Part of my mission is to demonstrate that over and over you folks criticize what you don’t understand or remember, and that means you don’t understand the essence of what we were taught in writing. THEREFORE, you aren’t credible critics of it in my eyes.
Mike, for the record, I have spent countless hours studying wierwille's books to a blatant fault. Now - I'm not on your level of trying to find occultic hidden meaning in those writings...I give you credit - you have me beat there. But....when I got involved in TWI I literally spent 4 to 5 hours per night studying his books, etc, etc...all things TWI. This went on for 5 years including 2 way disciple tenures. Then I went in residence where I spent two years straight studying around 35 to 40 hours a week. My study time in-residence includes most U of L tapes and most all of the old way corps teachings I had time to listen and they were all in the library at Gunnison. After graduating into the way corps I levelled off on my studies somewhat but still was doing about an hour or more a day. Yeah...Im credible. But you know what? There are other's here that are way more credible and experienced in all things twi than me...and you ignore them too. Mike...you poicking up on a pattern here? You ignore anything that doesnt fit your view of things. That's problematic there buddy.
12 hours ago, Mike said:
I am interested in learning better ways to express what I have chosen to live by.
My approach to TWI people is totally different on this.They already hold the collaterals to be good these days, and have shook off that “old wineskins” baloney.
You know why they have shaken off the old wineskins baloney? Because the collaterals, et. al., have all been sanitized, heavily edited, and proof read half to death and back again in one gigantic, multi-year effort to hide the truth that wierwille plagairaized his materials. Can't have word for word copies from other books in way ministry publications, now can we? It was also very necessary to sanitize all the nutty comments, slander, libel, etc, stricke from the record. Don't wanna actually be liable in court for these things and definately don't wanna keep that cult label. I witnessed it first hand and was married to one of the editors that did the work...and we talked in great depth my friend, great depth.
Thanks. You may also enjoy the following...there's 29 interviews total and I havent been through them all...anywho: (BTW - I feel we should take the topic of KJV vs Other Versions to another thread if we wanna get deep into it and I welcome that. This is a newer topic of study for me and I wanna puch holes in my studies. T-Bone neither this parenthetical staement of mine nor the logic fallacy comment is pointed at you but out to anyone in general so we don't get too far off topic)
Understood OldSkool
I enjoyed that interview…and I agree with you on KJV vs other versions should be another thread
in my previous post I was just bolstering the idea that we don’t need wierwille’s crystal-eyeball to peer into the otherwise unfathomable mind of God to tell us what He originally meant.
I hold to the limited inspiration theory of how the Scriptures were inspired and believe textual criticism along with competent and honest hermeneutics are satisfactory for understanding the basic tenets of Christianity. I’ll leave the hidden messages and secret knowledge to the fans of Gnosticism.
in my previous post I was just bolstering the idea that we don’t need wierwille’s crystal-eyeball to peer into the otherwise unfathomable mind of God to tell us what He originally meant.
Amen!!!
4 minutes ago, T-Bone said:
I hold to the limited inspiration theory of how the Scriptures were inspired and believe textual criticism along with competent and honest hermeneutics are satisfactory for understanding the basic tenets of Christianity. I’ll leave the hidden messages and secret knowledge to the fans of Gnosticism.
Im not familiar with limited inspiration theory. I appreciate the reference as I will dig into your comments here for my own personal study...thanks!
I don't buy your claim you were joking, and. again, your credibility is at a low. ... Frankly, I was hoping that, over the years, you'd abandoned that previous doctrine of pfal being a new Bible that supplanted the old, and gave you a chance to let everyone know. This "I never held that position" thing is wildly dishonest. If you really want a shred of credibility here, you really have to cut that out. The worst part, is that I think you really think you never posted that- which means that your memory process is really, really prone to radical editing.
LoL I was joking, and offering you a bone at the same time. It was only a tiny joke, but is getting funnier (for me) as you continue to not see the HUMOR.
ALSO, I am genuinely thankful for the memory jog you gave me.
I was remembering some of the other ways I used back then to express myself. I am mis-understood here all the time. So_crates being the most egregious recent example. I experiment with ways to express my position.
What I bold fonted in your comments above is an example of it too, where you swapped out "replace" and used "supplanted." I don't believe I ever posted what that bolded sentence says. (actually: a fragment of a sentence)
What I remembered today was that sometimes I used the word "combo" and in a way that resembles what I bold fonted above.
