I like to start with the KJV, then look at others for more depth. I have multiple versions available, so it's very easy. I do that because God led me, some 40 years ago, to purchase a KJV, my very first bible. That was quite an experience, and it was many years before meeting TWI. And because I so enjoyed Shakespeare as a teen, it was no challenge for me to understand that old language.
I quite openly advise people NOT to rely on the Authorized Version/King James Version, and specify that only Shakespeare fans and fans of Elizabethan English should even try to use it. My current usages of it remain confined to quoting it at the GSC because everyone here's familiar with it, and using it to find verses that I look up in other versions (since I'm familiar with it.) For personal use, I use the NASB. I first heard of it in the context of a splinter group (yes, Raf, you mentioned it first), and its usage of the italics for the same reasons as the AV/KJV (it was Authorized by King James, in case anyone doesn't know) . After I read Neil Lightfoot's "How We Got the Bible", I switched over to the New American Standard Bible (NASB), despite its refusal to be titled a "version" which it, of course, is. In the course of explaining what's wonderful about the NIV (in his opinion), NL made points in passing about the NASB that filled my list of what I wanted in a version. That is, the italics, clear communication, and CONSISTENCY IN TRANSLATION (readers are more likely to find Greek Word A is always translated English Word H, for example, and not English Word H twice, English Word Q four times, and so on.
So, despite being a fan of Shakespeare, I recommend the NASB around, and read it myself. With access to things like E-sword and online Bibles, it's easy to compare the versions side-by-side whenever you want. The internet has made that a LOT easier.
I find it truly fascinating to watch transformation.
And...........I find it intriguing to watch fossilized, stigmatized non-transformation.
Hence, this thread on indoctrination. Add, years of corps training......where wierwille came to the Emporia Campus and in his corps teachings directed his ire to "cop-outs" who left twi for greener pastures. Then, add.......Bob Moneyhands and OTHER corps coordinators in this R/R group who are STILL fixated on their praise for wierwille.
Transformation is life. Fossilized, stagnant non-transformation is drudgery, misery and death.
This new splinter group is NOT moving towards transformation in life......they hearken back to the stagnant, repulsive enslavement of the wierwille-doctrine. They desire to keep you tethered to the same, denounced doctrines of wierwille: 1) law of believing, 2) absent Christ, 3) dispensationalism, .........ie all things wierwille taught.
WARNING: Every splinter group starts out friendly and teaches on love and giving.
And...........I find it intriguing to watch fossilized, stigmatized non-transformation.
Hence, this thread on indoctrination. Add, years of corps training......where wierwille came to the Emporia Campus and in his corps teachings directed his ire to "cop-outs" who left twi for greener pastures. Then, add.......Bob Moneyhands and OTHER corps coordinators in this R/R group who are STILL fixated on their praise for wierwille.
Transformation is life. Fossilized, stagnant non-transformation is drudgery, misery and death.
This new splinter group is NOT moving towards transformation in life......they hearken back to the stagnant, repulsive enslavement of the wierwille-doctrine. They desire to keep you tethered to the same, denounced doctrines of wierwille: 1) law of believing, 2) absent Christ, 3) dispensationalism, .........ie all things wierwille taught.
WARNING: Every splinter group starts out friendly and teaches on love and giving.
I think it’s like a rebound relationship for cults - you leave a cult and go right into an offshoot to avoid the pain of a breakup.
I have come to the place in my own life, where I do NOT see much value, if any, in constant word battles, and doctrinal disputes, and the uninterrupted history of division, in-fighting, and mutual persecution which seems to dominate the history of Christianity. I have come to the point where I prefer the Jefferson Bible to the KJV, and the rest of the versions based solely upon the Stephens Critical Greek Text Of 1550. That makes the versions based on Stephens as good as the scholarship and available MSS, texts, and translations in various languages and a large number of letters and writings which were considered “scripture” back in the First Century. Who determined what is now the widely accepted Canon Of The Scripture? Why are the Gospels of Mary, Thomas, James the brother of Jesus, and numerous other letters and “books” considered apocryphal?? Who made that decision? Why are the words of Paul in his wordy, Pharisaically trained, Sanhedrin approved, and numerous religious arguments considered to be “godbreathed” while the Gospel Of Mary, Jesus’ mother, the woman who carried The Word Made Flesh in her uterus for 9 months, and raised him from infancy for 20+ years along with Joseph, and knew all the most intimate details of his life, is not considered godbreathed? Who made that decision and WHO SAYS IT’S THE CORRECT ONE??
