An interesting thought flashed across my mind. Tell me it this rings accurate. If not I will check the video.
In the Rock of Ages movie, there is a scene with VPW talking to a little boy. VPW asks him "Where's Jesus?" The little boy points up. VPW points to the little boy's chest and says "He's in there." or something like that.
Mike: An interesting thought flashed across my mind. Tell me it this rings accurate.If not I will check the video. In the Rock of Ages movie, there is a scene with VPW talking to a little boy.VPW asks him "Where's Jesus?"The little boy points up.VPW points to the little boy's chest and says "He's in there."or something like that.
~ ~ ~ ~
T-Bone: That just a shameful whitewashing of that pontificating hypocritical sexual predator. Shame on you, Mike !
You reminded me of an interesting thread… very interesting because YOU started it. Here’s the link to a comment I made on YOUR thread > herewhere Grease Spotters can read the entire post. Your dismissive tone and absurd arguments to defend wierwille to the uttermost is truly astonishing to me. I find your obsession so fascinating because I can’t fathom why someone would be so driven.
It was on YOUR thread that you were dismissive about Penworks’ book “Undertow” and revealed your ignorance of hermeneutics by defending wierwille’s absurd dictum “Scripture interprets itself.” In your typical impatient, calloused, illogical and offhand way you asked if there was a section of the book you could skip to that I felt was important for you to read…That’s when I realized I was not discussing a doctrinal issue but rather arguing with a brick wall erected by someone who does not want to hear about how intellectually inadequate and morally depraved wierwille was.
so, I recommended another bookLosing the Way: A Memoir of Spiritual Longing, Manipulation, Abuse, and Escape by Kristen Skedgell and bearing in mindYOUR preference for something less cerebral and that cuts to the chase – I recommended YOU skip ahead to pages 117 to 120 of her book – where Kristen relates an incident of wierwille sexually molesting her in the Coachman Suite at the Rome City campus – and afterwards wierwille says “It’s the lockbox, honey. You have to keep this in the lockbox of your soul. Many of God’s people wouldn’t understand what we’ve just done.” …no kidding – I certainly don’t understand how a supposed minister…president and founder of a biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry could do something like that to a Christian woman in the way corps - a training program wierwille created.
Hey, Mike where was Jesus in the Coachman Suite? Imagine if that little boy you spoke of was playing hide and seek that day and hid himself in the Coachman Suite. Unbeknownst to wierwille or Kristen the little boy witnesses the president and founder of a biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry – the “man of God” who had pointed at his little chest and said Jesus was in there – now observes that same man sexually molesting a young Christian woman. What would that little boy think? Probably wierwille would not have cared. I mean, he didn’t seem to care what Kristen thought or felt. What do you think that would have done to YOUR belief system if YOU had been her?
Don’t you get it, Mike?
wierwille was a lying, thieving, plagiarizing, Drambuie-guzzling, sexual predator – but he sure had a lot of people fooled. It’s weird how some still persist to mindlessly defend his “ministry”.
Edited by T-Bone Even the editor says shame on you
T-Bone: That just a shameful whitewashing of that pontificating hypocritical sexual predator. Shame on you, Mike !
You reminded me of an interesting thread… very interesting because YOU started it. Here’s the link to a comment I made on YOUR thread > herewhere Grease Spotters can read the entire post. Your dismissive tone and absurd arguments to defend wierwille to the uttermost is truly astonishing to me. I find your obsession so fascinating because I can’t fathom why someone would be so driven.
It was on YOUR thread that you were dismissive about Penworks’ book “Undertow” and revealed your ignorance of hermeneutics by defending wierwille’s absurd dictum “Scripture interprets itself.” In your typical impatient, calloused, illogical and offhand way you asked if there was a section of the book you could skip to that I felt was important for you to read…That’s when I realized I was not discussing a doctrinal issue but rather arguing with a brick wall erected by someone who does not want to hear about how intellectually inadequate and morally depraved wierwille was.
so, I recommended another bookLosing the Way: A Memoir of Spiritual Longing, Manipulation, Abuse, and Escape by Kristen Skedgell and bearing in mindYOUR preference for something less cerebral and that cuts to the chase – I recommended YOU skip ahead to pages 117 to 120 of her book – where Kristen relates an incident of wierwille sexually molesting her in the Coachman Suite at the Rome City campus – and afterwards wierwille says “It’s the lockbox, honey. You have to keep this in the lockbox of your soul. Many of God’s people wouldn’t understand what we’ve just done.” …no kidding – I certainly don’t understand how a supposed minister…president and founder of a biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry could do something like that to a Christian woman in the way corps - a training program wierwille created.
Hey, Mike where was Jesus in the Coachman Suite? Imagine if that little boy you spoke of was playing hide and seek that day and hid himself in the Coachman Suite. Unbeknownst to wierwille or Kristen the little boy witnesses the president and founder of a biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry – the “man of God” who had pointed at his little chest and said Jesus was in there – now observes that same man sexually molesting a young Christian woman. What would that little boy think? Probably wierwille would not have cared. I mean, he didn’t seem to care what Kristen thought or felt. What do you think that would have done to YOUR belief system if YOU had been her?