Here is a more accurate depiction of my position: The authority of the PFAL/KJV combo replaces use of the "authoritative" KJV alone.
In that sentence I just use the word "replace" in a way I may have used it back when. But of course it was understood wrong, and then remembered wrong.
The raw version the KJV is has no authority. I can shamelessly change the KJV text with white-out in my Cambridge Wide Margin, because it is devoid of authority that the originals had. God did not intervene to help make the KJV happen. I am sure He had revelation available, but few could receive it, due to it being against the strong traditions of that time.
The the PFAL/KJV combo has the authority of the Author of the originals under it.
I think I also may have used the "replace" to describe how God seems to have abandoned His use of the Word He wrote in the stars.
After the Maji, I know of no one who can read the stars with the detail and sureness they had to have, in order to commit money, time, and manpower for their journey to Jerusalem, and get the timing right.
It looks to me that God replaced the stars with written words around Moses' time, and only had a small group of people (the Maji) maintain an understanding of the Word in the stars. I am still looking for confirmation of this. Way back when, in the Mike Wars I may have sounded more sure about this star replacement. In recent years I have started looking into this replacement of the stars a little deeper.
But but the PFAL/KJV combo definitely replaces the traditional authority our culture thought it saw in the KJV alone.
These are fine points.
I can understand how in the heat of battle others could confuse my position with PFAL replacing the Bible. But now that those battles are over, please consider what I say today as possibly better expressed than my expressions in the heat of battle confusion that may have affected me.
If you aren't actively renewing your mind to the Word we were taught, there is no way for you to believe me, short of an intervention by God in your lives.
In light of this, I don't care much about my credibility with you folks.
I am grateful for the opportunity to fine tune the expression of my position for all here who can read with a mind that is thankful for what we were taught.
Maybe someday a few of you can come back to this and see the light in it.
"If you aren't actively renewing your mind to the Word we were taught, there is no way for you to believe me, short of an intervention by God in your lives."
[Without the special procedures recommended by Mike, I agree that believing Mike's position is a slim chance at best for him. And if God Almighty intervened and told me that Mike's position was the correct one, I'd have a few burning questions, mainly to determine from whom I was getting revelation.]
"In light of this, I don't care much about my credibility with you folks."
[Well, that makes things easy. With him now adopting a less-incredible position than before- but insisting this was the position he held before when he actually argued AGAINST it- credibility isn't going to come easy, if at all.
While we're on the subject, those grapes were probably sour anyway.]
"I am grateful for the opportunity to fine tune the expression of my position for all here who can read with a mind that is thankful for what we were taught. "
[I'm glad Mike's at least partly communicating his current position clearly. Now, if he would also shed the intellectual dishonesty of denying his position changed, and if he could rid himself of the hubris of acting as if his skills were equal to the other posters let alone superior, he'd have something. The doctrine would still be wildly error-ridden, but at least we could have a shot at clear, civil discussions about it.]
With him now adopting a less-incredible position than before- but insisting...
LoL.
Yeah, I'm just a raving lunatic with no credibility.
Yet, the About the Way forum was inactive for days after this thread and my ravings were moved to Doctrinal. All the big posters followed the thread (and my incredulous ravings) here, and devoted lots of posting time to find ways of demonstrating how illogical and ignorant my posts here are, and burying them in blather.
LoL
And if that's not enough, now you, WW, start a whole new thread devoted to how incredulous I am with my position.
LoL
If what I post were all that stupid, why all this attention?
You must have a very low opinion of those non-posters who are reading these threads, and you don't want my incredulity overlooked by perceived-to-be stupid innocent readers.
Yeah, I'm just a raving lunatic with no credibility.
[I never said you were a raving lunatic. Nothing like inventing fake positions to try to make yourself look more credible, though. Around here, that's not going to help your credibility issue.]
Yet, the About the Way forum was inactive for days after this thread and my ravings were moved to Doctrinal.
[I know you seem to think that adds something to your reputation, but it signifies nothing.]
All the big posters followed the thread (and my incredulous ravings) here, and devoted lots of posting time to find ways of demonstrating how illogical and ignorant my posts here are, and burying them in blather.
[All your posts were still there. Nobody buried them in anything. Also, declaring our posts were actually "blather" doesn't make them so. Might as well take a jar of pickles, and add the label "soup" or "apple butter."