I assert that Paul’s writings and Epistles are no more godbreathed than all the books and letters in The Apocrypha. WHY should they be?? I don’t believe that most of paul’s writings and letters are godbreathed at all. Why are they any more godbreathed than Mary’s Epistles? Why is Luke’s Gospel okay but Thomas’ isn’t??
So, if I choose to ignore everything Paul wrote, what makes that choice less “correct” or “rightly divided” than to say that the 7 Church Epistles are the “apex of all revelation given TO the Church”? Pray tell!
i believe Paul was an intelligent, confident “Pharisee of The Pharisees”, and a highly educated man of his time. He was obviously well-read, and well-trained as a “doctor of the law”, and a powerful voice on The Sanhedrin in Jerusalem for a number of years in the first half of the first century. He was also an accomplished orator and public speaker, spoke Hebrew, Latin, and Greek fluently, and was a man of means as well, able to take care of himself anywhere he went. BUT, I do not place his life, words, and works above those of my Lord and Savior AND Paul’s, Jesus Christ. I am a Christian, not a Paulian. I also think Paul was a misogynist, a strict religious bigot in the tradition of The Pharisees, social conservative, political reactionary, and a vengeful, mean-spirited guy who claims Jesus knocked him of his horse on the road to Damascus, got him healed at the hands of some guy on a street called Straight, wandered around the wilderness of Syria, Lebanon, and Judea, for 3-6 years getting spiritual and loading up on the new revelation of “the secret” no one before him, not even Jesus Hinself ever knew. I think he demanded the same respect and deference from the new Christians as he did from the Jews he used to rule over. Force of habit maybe, but still a pattern of religious authoritarianism imo.
So, I don’t consider Paul of Tarsus as any more “spiritual” than any of the other first century Pharisees who claimed Jesus of Nazareth as their Lord! I think his writings are full of personal opinion, confirmation bias, private interpretation, and lotsa nice inspirational words regarding Jesus Christ and Christianity. Like Augustine, Origen, Aquinas, and numerous others, perhaps, or “just” another “church father” among the long line that started with Peter, James, and John, Paul was an influential disciple of Christ, but no more “head writer to the Church” than Luke, Matthew, John, or Mark. That’s my current position on old Paulie-Pooh! Interested to hear some considered counterpoint. Have at it!
They desire to keep you tethered to the same, denounced doctrines of wierwille: 1) law of believing, 2) absent Christ, 3) dispensationalism, .........ie all things wierwille taught.
Denounced by most here at GSC, for sure. But there are caveats I am inclined to make here, as there is something that is true to "the law of believing" (although not taught right in twi), and my understanding of how he taught "Christ in you" seems to be different than others here, and dispensationalism (like the rest of these things) is definitely not something new or original with vpw (nor was it taught right.) Not to say that this (or any other splinter group that I've heard of) has (or ever will have) it sorted out correctly, given the mistakes and misunderstandings that are so deeply imbedded in twi culture.
I have come to the place in my own life, where I do NOT see much value, if any, in constant word battles, and doctrinal disputes, and the uninterrupted history of division, in-fighting, and mutual persecution which seems to dominate the history of Christianity. I have come to the point where I prefer the Jefferson Bible to the KJV, and the rest of the versions based solely upon the Stephens Critical Greek Text Of 1550. That makes the versions based on Stephens as good as the scholarship and available MSS, texts, and translations in various languages and a large number of letters and writings which were considered “scripture” back in the First Century. Who determined what is now the widely accepted Canon Of The Scripture? Why are the Gospels of Mary, Thomas, James the brother of Jesus, and numerous other letters and “books” considered apocryphal?? Who made that decision? Why are the words of Paul in his wordy, Pharisaically trained, Sanhedrin approved, and numerous religious arguments considered to be “godbreathed” while the Gospel Of Mary, Jesus’ mother, the woman who carried The Word Made Flesh in her uterus for 9 months, and raised him from infancy for 20+ years along with Joseph, and knew all the most intimate details of his life, is not considered godbreathed? Who made that decision and WHO SAYS IT’S THE CORRECT ONE??
