
Now I can, with more full honesty, deny being a troll.
Here are a few items I would put in a list of positive reasons I am here:
* Sharpen my understanding of my thesis in myltiple ways through dealing with all conceivable attacks. You folks are good for that, that’s for sure
*give me boilerplate for future writings, even writings not connected with Biblical matters.
*To inform TWI how they missed the boat, and how they can correct SOME things. (the biggest IMO)
*To meet old lost friends from 10 years ago here at GS
*To meet old lost friends from longer ago.
*Nostalgia. I miss everybody with a passion. I miss the GREAT co-operation we all had for a little while, in a few places. I saw a lot of it. It’s the greatest memories of my life… excepting… maybe… the girls I got to dance with last night.
There’s more. I was just in a typing mood.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Pure Evil model is a construct solely of the mind of Mike. Nothing more, nothing less.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You've not even started proving anything but that you're a Wierwille acolyte.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Oh really? THAT's delusional.
This lends credence to my observation that you're not here to prove anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Yeah, you troll here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
In discussion here this #8 statement already came up. This statement is printed at the end of JCNG's Introduction, where Dr claims Jesus Christ appointed him a spokesman. It's in the large italic print section.
That Introduction closes thusly (but with my bold fonts):
JCNG p.8,9
Before closing, let me bare my soul. To say that Jesus Christ is not God does not in my mind degrade the importance and significance of Jesus Christ in any way. It simply elevates God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to His unique, exalted and unparalleled position. He alone is God.
I do believe the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of man because he had a human for a mother; and he is the Son of God because of his created conception by God. So on the basis of the parentage of God alone, besides his choosing to live a perfect life, Jesus Christ is by no means a run-of-the-mill, unmarked human being. Thus, to say that I do not elevate and respect the position of the Lord Jesus Christ simply because I do not believe the evidence designates Jesus Christ as God is to speak the judgment of a fool, for to the very depth of my being I love him with all my heart, soul, mind and strength.
It is he who sought me out from darkness.
It is he who gave me access to God; even now he is my mediator.
It is he who saved me when I was dead in trespasses and sin.
It is he who gave me the new birth of God’s eternal life–which is Christ in me, the hope of glory.
It is he who gave me remission of sins and continues to give forgiveness of sins.
It is he who filled me to capacity by God’s presence in Christ in all the fullness of God’s gift of holy spirit.
It is he who was made unto me my wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption.
It is he who called me and set me in the heavenlies.
It is he who gave me his joy, peace and love.
It is he who appointed me as a spokesman of God’s accurate Word;
may I be found faithful in that calling.
It is he who is all in all to me that I might give my all for him.
It is he who is God’s only begotten Son.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I admit that the four Prefaces are weakly implied “thus saith” statements compared to the first three “thus saith” statements.
In the 70’s I was sensitive to the then false charges that the ministry was cultish in it’s behavior. I’d read all the latest cult expose books, and TWI sometimes had it’s own chapter. The cult expose writers had most of their facts completely wrong, and that made me feel good, but little things like these Prefaces and the way they were worded bothered me.
Maybe it’s not poor grammar that bothered me, just what I thought was poor PR style in the face of a hostile world wanting to pin a cult charge on us. In those days I was strongly opposed to the idea that written PFAL was anything like God-breathed, and those Prefaces looked like they crossed at least a PR safety line, if not also a grammar line, making it look too much like Dr was making a veiled “thus saith” claim.
In those days I’d have re-written those sentences, or at least inserted cult-charge deflecting text in between them. Now I see that Dr meant them to be that way, and that’s why they never were tweaked like may other lines were in those books.
Not all of these "thus saith" statements are necessarily as strong as the first three, but some are.
Remember, I’m mostly trying to show grads here is that there are vast tracts of written PFAL still relatively virgin to them. Dr said many things we forgot or missed, and these "Thus saith" statements are only the tip of the iceberg.
Several of the “thus saith” statements here are solid, but most are subtle, and somewhat need a boost of meek believing to see most clearly.