In other news, I thought the demonstration was quite effective- and it was done during actual attempts at conversation, at that.]
5 minutes ago, Mike said:
LoL
And if that's not enough, now you, WW, start a whole new thread devoted to how incredulous I am with my position.
[If you think any thread I post demonstrates flawed logic, you are welcome to post on it-civilly- and point out what you think is an actual flaw. If it's an actual flaw, that will come out. If you just don't like the thread but can't find a flaw in the logic, you can always just complain about it on a different thread.]
5 minutes ago, Mike said:
LoL
If what I post were all that stupid, why all this attention?
[The word "stupid" is yours, not mine. As for the attention, it's only appropriate to point out flawed logic, especially when it's on-topic for the messageboard. Laying out the process is healthy for everyone, and there's really no downside to it, providing the logic is sound and I'm actually telling the truth. No need to celebrate getting lots of attention, it's not validation.]
5 minutes ago, Mike said:
You must have a very low opinion of those non-posters who are reading these threads, and you don't want my incredulity overlooked by perceived-to-be stupid innocent readers.
[I'm not quite as dismissive of them as you are. I don't fling the word "stupid" around as quickly. There's plenty of smart people who have been fooled by some trap or another, depending on the specifics, the trap and the person's specifics. I don't mind shining a spotlight on critical flaws. I also don't think "incredulity" applies to you- in this case, I find the problem is your credulity. The non-posters who can read all the posts can evaluate what we've written, and form their own opinions on things. I really don't picture them with LOW opinions. ]
If you think any thread I post demonstrates flawed logic, you are welcome to post on it-civilly- and point out what you think is an actual flaw.
I realize you personally did not use all those vocabulary words. I was addressing a composite of the very difficult people here. You are far more polite.
With you, my problem is volume. I can only handle so much here, and it gets less as I age.
*/*/*/*
I am a life-long fan and reader of Kurt Godel and authors who write about him and logic. His theorems are a little like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in Physics, again a life-long study for me.
You can only go so far with logic, and then you are stranded.
Another thing that escapes most about logic are the Postulates that underlay a logical discussion.
That is where we differ on logic, sir.
Many here cannot get that.
The reason I left and boycotted Raf’s logical PFAL error expose thread 20 years ago was because the Postulates differed from mine too much, and no one could deal with that in their work there.
No one could adopt my Postulates, to see what happened if they were adopted.This is how a full logical discussion proceeds.Sometimes the Postulates are tinkered with to see what happens. Non-Euclidean Geometries are the paragon of this.
My dodging that thread and occasional debates on other threads was my refusal to adopt their Postulates, and my Postulates refused by them.
I spent months at times in the 1970s and 80s playing with Raf’s Postulates on-and-off, doubting some things in TWI. And then fully tinkered with right after 1986, the big meltdown, for a couple years.
For the next 8 years I experimented wildly with my Postulates and learned a lot, but I kept checking in regularly with PFAL Postulates also.
I have fully sampled the Postulates Raf had going, and that permeate most of GSC today.I had enough of what they taste like to refuse them these past 20 years.
No one in this public circle has fully tasted the Postulates I pitch here…. Yet.
There was some shallow sampling of them in the field, and barrages of them study sessions, but not in application to people in life year after year, unsupervised.
I have seen this stuff work well when a community of believers operate the PFAL principles pretty well, relatively unsupervised. I seek to see that again.
I have seen this stuff work well when a community of believers operate the PFAL principles pretty well, relatively unsupervised. I seek to see that again.
Nobody believes you... on this website. You don't have either adequate communication skills or ability to relate to those you hope will read your blather.
Mike is so religious on this forum thread instead of scripturally following Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is NOT absent as the head of the body of Christ. The early disciples later to be apostles clearly saw this. For example from the book of Acts are the following scriptures as quoted from the New King James Version.
Quote
Acts 2:32-33
32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. (NKJV)
With Jesus seated on the right hand of God and he currently still is, spoke to Saul later to be the apostle for the Gentiles, got Saul to make a major change from perhaps being the worst persecutor of first century followers of Jesus Christ to being the best and most informative teacher of the New Testament. The Roman citizenship name of Saul was Paul. VPW new about Paul, and quoted from some of the scriptures originally written by Paul many times in his books. For example, what I view as Wierwille’s best book named, “Are the Dead Alive Now?”, which I have fully read. Chapter 13 of my biblical teaching book is in harmony with this book and is named: “When Will the Dead Be Made Alive Through Jesus Christ?”.