I assert that Paul’s writings and Epistles are no more godbreathed than all the books and letters in The Apocrypha. WHY should they be?? I don’t believe that most of paul’s writings and letters are godbreathed at all. Why are they any more godbreathed than Mary’s Epistles? Why is Luke’s Gospel okay but Thomas’ isn’t??
So, if I choose to ignore everything Paul wrote, what makes that choice less “correct” or “rightly divided” than to say that the 7 Church Epistles are the “apex of all revelation given TO the Church”? Pray tell!
i believe Paul was an intelligent, confident “Pharisee of The Pharisees”, and a highly educated man of his time. He was obviously well-read, and well-trained as a “doctor of the law”, and a powerful voice on The Sanhedrin in Jerusalem for a number of years in the first half of the first century BCE. He was also an accomplished orator and public speaker, spoke Hebrew, Latin, and Greek fluently, and was a man of means as well, able to take care of himself anywhere he went. BUT, I do not place his life, words, and works above those of my Lord and Savior AND Paul’s, Jesus Christ. I am a Christian, not a Paulian. I also think Paul was a misogynist, a strict religious bigot in the tradition of The Pharisees, social conservative, political reactionary, and a vengeful, mean-spirited guy who claims Jesus knocked him of his horse on the road to Damascus, got him healed at the hands of some guy on a street called Straight, wandered around the wilderness of Syria, Lebanon, and Judea, for 3-6 years getting spiritual and loading up on the new revelation of “the secret” no one before him, not even Jesus Hinself ever knew. I think he demanded the same respect and deference from the new Christians as he did from the Jews he used to rule over. Force of habit maybe, but still a pattern of religious authoritarianism imo.
So, I don’t consider Paul of Tarsus as any more “spiritual” than any of the other first century Pharisees who claimed Jesus of Nazareth as their Lord! I think his writings are full of personal opinion, confirmation bias, private interpretation, and lotsa nice inspirational words regarding Jesus Christ and Christianity. Like Augustine, Origen, Aquinas, and numerous others, perhaps, or “just” another “church father” among the long line that started with Peter, James, and John, Paul was an influential disciple of Christ, but no more “head writer to the Church” than Luke, Matthew, John, or Mark. That’s my current position on old Paulie-Pooh! Interested to hear some considered counterpoint. Have at it!
Hey thanks for posting this up. I am migrating on my own path with respect to my relationship to scriptures. I am with you on the Canon for sure - I think possibly people have made committee decisions to exclude texts as not part of the canon of scripture because of various bias as well as possible content in apocryphal books like gospel of Thomas not fitting 100% with accepted views and existing texts. My view is currently more inclusionary than exclusionary.
Of course naysayers will say "where do you draw the line? What about the book of Mormon?" and I really don't have a clear answer for that other than it seems to be inspired by a conversation with an angel Moroni so not "theopneustos" or whatever. Actually I don't seem to be cut and dried or black and white with respect to God's inspiration either. Some things seem a little more in tune to me than others. A greater spark for a shorter time or just a view of mine that is compatible or whatever.
I do think we overvalued Paul / Saul of Tarsus and preferred the epistles over the gospels to our detriment in the Way. Now I have to go back and learn the gospels better to learn about all the scribes and Pharisees in the Way LOL. I don't reject Paul by any means however - he was tapped in and had a spark going. His life was so extreme. He really didn't have a great deal of experience living with and around other Christians for any length of time. Extreme education under Gamaliel that could have easily had him set for life. He ran into Jesus on the road to Damascus. Or got run over. I think maybe many of us can relate to that with our experiences with the Lord. Our old BS getting run over. Paul worked mostly on his own I guess many times Luke was on journeys and Timothy but vastly different than the life of Peter and the boys running Jerusalem.