I don’t mind admitting to the weak statements in my collection because of the existence of the strong ones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's flawed because it is a false equivalence.
"A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be used."....SOURCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the scriptures, Paul "wrote" Ephesians as he was moved by the Holy Spirit. There was no intermediary source.
VPW "wrote" PFAL through a process of consolidating the works of other writers. There were several intermediary sources.
Apples are fruit.
Bananas are fruit.
Therefore, apples are bananas.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Once again your judging somebody,
How do you know what goes on in his mind? How do you know his reason for rejecting the statement?
Yet, when it comes to Saint Vic all his drunkeness, wantoness, and theif are beyond reproach, right?
But that's all you do is write about you.
Don't think so?
Shall we put it to a vote? Go back over the 22 pages of this thread and tally the times God or Jesus Christ are mentioned and compare that to the times you say "I".
You'll see the "I"s easily have it.
So, this tread is about little old you, not God nor Jesus Christ.
Here are a few examples off the top of my head:
Yet, when Waysider or Twinky asks you to state one thing PLAF has done for you it's time to clam up and clam this thread isn't about you.
Everybody reading this should start asking themselves if PLAF has done anything for Mike. If so, why the resistance?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Another fascinating subject...and is food for thought on the long term effect of holding in such high regard someone like wierwille who was clearly a textbook case of Delusional disorder
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ok. I get asked many questions about little old me.
But then, when I answer some of those questions, I'm slammed for focusing only little old me.
What's a poster to do?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Way in the back of the "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" book can be found an isolated "hidden" set of passages. When I happened upon them just several years ago, I could only think "What are these passages doing all the way back HERE?"
I could remember seeing them many, many years prior, back in 1972 in my first reading, but in those days EVERYTHING seemed so cosmic and amazing that it blended into the background in no time. But lately, when I came back to PFAL, this set of paragraphs totally astounded me in how oddly they seemed to be hidden in the back of the book.
If you were specially attentive, you might have noticed that in the middle of Dr’s 1979 Our Times article, "How the Word Works," he hints to us that doing word studies in the PFAL writings would be a useful thing to do. I don't mean normal word studies with the KJV and a concordance. I mean a PFAL word study, looking at previous usages of a word in PFAL (not in the KJV) for deeper meaning.
An example of a PFAL word study, only partially completed, was how we tracked down Dr's previous usage of the word "master" in other PFAL writings and thus gained a better understanding of how he used that word in his last teaching when he told us to “master” the material.
Now, in these passages tucked away in the back of RHST, Dr will again hint to the usefulness of doing PFAL word studies. Watch close for the word studies, or previous usage, issue to come up in the middle of all this, because there is a lot of action going on here.
***
Let's look at the "Introduction to Appendixes" in RHST to see these TWO ways that Dr says, in essence, "Thus saith the Lord."
One first point to keep in consideration is that the first such appendix is titled "The Word Receive" and is about dechomai and lambano. This will come up later.
Now I hope you all have a paper copy of this and can read along. We're in RHST "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" page 223 in the 7th edition 1982 (p.257 in the 6th ed. 1972). Hold on to your hats, this gets intense:
Let's examine the opening lines of the “Introduction to the Appendices” closely.
"If we believe that throughout the Scriptures we have the words of God and not man, many difficulties will disappear."
This is just as true with Dr's books as with the ancient scriptures. In fact, it's MORE true with Dr's books, because we don't really HAVE original scriptures to work with, just slightly mis-copied fragments, scholarly compilations, questionable translations, and religious versions. At best we only have man's translations, or versions like the KJV.
If we had believed that Dr's books were of God, we would have obeyed his final instructions to master them, and the ministry would have straightened out, instead of careening into the big meltdown. But we did NOT do this and as a result many difficulties appeared. I believe as we return to a meek receiving of the PFAL books "MANY DIFFICULTIES WILL DISAPPEAR."
Reading on in RHST:
"We must allow the Divine Author the rights and privileges claimed and operated by every human author -- that He may quote, adapt, or repeat in varied forms His own previously written or spoken words. God could have used other forms had He chosen to do so, but it has pleased Him to repeat His own word or words, introducing them in different contexts, with new applications and connotations."