Quote
Acts 9:1-19
1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"5 And he said, "Who are You, Lord?"Then the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads."6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, "Lord, what do You want me to do?"Then the Lord said to him, "Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. 8 Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank. Ananias Baptizes Saul10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and to him the Lord said in a vision, "Ananias. "And he said, "Here I am, Lord."11 So the Lord said to him, "Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus, for behold, he is praying. 12 And in a vision he has seen a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, so that he might receive his sight." 13 Then Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name." 15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name's sake." 17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized. 19 So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus.(NKJV)
Even the original apostles were not able to get Saul also called Paul to make a major change like Jesus Christ did as the head of the body of Christ.
Christ is no longer flesh and blood - he is changed forever more. You can change scripture all you want, because that is exactly what you are doing.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit..
I think this is important to understand from the Catholic perspective as well. Practicing Catholics believe Christ is here, physically, in the Holy Eucharist. Only a different physical form, different substance than flesh and blood. It's a mystery to me. I don't understand it, but I accept it as possible. I don't understand the Trinity, but now accept it as possible. It's also interesting to me that folks who are awaiting "Christ's return" don't have to wait any longer; he's back! Of course, from the Catholic perspective.
I think this is important to understand from the Catholic perspective as well. Practicing Catholics believe Christ is here, physically, in the Holy Eucharist. Only a different physical form, different substance than flesh and blood. It's a mystery to me. I don't understand it, but I accept it as possible. I don't understand the Trinity, but now accept it as possible. It's also interesting to me that folks who are awaiting "Christ's return" don't have to wait any longer; he's back! Of course, from the Catholic perspective.
While I believe what is written concerning Christ's current state, form, and functions from scripture --- I make 0 claims that I actually understand any of it beyond the words given in scripture. Im sure there is more to understand from scripture than my little mind has peeked into.
The raw version the KJV is has no authority. I can shamelessly change the KJV text with white-out in my Cambridge Wide Margin, because it is devoid of authority that the originals had. God did not intervene to help make the KJV happen. I am sure He had revelation available, but few could receive it, due to it being against the strong traditions of that time.
Mike - I mean no disrespect and what I am about to say is not directed at you personally but your point of view: This is a point of view grounded in ignorance concerning the KJV Bible. It was translated from the Textus Receptus which is comprised of several thousand texts that agree over 95% of the time. Most modern day versions come from Wescott-Hort and they are based on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus and they disagree more than 3000 times just between themselves.
Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale's first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops' Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611). [STORY OF OUR ENGLISH BIBLE, by W. Scott]
Ancient Versions followed the reading of the Textus Receptus. These versions include: The Pedangta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran]
Best I see it, on the Road to Damascus God gave Paul a vision of Jesus, much like the visions of Moses and Elijah that Peter and John saw at Jesus' Transfiguration.
21 hours ago, OldSkool said:
That was Jesus Christ himself - not a vision. Jesus Christ appears to many in the book of Acts and he gives vision through the spirit. You should know this, Mike.
I mentioned elsewhere that there are 3 separate accounts of the Paul's conversion on the Road to Damascus. The first one is in the narrative, and is at Acts 9:4-16, with Luke as the narrator. The second one is a flashback, with Paul speaking, and is at Acts 22:7-11.
Here is the third, at Acts 26:13-20:
13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way
a light from heaven, above the brightness
of the sun, shining round about me and
them which journeyed with me.
14 And when we were all fallen to the
earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me,
and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul,
Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard
for thee to kick against the pricks.
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he
said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet:
for I have appeared unto thee for this
purpose, to make thee a minister and a
witness both of these things which thou
hast seen, and of those things in the
which I will appear unto thee;
17 Delivering thee from the people,
and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I
send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them
from darkness to light, and from the
power of Satan unto God, that they may
receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance
among them which are sanctified
by faith that is in me.
19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was
not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus,
and at Jerusalem, and throughout
all the coasts of Judaea, and then to
the Gentiles, that they should repent and
turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
*/*/*/*/*
What Paul saw was a heavenly vision. It had to be a vision, because the flesh and blood man, Jesus, was hidden from sight in Acts 1 by God, for good reasons.