So the letters. Words from prison - to keep the mind above. Unique, beautiful, many different contents. Like Corinthians. Gifts, the body analogy, instructions about sex and marriage. Wow - I mean some really mind expanding concepts and some really different ones all together.
But by no means meant by God to frame our entire lives because of some stupid idea about dispensationalism has me reading those with more weight and ignoring my Savior. I can appreciate them in their place. I mean "husbands and wives should be fair with each other about having sex" I Cor 7 I mean yeah bro - you and which little hottie kicked back on a shipwrecked island are we speaking of here? Oh, none? Ok then thx for the opinion and hope it works for you as a pickup line. Ya know? But in my life I'm going with flowers over the scales of justice approach. No offense there Paul of Tarsus.
Anyway I'm just rambling on there. I doubt its a counterpoint, and it's much more rambling than considered. I see Paul as a c-r-a-z-y dude who wrote a lot in prison. You have to have an active mind there I guess. I mean I look at some of what Stephen Hawking produced mentally with all his physicals so limited. Pretty amazing.
Thanks for the viewpoints. I never heard of the Jefferson Bible. I'm going to check it out.
I wonder if that is referring only to the Torah. It doesn't actually say "my epistles are God-breathed", or some such.
You don't need those exact words do you? If not, maybe one of the following will work for you:
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
...whereof I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.
Or, maybe it is best left to be said in the words of another (like Peter):
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
So Peter "speaking God-breathed words" calls the God-breathed words spoken by Paul "hard to be understood". Even enough to cause a lot of problems with uneducated and unstable minds.
That is a lot of God-breathed mental acrobatics going on there. Does God regularly put on puppet shows of this nature? Are they even better than Mr. Rogers?
So, despite being a fan of Shakespeare, I recommend the NASB around, and read it myself. With access to things like E-sword and online Bibles, it's easy to compare the versions side-by-side whenever you want. The internet has made that a LOT easier.
So just for fun I put waysider's last post through a "Shakespearean translator".
Paul's epistles must be God-Breathed because it says so right in the epistles. And whatever you read in the epistles must be God-Breathed because, well, ya know, the epistles are God-Breathed.
After:
Paul's epistles might not but beest god-breath'd because t sayeth so right in the epistles. And there's few or none will entertain it thee readeth in the epistles might not but beest god-breath'd because, well, ya knoweth, the epistles art god-breath'd
Yes, I believe Paul had real authority when it came to preaching and teaching the truth of God and Jesus Christ, but that doesn't mean what he wrote was God-breathed. Or maybe it just depends on what your understanding of God-breathed really is.
I'm not going to get into arguments, but I'll highlight the disagreement. I don't think anyone here would just dismiss a "Gospel" of Mary the mother of Jesus. The question is whether or not something CALLED that IS that. I mean, I could write "the adolescent gospel of Thaddeus- the adventures of Jesus when he was a teen". Then someone could come along and say "Thaddeus was one of Jesus' 12 Apostles! This should be taken as seriously as Matthew!" Yet I don't think anyone thinks that person would be CORRECT to say so, So, where we disagree on such books is in whatever standard we use to determine whether it is canon, or just an old book written by someone who came along centuries later. And THAT would be a whole discussion on its own, in Doctrinal. But that's where the disagreement lies. Carry on, everyone.
Yes, I believe Paul had real authority when it came to preaching and teaching the truth of God and Jesus Christ, but that doesn't mean what he wrote was God-breathed. Or maybe it just depends on what your understanding of God-breathed really is.
And how far you want to take the analogy. For example:
Does God get moose breath in the morning like me? How does that work with inspiration?
Does God require good dental hygiene to avoid halitosis, like me?
Does God ever get to the point at a party where someone checks his breath, and as a result confiscates his car keys? Again, like me LOL.
Mods, I'm kind of tiptoeing on a line here between humor and doctrinal discussion. I am just going with the best I know on where to locate things with ongoing conversation in the threads. On the topic of VPW the indoctrinator I guess this would fall under "recognizing indoctrination methods" loosely or some such topic. I mean VP had specific methods he used to indoctrinate, and his God-breathed cr@pola was a big part of it, getting young hippies to believe in snow on gas pumps.