How many traditionalists want to confine God to the KJV or some other version? How many want to forbid God to re-issue, improve the surviving remnants, and forbid Him to further clarify to our culture HIS OWN original words, and forbid Him to teach us how to walk into the next administration?
Many to most is the answer. Many to most people DO FORBID God these options. That's why we have "many difficulties." As a body we pretty much have all forbidden God the above liberties we would easily grant any human author. Tradition hates to admit the above. Tradition is a prison. The above sentences are talking about Dr's books, NOT the ancient scriptures and their derivatives. How do I know that? Next sentences (with my ALL-CAPS and bold fonts):
"Thus it obligates us to study the context, the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION where the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see if it is used in a different sense or not."
How many people have Bible versions that are organized into paragraphs and sections? Not too many. How about none? Traditional Bibles are organized into books, chapters, and verses. Look in the table of contents of your Holy Spirit book. It's organized into chapters and SECTIONS and, or course, PARAGRAPHS.
How many times have you ever heard anybody refer to a "paragraph" or a "section" in their Bible version? Oh, they COULD be referring to a Bible version. But then why didn’t Dr use the usual construction and say here "Thus it obligates us to study the context, the VERSES, and the CHAPTER where the same word appears...”?
I believe he used the unusual construction of “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION” to alert us to something, that these words are primarily talking about the very book they appear in, "Receiving The Holy Spirit Today."
Can “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION” also apply to a Bible version’s verses and chapters? Yes, as long as it's rightly divided via the PFAL guidance that started in 1942. These words can also apply to the other PFAL collateral books which are organized into "PARTS."
This passage mentioning "PARAGRAPH" and "SECTION" is telling us that doing word studies within this very book, "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today," is a worthwhile thing to do. Thus I count this as the hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement #10.
The phrase "...the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see if it is used in a different sense or not." refers to the process of doing a PFAL word study.
***
Now, let’s take a break.
I am beginning to point out on this thread that often we seem to be finding things that were HIDDEN in Dr's books, and that this is a prime example, being tucked away in the very back of the Holy Spirit Book. Interestingly, the very topic of this passage centers on the HIDDEN element in God's Word.
Also above, I made brief mention at the first that the appendix following this introduction deals with dechomai and lambano.
In PFAL'77 (and I think also in the Advanced Class) Dr explained how God started revealing directly to him the teaching on dechomai and lambano. He explains that he was reading a text that was open to a place that had both dechomai and lambano on the same page. God showed him a vision and made the printed letters of those two words stand out inches above all the other words on the page to get Dr's attention.
God used many means to deliver His Word to Dr "like it has not been known since the first century." God gave Dr revelation as to WHOSE research he should spend any time on, checking it out, and whose research should be avoided altogether.
God also gave him revelation as to WHICH PARTS of another researcher's material was to be accepted by Dr, and which to reject, and God's ownership of these revelations superseded all human copyright questions. Sometimes in this process God gave Dr phenomena like the vision of heightened letters of dechomai and lambano. And God gave Dr what he often described as a spiritual awareness. You know, the stuff we THINK we have at times too.
In this "Introduction to the Appendixes" of the Holy Spirit book, Dr points out that a person can get some facts from 5-senses tracking, but some truths can ONLY come by direct revelation. What he's really aiming at getting to in the first Appendix , what he is introducing here is the Appendix on dechomai and lambano and the revelations God gave him on that subject.
Coupling this PFAL’77 story of Dr’s about getting revelation on dechomai and lambano with what is written in this Introduction and Appendix I, is what brings me to believe what I said above about the unusual construction of “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION.”
This background on dechomai and lambano helps set the tone that brings out the hidden “thus saith” statement #10 above, and #11 below.
***
Next lines:
"The greatest satisfaction of any Biblical scholar is to fathom what can be searched out from God's Word and to quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out."