Later Paul teaches that we know not Christ after the flesh, so that we can know him in a BETTER way, with his spirit inside us and growing.
Jesus got up from the dead in flesh and bones form, and he is coming back that way: this same Jesus the angels in Acts 1 said is coming back.
Jesus got up from the dead in flesh and bones form,
Even wierwille recognized that Christ is changed and sporting a new body. U do understand that basic Christology teaches this truth? That Christ is the first born from the dead raised in glory?
Mike...what ever happened to it says what it means and means what it says?
What ever happened to FIRST getting all that the Word says on one topic, and then seeing what fits with if all? We were taught that as well as says what it means and means what it says.
You must gather ALL that it says on one topic to see what it says.
You are taking your favorite verses, and building your theory on them, ignoring scriptures that contradict your favored view.
Were you aware of that last of the last items in the three accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts 26:19, where Paul says it was a vision?
Even wierwille recognized that Christ is changed and sporting a new body. U do understand that basic Christology teaches this truth? That Christ is the first born from the dead raised in glory?
Luke 24
36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
*/*/*/*/*
Here we have the flesh and bones, raised from the dead, Jesus.
Notice he didn't say "flesh and blood" because that would not be accurate.
You are right, Oldskool, that his body had changed. It was the blood part that changed, not the flesh and bones. He still wanted food.
Does this include the biblical canon and the significance of its specific order?
The best I understand it the NT canon was assembled by Paul, Mark, Luke, and John. God gave them revelation for it. Their canon was not recognized for a long time, but God kept giving revelations to whomever He could to preserve and pass on that canon. He had his hand on the process all along.
I see the 1942 promise as a major, 2,000 year unique event, as a major intervention by God like what He did for Paul in the Road to Damascus. VPW says this also in "Light Began to Dawn" which is featured in a thread in About the Way.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
427
271
423
257
Popular Days
Feb 14
142
Oct 13
105
Jan 18
101
Oct 8
88
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 427 posts
T-Bone 271 posts
OldSkool 423 posts
Nathan_Jr 257 posts
Popular Days
Feb 14 2023
142 posts
Oct 13 2022
105 posts
Jan 18 2023
101 posts
Oct 8 2022
88 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
First off, Biblically speaking, Christ has never been absent...that doctrine does not come close to occuring anywhere in the Bible. Yet the way international teaches the word of God takes the place of
Bolshevik
Mike's apparent anger toward Christ and emphasis on obedience . . . that's Wayworld . . . that's the annihilation of the individual
waysider
Soooo...He used ONE verse from the Amplified Bible, HALF a chapter from the New English Bible and required PFAL '77 students to get some version from the 1800's that has a name so unremarkable you can
Posted Images
OldSkool
Mike, for the record, I have spent countless hours studying wierwille's books to a blatant fault. Now - I'm not on your level of trying to find occultic hidden meaning in those writings...I give you credit - you have me beat there. But....when I got involved in TWI I literally spent 4 to 5 hours per night studying his books, etc, etc...all things TWI. This went on for 5 years including 2 way disciple tenures. Then I went in residence where I spent two years straight studying around 35 to 40 hours a week. My study time in-residence includes most U of L tapes and most all of the old way corps teachings I had time to listen and they were all in the library at Gunnison. After graduating into the way corps I levelled off on my studies somewhat but still was doing about an hour or more a day. Yeah...Im credible. But you know what? There are other's here that are way more credible and experienced in all things twi than me...and you ignore them too. Mike...you poicking up on a pattern here? You ignore anything that doesnt fit your view of things. That's problematic there buddy.
You know why they have shaken off the old wineskins baloney? Because the collaterals, et. al., have all been sanitized, heavily edited, and proof read half to death and back again in one gigantic, multi-year effort to hide the truth that wierwille plagairaized his materials. Can't have word for word copies from other books in way ministry publications, now can we? It was also very necessary to sanitize all the nutty comments, slander, libel, etc, stricke from the record. Don't wanna actually be liable in court for these things and definately don't wanna keep that cult label. I witnessed it first hand and was married to one of the editors that did the work...and we talked in great depth my friend, great depth.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Understood OldSkool
I enjoyed that interview…and I agree with you on KJV vs other versions should be another thread
in my previous post I was just bolstering the idea that we don’t need wierwille’s crystal-eyeball to peer into the otherwise unfathomable mind of God to tell us what He originally meant.