So to circle back around, yes - halitosis, VP, God-breathed, and indoctrination. Yes it does seem all related - mixed together like one huge cow pie.
Hey I just figured out why such the cognitive dissonance over organizing posts in this thread and Doctrinal. The title of this thread is "Wierwille the Indoctrinator" - indoctrinator has "doctrine" as its root word. How is it not going to come up? This thread by nature has elements of TWI and Doctrine in it. Two main words in the title are equally separated down each forum division.
"Hey I just figured out why such the cognitive dissonance over organizing posts in this thread and Doctrinal. The title of this thread is "Wierwille the Indoctrinator" - indoctrinator has "doctrine" as its root word. How is it not going to come up? This thread by nature has elements of TWI and Doctrine in it. Two main words in the title are equally separated down each forum division."
And yet, discussions of "indoctrination" can-and do- happen independent of "DOCTRINE." I read an entire book on the subject of indoctrination once ("Factors Used to Increase the Susceptibility of Individuals to Forceful Indoctrination"), and the APA didn't touch on "doctrine" at all. It's like saying that we can't "disagree" (draw different conclusions) without being "disagreeable" (grouchy and ill-tempered) because "disagree" and "disagreeable" have the same root word.
And...........I find it intriguing to watch fossilized, stigmatized non-transformation.
Hence, this thread on indoctrination. Add, years of corps training......where wierwille came to the Emporia Campus and in his corps teachings directed his ire to "cop-outs" who left twi for greener pastures. Then, add.......Bob Moneyhands and OTHER corps coordinators in this R/R group who are STILL fixated on their praise for wierwille.
Transformation is life. Fossilized, stagnant non-transformation is drudgery, misery and death.
This new splinter group is NOT moving towards transformation in life......they hearken back to the stagnant, repulsive enslavement of the wierwille-doctrine. They desire to keep you tethered to the same, denounced doctrines of wierwille: 1) law of believing, 2) absent Christ, 3) dispensationalism, .........ie all things wierwille taught.
WARNING: Every splinter group starts out friendly and teaches on love and giving.
On 6/26/2018 at 7:50 AM, skyrider said:
And...........I find it intriguing to watch fossilized, stigmatized non-transformation.
Hence, this thread on indoctrination. Add, years of corps training......where wierwille came to the Emporia Campus and in his corps teachings directed his ire to "cop-outs" who left twi for greener pastures. Then, add.......Bob Moneyhands and OTHER corps coordinators in this R/R group who are STILL fixated on their praise for wierwille.
Transformation is life. Fossilized, stagnant non-transformation is drudgery, misery and death.
This new splinter group is NOT moving towards transformation in life......they hearken back to the stagnant, repulsive enslavement of the wierwille-doctrine. They desire to keep you tethered to the same, denounced doctrines of wierwille: 1) law of believing, 2) absent Christ, 3) dispensationalism, .........ie all things wierwille taught.
WARNING: Every splinter group starts out friendly and teaches on love and giving.
Sky, you are right; splinter groups often do start out, loving and kind. However, after my involvement with TWI, I want nothing to do with any of any of these groups; 10 years of cult life was enough to last me the rest of my life.
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
I quite openly advise people NOT to rely on the Authorized Version/King James Version, and specify that only Shakespeare fans and fans of Elizabethan English should even try to use it. My current usages of it remain confined to quoting it at the GSC because everyone here's familiar with it, and using it to find verses that I look up in other versions (since I'm familiar with it.) For personal use, I use the NASB. I first heard of it in the context of a splinter group (yes, Raf, you mentioned it first), and its usage of the italics for the same reasons as the AV/KJV (it was Authorized by King James, in case anyone doesn't know) . After I read Neil Lightfoot's "How We Got the Bible", I switched over to the New American Standard Bible (NASB), despite its refusal to be titled a "version" which it, of course, is. In the course of explaining what's wonderful about the NIV (in his opinion), NL made points in passing about the NASB that filled my list of what I wanted in a version. That is, the italics, clear communication, and CONSISTENCY IN TRANSLATION (readers are more likely to find Greek Word A is always translated English Word H, for example, and not English Word H twice, English Word Q four times, and so on.