How many people can find a passage in the Bible that discusses "free will"? What Dr taught us about "free will" and "foreknowledge" and many other subjects cannot be easily traced in the Bible with great surety. Dr got the surety of those things by revelation, not by merely tracking them with his 5-senses in the Bible. There are many other items like this that I may someday write a post about, but here I will mention one more untrackable item. It's about what is coming in the NEXT two pages in the Holy Spirit book. The passage we're examining is the "Introduction to the Appendixes" and two pages later is Appendix I "The word Receive" on dechomai and lambano.
Several paragraphs above I mentioned a little of how Dr got what he got on dechomai and lambano. He did not track down all of this information via his 5-senses; he got some by revelation. This information can't be totally figured out by scholars or by 5-senses methods. Scholars who are meek can read this book on "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" and then they can "quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out."
We can quietly accept the PFAL revelations on dechomai and lambano because they are from God. This is hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement #11.
***
Last lines:
"These appendixes have been added to this volume for those who desire to search out and explore the deeper reason for the way in which God has set truth in perfect order in His Word."
We desire this deeper, spiritual understanding of God's Word. A 5-senses understanding is too limited to defeat the adversary, who has run the 5-senses realm for many centuries. By meekly searching out and systematically mastering the treasure God has provided in English for us in PFAL we will see "many difficulties disappear." We have the pure Word of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Honesty and consistancy always helps.
Otherwise someone reading this may think your trying to pull something over on someone.
After all, Saint Vic was a con man.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
@ Mike. You say you miss posts - hard to see how, as you're running this thread. It seems to me to be disrespectful to not bother to check if you have missed any posts, before "pouncing" on a few posts that you don't like, and never commenting on posts that might be asking you something.
However, if you really don't know how to read a thread and see all the posts, here's a beginner guide.
Arrive at GSC, even in the About the Way forum. Refresh the page (F5 key on your computer). Page will refresh. If there are new posts, the forum name or thread name will be in bold type.
At the side of each thread, you will see something like a star, or other symbol (spot) on less active threads. Hover over that; it will tell you that if you click it, it will take you to the First Unread Post. Click on the star. Hey presto, you will see any posts you "missed."
If someone posts while you are posting yourself, you will get a message saying there has been a reply or replies. You can click in that, or repeat the Refresh action as above. (I find refreshing is a better choice, as otherwise, posts are sometimes not in correct order: but that might be something to do with my browser or other software.)
So now you have no excuses for "missing" questions posed to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Twinky,
Have you ever actually tried to keep up with many posters, each with multiple posts, chasing you for responses? If so, can you point it out to me with a link? I'd like to look at the timestamps for inspiration in efficiency.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Here is one that I think is real special. This one again is hidden where few readers ever go. Who ever RE-reads the introduction or the preface of a book? Many don't even bother with preliminaries like that on the FIRST reading. But WE read them.
This statement is "hidden" in the Preface of "Receiving The Holy Spirit Today" on page x in the 7th edition.
There we read:
"If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book. Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God’s best. If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this life, you may find your answer while reading this book. It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted and comforted."
***
Let's look at this paragraph closely, sentence by sentence. I'm stunned, even now after seeing it many times in the past. There's so much in here.
"If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book."
This exhortation applies to us now as much as it did back then. We were often told by Dr to master the class materials. This is just one more place. Here he used the word "study" which is used in II Timothy 2:15, our point of departure (PFAL p.115).
"Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God’s best."
This encouragement applies to us now MORE than it did back then. Connecting this sentence with the previous one leads to two possible understandings: either "this book" IS God's best, or/and "this book" is instrumental to receiving "God's best." Looks like both are true to me.
"If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this life, you may find your answer while reading this book."
There it is again: This book is God's answer to the how of the power, just like the above sentence. God's answer is God's Word. God's Word is the power of God. Twice establishes it. We may find our answer while reading "this book." Or how about MASTERING it?
"It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted and comforted."
WOW!!! That's what prophecy does! Edify, exhort, comfort! This book, RHST, is prophecy! Hey! I didn't write the book! It's been sitting there all that time, unnoticed. Think how many other treasures await us, hidden there by God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
BAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
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.