I hold to the limited inspiration theory of how the Scriptures were inspired and believe textual criticism along with competent and honest hermeneutics are satisfactory for understanding the basic tenets of Christianity. I’ll leave the hidden messages and secret knowledge to the fans of Gnosticism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Amen!!!
Im not familiar with limited inspiration theory. I appreciate the reference as I will dig into your comments here for my own personal study...thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
you're welcome...btw on another thread I mention the 4 most popular theories on inspiration here with one of my sources for that
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
LoL I was joking, and offering you a bone at the same time. It was only a tiny joke, but is getting funnier (for me) as you continue to not see the HUMOR.
ALSO, I am genuinely thankful for the memory jog you gave me.
I was remembering some of the other ways I used back then to express myself. I am mis-understood here all the time. So_crates being the most egregious recent example. I experiment with ways to express my position.
What I bold fonted in your comments above is an example of it too, where you swapped out "replace" and used "supplanted." I don't believe I ever posted what that bolded sentence says. (actually: a fragment of a sentence)
What I remembered today was that sometimes I used the word "combo" and in a way that resembles what I bold fonted above.
Here is a more accurate depiction of my position:
The authority of the PFAL/KJV combo replaces use of the "authoritative" KJV alone.
In that sentence I just use the word "replace" in a way I may have used it back when. But of course it was understood wrong, and then remembered wrong.
The raw version the KJV is has no authority. I can shamelessly change the KJV text with white-out in my Cambridge Wide Margin, because it is devoid of authority that the originals had. God did not intervene to help make the KJV happen. I am sure He had revelation available, but few could receive it, due to it being against the strong traditions of that time.
The the PFAL/KJV combo has the authority of the Author of the originals under it.
I think I also may have used the "replace" to describe how God seems to have abandoned His use of the Word He wrote in the stars.
After the Maji, I know of no one who can read the stars with the detail and sureness they had to have, in order to commit money, time, and manpower for their journey to Jerusalem, and get the timing right.
It looks to me that God replaced the stars with written words around Moses' time, and only had a small group of people (the Maji) maintain an understanding of the Word in the stars. I am still looking for confirmation of this. Way back when, in the Mike Wars I may have sounded more sure about this star replacement. In recent years I have started looking into this replacement of the stars a little deeper.
But but the PFAL/KJV combo definitely replaces the traditional authority our culture thought it saw in the KJV alone.
These are fine points.
I can understand how in the heat of battle others could confuse my position with PFAL replacing the Bible. But now that those battles are over, please consider what I say today as possibly better expressed than my expressions in the heat of battle confusion that may have affected me.
If you aren't actively renewing your mind to the Word we were taught, there is no way for you to believe me, short of an intervention by God in your lives.
In light of this, I don't care much about my credibility with you folks.
I am grateful for the opportunity to fine tune the expression of my position for all here who can read with a mind that is thankful for what we were taught.
Maybe someday a few of you can come back to this and see the light in it.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike:
"If you aren't actively renewing your mind to the Word we were taught, there is no way for you to believe me, short of an intervention by God in your lives."
[Without the special procedures recommended by Mike, I agree that believing Mike's position is a slim chance at best for him. And if God Almighty intervened and told me that Mike's position was the correct one, I'd have a few burning questions, mainly to determine from whom I was getting revelation.]
"In light of this, I don't care much about my credibility with you folks."
[Well, that makes things easy. With him now adopting a less-incredible position than before- but insisting this was the position he held before when he actually argued AGAINST it- credibility isn't going to come easy, if at all.
While we're on the subject, those grapes were probably sour anyway.]
"I am grateful for the opportunity to fine tune the expression of my position for all here who can read with a mind that is thankful for what we were taught. "
[I'm glad Mike's at least partly communicating his current position clearly. Now, if he would also shed the intellectual dishonesty of denying his position changed, and if he could rid himself of the hubris of acting as if his skills were equal to the other posters let alone superior, he'd have something. The doctrine would still be wildly error-ridden, but at least we could have a shot at clear, civil discussions about it.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
LoL.
Yeah, I'm just a raving lunatic with no credibility.
Yet, the About the Way forum was inactive for days after this thread and my ravings were moved to Doctrinal. All the big posters followed the thread (and my incredulous ravings) here, and devoted lots of posting time to find ways of demonstrating how illogical and ignorant my posts here are, and burying them in blather.