So, despite being a fan of Shakespeare, I recommend the NASB around, and read it myself. With access to things like E-sword and online Bibles, it's easy to compare the versions side-by-side whenever you want. The internet has made that a LOT easier.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
And...........I find it intriguing to watch fossilized, stigmatized non-transformation.
Hence, this thread on indoctrination. Add, years of corps training......where wierwille came to the Emporia Campus and in his corps teachings directed his ire to "cop-outs" who left twi for greener pastures. Then, add.......Bob Moneyhands and OTHER corps coordinators in this R/R group who are STILL fixated on their praise for wierwille.
Transformation is life. Fossilized, stagnant non-transformation is drudgery, misery and death.
This new splinter group is NOT moving towards transformation in life......they hearken back to the stagnant, repulsive enslavement of the wierwille-doctrine. They desire to keep you tethered to the same, denounced doctrines of wierwille: 1) law of believing, 2) absent Christ, 3) dispensationalism, .........ie all things wierwille taught.
WARNING: Every splinter group starts out friendly and teaches on love and giving.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think it’s like a rebound relationship for cults - you leave a cult and go right into an offshoot to avoid the pain of a breakup.
Edited by T-Boneformatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
I have come to the place in my own life, where I do NOT see much value, if any, in constant word battles, and doctrinal disputes, and the uninterrupted history of division, in-fighting, and mutual persecution which seems to dominate the history of Christianity. I have come to the point where I prefer the Jefferson Bible to the KJV, and the rest of the versions based solely upon the Stephens Critical Greek Text Of 1550. That makes the versions based on Stephens as good as the scholarship and available MSS, texts, and translations in various languages and a large number of letters and writings which were considered “scripture” back in the First Century. Who determined what is now the widely accepted Canon Of The Scripture? Why are the Gospels of Mary, Thomas, James the brother of Jesus, and numerous other letters and “books” considered apocryphal?? Who made that decision? Why are the words of Paul in his wordy, Pharisaically trained, Sanhedrin approved, and numerous religious arguments considered to be “godbreathed” while the Gospel Of Mary, Jesus’ mother, the woman who carried The Word Made Flesh in her uterus for 9 months, and raised him from infancy for 20+ years along with Joseph, and knew all the most intimate details of his life, is not considered godbreathed? Who made that decision and WHO SAYS IT’S THE CORRECT ONE??
I assert that Paul’s writings and Epistles are no more godbreathed than all the books and letters in The Apocrypha. WHY should they be?? I don’t believe that most of paul’s writings and letters are godbreathed at all. Why are they any more godbreathed than Mary’s Epistles? Why is Luke’s Gospel okay but Thomas’ isn’t??
So, if I choose to ignore everything Paul wrote, what makes that choice less “correct” or “rightly divided” than to say that the 7 Church Epistles are the “apex of all revelation given TO the Church”? Pray tell!
i believe Paul was an intelligent, confident “Pharisee of The Pharisees”, and a highly educated man of his time. He was obviously well-read, and well-trained as a “doctor of the law”, and a powerful voice on The Sanhedrin in Jerusalem for a number of years in the first half of the first century. He was also an accomplished orator and public speaker, spoke Hebrew, Latin, and Greek fluently, and was a man of means as well, able to take care of himself anywhere he went. BUT, I do not place his life, words, and works above those of my Lord and Savior AND Paul’s, Jesus Christ. I am a Christian, not a Paulian. I also think Paul was a misogynist, a strict religious bigot in the tradition of The Pharisees, social conservative, political reactionary, and a vengeful, mean-spirited guy who claims Jesus knocked him of his horse on the road to Damascus, got him healed at the hands of some guy on a street called Straight, wandered around the wilderness of Syria, Lebanon, and Judea, for 3-6 years getting spiritual and loading up on the new revelation of “the secret” no one before him, not even Jesus Hinself ever knew. I think he demanded the same respect and deference from the new Christians as he did from the Jews he used to rule over. Force of habit maybe, but still a pattern of religious authoritarianism imo.
So, I don’t consider Paul of Tarsus as any more “spiritual” than any of the other first century Pharisees who claimed Jesus of Nazareth as their Lord! I think his writings are full of personal opinion, confirmation bias, private interpretation, and lotsa nice inspirational words regarding Jesus Christ and Christianity. Like Augustine, Origen, Aquinas, and numerous others, perhaps, or “just” another “church father” among the long line that started with Peter, James, and John, Paul was an influential disciple of Christ, but no more “head writer to the Church” than Luke, Matthew, John, or Mark. That’s my current position on old Paulie-Pooh! Interested to hear some considered counterpoint. Have at it!
Edited by DontWorryBeHappyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Denounced by most here at GSC, for sure. But there are caveats I am inclined to make here, as there is something that is true to "the law of believing" (although not taught right in twi), and my understanding of how he taught "Christ in you" seems to be different than others here, and dispensationalism (like the rest of these things) is definitely not something new or original with vpw (nor was it taught right.) Not to say that this (or any other splinter group that I've heard of) has (or ever will have) it sorted out correctly, given the mistakes and misunderstandings that are so deeply imbedded in twi culture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Yup. That's what I start with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
This is my first "experience" with one. Quoted because my involvement is minimal.
I don't doubt that you are correct. Time will tell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
I wonder if that is referring only to the Torah. It doesn't actually say "my epistles are God-breathed", or some such.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Hey thanks for posting this up. I am migrating on my own path with respect to my relationship to scriptures. I am with you on the Canon for sure - I think possibly people have made committee decisions to exclude texts as not part of the canon of scripture because of various bias as well as possible content in apocryphal books like gospel of Thomas not fitting 100% with accepted views and existing texts. My view is currently more inclusionary than exclusionary.
Of course naysayers will say "where do you draw the line? What about the book of Mormon?" and I really don't have a clear answer for that other than it seems to be inspired by a conversation with an angel Moroni so not "theopneustos" or whatever. Actually I don't seem to be cut and dried or black and white with respect to God's inspiration either. Some things seem a little more in tune to me than others. A greater spark for a shorter time or just a view of mine that is compatible or whatever.
I do think we overvalued Paul / Saul of Tarsus and preferred the epistles over the gospels to our detriment in the Way. Now I have to go back and learn the gospels better to learn about all the scribes and Pharisees in the Way LOL. I don't reject Paul by any means however - he was tapped in and had a spark going. His life was so extreme. He really didn't have a great deal of experience living with and around other Christians for any length of time. Extreme education under Gamaliel that could have easily had him set for life. He ran into Jesus on the road to Damascus. Or got run over. I think maybe many of us can relate to that with our experiences with the Lord. Our old BS getting run over. Paul worked mostly on his own I guess many times Luke was on journeys and Timothy but vastly different than the life of Peter and the boys running Jerusalem.
So the letters. Words from prison - to keep the mind above. Unique, beautiful, many different contents. Like Corinthians. Gifts, the body analogy, instructions about sex and marriage. Wow - I mean some really mind expanding concepts and some really different ones all together.
But by no means meant by God to frame our entire lives because of some stupid idea about dispensationalism has me reading those with more weight and ignoring my Savior. I can appreciate them in their place. I mean "husbands and wives should be fair with each other about having sex" I Cor 7 I mean yeah bro - you and which little hottie kicked back on a shipwrecked island are we speaking of here? Oh, none? Ok then thx for the opinion and hope it works for you as a pickup line. Ya know? But in my life I'm going with flowers over the scales of justice approach. No offense there Paul of Tarsus.
Anyway I'm just rambling on there. I doubt its a counterpoint, and it's much more rambling than considered. I see Paul as a c-r-a-z-y dude who wrote a lot in prison. You have to have an active mind there I guess. I mean I look at some of what Stephen Hawking produced mentally with all his physicals so limited. Pretty amazing.