LoL
And if that's not enough, now you, WW, start a whole new thread devoted to how incredulous I am with my position.
LoL
If what I post were all that stupid, why all this attention?
You must have a very low opinion of those non-posters who are reading these threads, and you don't want my incredulity overlooked by perceived-to-be stupid innocent readers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[All your posts were still there. Nobody buried them in anything. Also, declaring our posts were actually "blather" doesn't make them so. Might as well take a jar of pickles, and add the label "soup" or "apple butter."
In other news, I thought the demonstration was quite effective- and it was done during actual attempts at conversation, at that.]
[If you think any thread I post demonstrates flawed logic, you are welcome to post on it-civilly- and point out what you think is an actual flaw. If it's an actual flaw, that will come out. If you just don't like the thread but can't find a flaw in the logic, you can always just complain about it on a different thread.]
[The word "stupid" is yours, not mine. As for the attention, it's only appropriate to point out flawed logic, especially when it's on-topic for the messageboard. Laying out the process is healthy for everyone, and there's really no downside to it, providing the logic is sound and I'm actually telling the truth. No need to celebrate getting lots of attention, it's not validation.]
[I'm not quite as dismissive of them as you are. I don't fling the word "stupid" around as quickly. There's plenty of smart people who have been fooled by some trap or another, depending on the specifics, the trap and the person's specifics. I don't mind shining a spotlight on critical flaws. I also don't think "incredulity" applies to you- in this case, I find the problem is your credulity. The non-posters who can read all the posts can evaluate what we've written, and form their own opinions on things. I really don't picture them with LOW opinions. ]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I realize you personally did not use all those vocabulary words. I was addressing a composite of the very difficult people here. You are far more polite.
With you, my problem is volume. I can only handle so much here, and it gets less as I age.
*/*/*/*
I am a life-long fan and reader of Kurt Godel and authors who write about him and logic. His theorems are a little like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in Physics, again a life-long study for me.
You can only go so far with logic, and then you are stranded.
Another thing that escapes most about logic are the Postulates that underlay a logical discussion.
Postulates = Axioms = Fundamentals = Assumptions = Premise = Starting Point
That is where we differ on logic, sir.
Many here cannot get that.
The reason I left and boycotted Raf’s logical PFAL error expose thread 20 years ago was because the Postulates differed from mine too much, and no one could deal with that in their work there.
No one could adopt my Postulates, to see what happened if they were adopted. This is how a full logical discussion proceeds. Sometimes the Postulates are tinkered with to see what happens. Non-Euclidean Geometries are the paragon of this.
My dodging that thread and occasional debates on other threads was my refusal to adopt their Postulates, and my Postulates refused by them.
I spent months at times in the 1970s and 80s playing with Raf’s Postulates on-and-off, doubting some things in TWI. And then fully tinkered with right after 1986, the big meltdown, for a couple years.
For the next 8 years I experimented wildly with my Postulates and learned a lot, but I kept checking in regularly with PFAL Postulates also.
I have fully sampled the Postulates Raf had going, and that permeate most of GSC today. I had enough of what they taste like to refuse them these past 20 years.
No one in this public circle has fully tasted the Postulates I pitch here…. Yet.
There was some shallow sampling of them in the field, and barrages of them study sessions, but not in application to people in life year after year, unsupervised.
I have seen this stuff work well when a community of believers operate the PFAL principles pretty well, relatively unsupervised. I seek to see that again.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Or perhaps better characterized as a TROLL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Nobody believes you... on this website. You don't have either adequate communication skills or ability to relate to those you hope will read your blather.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Mike is so religious on this forum thread instead of scripturally following Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is NOT absent as the head of the body of Christ. The early disciples later to be apostles clearly saw this. For example from the book of Acts are the following scriptures as quoted from the New King James Version.
With Jesus seated on the right hand of God and he currently still is, spoke to Saul later to be the apostle for the Gentiles, got Saul to make a major change from perhaps being the worst persecutor of first century followers of Jesus Christ to being the best and most informative teacher of the New Testament. The Roman citizenship name of Saul was Paul. VPW new about Paul, and quoted from some of the scriptures originally written by Paul many times in his books. For example, what I view as Wierwille’s best book named, “Are the Dead Alive Now?”, which I have fully read. Chapter 13 of my biblical teaching book is in harmony with this book and is named: “When Will the Dead Be Made Alive Through Jesus Christ?”.