Thanks for the viewpoints. I never heard of the Jefferson Bible. I'm going to check it out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
You don't need those exact words do you? If not, maybe one of the following will work for you:
Or, maybe it is best left to be said in the words of another (like Peter):
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So Peter "speaking God-breathed words" calls the God-breathed words spoken by Paul "hard to be understood". Even enough to cause a lot of problems with uneducated and unstable minds.
That is a lot of God-breathed mental acrobatics going on there. Does God regularly put on puppet shows of this nature? Are they even better than Mr. Rogers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So just for fun I put waysider's last post through a "Shakespearean translator".
https://lingojam.com/Shakespearean
Before:
Paul's epistles must be God-Breathed because it says so right in the epistles. And whatever you read in the epistles must be God-Breathed because, well, ya know, the epistles are God-Breathed.
After:
Paul's epistles might not but beest god-breath'd because t sayeth so right in the epistles. And there's few or none will entertain it thee readeth in the epistles might not but beest god-breath'd because, well, ya knoweth, the epistles art god-breath'd
That just clears it right up!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Yes, I believe Paul had real authority when it came to preaching and teaching the truth of God and Jesus Christ, but that doesn't mean what he wrote was God-breathed. Or maybe it just depends on what your understanding of God-breathed really is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
scripture. (same as what Peter aligns it with.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Modgellan
This is turning more doctrinal than about Wierwille Indoctrinator or TWI. Please keep doctrine where it belongs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
This one sounds even better through the Shakespearean translator: for the KJV folks LOL
This is turning moo doctrinal than about wierwille indoctrinat'r 'r twi. Prithee keepeth doctrine whither t belongs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Interesting that the secondary title is "A mostly innaccurate Shakespearean translator"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm not going to get into arguments, but I'll highlight the disagreement. I don't think anyone here would just dismiss a "Gospel" of Mary the mother of Jesus. The question is whether or not something CALLED that IS that. I mean, I could write "the adolescent gospel of Thaddeus- the adventures of Jesus when he was a teen". Then someone could come along and say "Thaddeus was one of Jesus' 12 Apostles! This should be taken as seriously as Matthew!" Yet I don't think anyone thinks that person would be CORRECT to say so, So, where we disagree on such books is in whatever standard we use to determine whether it is canon, or just an old book written by someone who came along centuries later. And THAT would be a whole discussion on its own, in Doctrinal. But that's where the disagreement lies. Carry on, everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
And how far you want to take the analogy. For example:
Mods, I'm kind of tiptoeing on a line here between humor and doctrinal discussion. I am just going with the best I know on where to locate things with ongoing conversation in the threads. On the topic of VPW the indoctrinator I guess this would fall under "recognizing indoctrination methods" loosely or some such topic. I mean VP had specific methods he used to indoctrinate, and his God-breathed cr@pola was a big part of it, getting young hippies to believe in snow on gas pumps.
So to circle back around, yes - halitosis, VP, God-breathed, and indoctrination. Yes it does seem all related - mixed together like one huge cow pie.
Hey I just figured out why such the cognitive dissonance over organizing posts in this thread and Doctrinal. The title of this thread is "Wierwille the Indoctrinator" - indoctrinator has "doctrine" as its root word. How is it not going to come up? This thread by nature has elements of TWI and Doctrine in it. Two main words in the title are equally separated down each forum division.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Hey I just figured out why such the cognitive dissonance over organizing posts in this thread and Doctrinal. The title of this thread is "Wierwille the Indoctrinator" - indoctrinator has "doctrine" as its root word. How is it not going to come up? This thread by nature has elements of TWI and Doctrine in it. Two main words in the title are equally separated down each forum division."
And yet, discussions of "indoctrination" can-and do- happen independent of "DOCTRINE." I read an entire book on the subject of indoctrination once ("Factors Used to Increase the Susceptibility of Individuals to Forceful Indoctrination"), and the APA didn't touch on "doctrine" at all. It's like saying that we can't "disagree" (draw different conclusions) without being "disagreeable" (grouchy and ill-tempered) because "disagree" and "disagreeable" have the same root word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Sky, you are right; splinter groups often do start out, loving and kind. However, after my involvement with TWI, I want nothing to do with any of any of these groups; 10 years of cult life was enough to last me the rest of my life.
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.