Even the original apostles were not able to get Saul also called Paul to make a major change like Jesus Christ did as the head of the body of Christ.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think this is important to understand from the Catholic perspective as well. Practicing Catholics believe Christ is here, physically, in the Holy Eucharist. Only a different physical form, different substance than flesh and blood. It's a mystery to me. I don't understand it, but I accept it as possible. I don't understand the Trinity, but now accept it as possible. It's also interesting to me that folks who are awaiting "Christ's return" don't have to wait any longer; he's back! Of course, from the Catholic perspective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
While I believe what is written concerning Christ's current state, form, and functions from scripture --- I make 0 claims that I actually understand any of it beyond the words given in scripture. Im sure there is more to understand from scripture than my little mind has peeked into.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Thanks for the link. I'll read along!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Mike - I mean no disrespect and what I am about to say is not directed at you personally but your point of view: This is a point of view grounded in ignorance concerning the KJV Bible. It was translated from the Textus Receptus which is comprised of several thousand texts that agree over 95% of the time. Most modern day versions come from Wescott-Hort and they are based on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus and they disagree more than 3000 times just between themselves.
From: http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Does this include the biblical canon and the significance of its specific order?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I mentioned elsewhere that there are 3 separate accounts of the Paul's conversion on the Road to Damascus. The first one is in the narrative, and is at Acts 9:4-16, with Luke as the narrator. The second one is a flashback, with Paul speaking, and is at Acts 22:7-11.
Here is the third, at Acts 26:13-20:
13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way
a light from heaven, above the brightness
of the sun, shining round about me and
them which journeyed with me.
14 And when we were all fallen to the
earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me,
and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul,
Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard
for thee to kick against the pricks.
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he
said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet:
for I have appeared unto thee for this
purpose, to make thee a minister and a
witness both of these things which thou
hast seen, and of those things in the
which I will appear unto thee;
17 Delivering thee from the people,
and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I
send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them
from darkness to light, and from the
power of Satan unto God, that they may
receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance
among them which are sanctified
by faith that is in me.
19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was
not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus,
and at Jerusalem, and throughout
all the coasts of Judaea, and then to
the Gentiles, that they should repent and
turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
*/*/*/*/*
What Paul saw was a heavenly vision. It had to be a vision, because the flesh and blood man, Jesus, was hidden from sight in Acts 1 by God, for good reasons.
Later Paul teaches that we know not Christ after the flesh, so that we can know him in a BETTER way, with his spirit inside us and growing.
Jesus got up from the dead in flesh and bones form, and he is coming back that way: this same Jesus the angels in Acts 1 said is coming back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Mike...what ever happened to it says what it means and means what it says?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Even wierwille recognized that Christ is changed and sporting a new body. U do understand that basic Christology teaches this truth? That Christ is the first born from the dead raised in glory?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
What ever happened to FIRST getting all that the Word says on one topic, and then seeing what fits with if all? We were taught that as well as says what it means and means what it says.
You must gather ALL that it says on one topic to see what it says.
You are taking your favorite verses, and building your theory on them, ignoring scriptures that contradict your favored view.
Were you aware of that last of the last items in the three accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts 26:19, where Paul says it was a vision?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Luke 24
36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
*/*/*/*/*
Here we have the flesh and bones, raised from the dead, Jesus.
Notice he didn't say "flesh and blood" because that would not be accurate.
You are right, Oldskool, that his body had changed. It was the blood part that changed, not the flesh and bones. He still wanted food.
Are these verses new to you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The best I understand it the NT canon was assembled by Paul, Mark, Luke, and John. God gave them revelation for it. Their canon was not recognized for a long time, but God kept giving revelations to whomever He could to preserve and pass on that canon. He had his hand on the process all along.
I see the 1942 promise as a major, 2,000 year unique event, as a major intervention by God like what He did for Paul in the Road to Damascus. VPW says this also in "Light Began to Dawn" which is featured in a thread in About the Way.
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25315-tape-called-light-began-to-dawn-a-partial-transcript-selling-plurality-snt-214/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yeah...given to him by a very non-absent Christ. It was Jesus Christ himself communicating with Paul.
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.