Don’t you get it, Mike?
wierwille was a lying, thieving, plagiarizing, Drambuie-guzzling, sexual predator – but he sure had a lot of people fooled. It’s weird how some still persist to mindlessly defend his “ministry”.
I think this is off topic.
Back to topic:
Can you answer my two moderately difficult questions above?
I want to discuss what we were taught about the absent Christ, and what the Bible says about it.
that's already been discussed
52 minutes ago, Mike said:
I think this is a needed subject, and VPW's old-man nature has already been discussed ad infinitum.
funny how you give wierwille's old man nature a free pass - didn't he say "I'd rather see a sermon than hear one"? I can’t hear his teachings over the roar of his unconscionable behavior
seems like wierwlle's old man nature got the best of him and he let it sabotage his ministry - that's a subject YOUneed to come to grips with
52 minutes ago, Mike said:
I think you are trying to change the subject, because you can't answer my two moderately difficult questions. Did I guess right?
No, you guessed wrong...you're the one trying to change the subject
I have a strong feeling, from that response above and many others, that you will NOT understand the answer.
Don't get your hopes up.
Don't get your hopes up that Mike will speak plainly. If he did, you'd see his "special hidden" doctrines are not special at all. They're either constructed of suppositions, or plainly obvious and hardly unique to Mike. But as long as he play coy and never actually get anywhere, he can at least tell HIMSELF he's got something.
Mike: "I suppose a lot of posters here would find the wording of the "HIDDEN Christ" just as repulsive as the absent Christ?
I like them both."
Rocky:"Why do you "suppose" anything about anyone?
Why would you not simply pose the question, do any of the posters here find the expressions "HIDDEN Christ" or "absent Christ" repulsive, or otherwise believe they are inappropriate? If so, please explain the reason for your belief and/or feelings."
WordWolf responds.
It is only when Mike has IMAGINARY discussions on an IMAGINARY GSC that he actually gets to make points he likes. When he posts his faulty ideas on the real GSC, they get refuted. However, in his mind, he rewrites the discussions so that he "wins" all the time and refutes even the most unassailable logic. I mean, in his mind he rewrites twi materials, and in his mind he rewrites the discussions here. It's all of a piece.
Otherwise, yes, he would actually DISCUSS. When we asked questions, he would ANSWER. Instead, it's post after post of OBFUSCATION, never getting to a point.
Besides, if Mike ever actually POSTED his points, the readers could see that they were built on cotton candy. As long as he hides everything, and PRETENDS he's got something, someone (Mike, if nobody else) can imagine he's actually got SOMETHING.
Sigh... there Mike goes yanking everyone else on the thread by a chain while he cannot and does not do anything but obfuscate.
It boggles my mind to consider why people still let him do it.
I think, every once in a while, it benefits the new people to see Mike. After all, they can see us, all having gotten on with our lives without vpw, twi, etc. Without Mike, there's no concrete example of what happens when you just put vpw and pfal in your brain and nothing else. Instead of being able to have an intelligent conversation with us about any of hundreds of topics, all Mike can do is his geek show- talk around things for pages and pages and claim he doesn't have time to post one clear paragraph, hint he knows something special but won't show anyone the special candy until they get in the van, etc.
If nothing else, Mike's posts are very uplifting. After all, even the most wounded posters here can arrive, trying to understand how to rebuild their life in a healthy manner. Then they can see that their situation could be a lot worse- they could be forever doubling-down on the imaginary specialness of vpw, the imaginary specialness of pfal, the imaginary specialness of twi....... They've already come so far, and so, they can see they have indeed begun their recovery without having hit rock bottom. After all, rock bottom's here and posting!
The NASB and RSV utilize the oldest and best manuscripts. What's your problem with those versions?
vpw didn't use those versions, therefore Mike won't use them. The example of the NASB is particularly silly, because the one possible benefit of using the KJV or New KJV is the italics- and the NASB uses the italics. Moreover, since the vocabulary usage of the NASB is more standardized than that of the KJV (more often, if you see a word in English, it's translated from the same word in Greek/Hebrew as before), it's more useful when reading to understand the contents. I'm not sure if it was just complete ignorance of the NASB that led vpw to use the KJV only, but I suspect he preferred the 450-year old vocabulary of the KJV to that of a modern version like the NASB. With few fans of Elizabethan literature taking pfal (fans of Shakespeare, et al) vpw could more easily get away with mistakes based on the KJV and relying on its vocabulary even when what he said was factually incorrect.
As a fan of Shakespeare, I'd found it irksome when people tortured the KJV English in twi, especially when a quick look at a concordance could expose the mistake. I think the one that bothered me most often was in the Intermediate class. When getting to Colossians 3:5 and the KJV said "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth", Earl said that the word "mortify" meant to "blow to smithereens." Ridiculous. As if Paul was referring to a mortar cannon which was invented millenia later. The KJV has a strong influence from the LATIN (like the Vulgate) because it draws from Tyndale's early efforts to go from Latin to English because that's the best he had. However, modern Bibles aren't hobbled the same way. Tyndale did good work with what he had, and the KJV was a fair accomplishment 450 years ago. So, what did "mortify" mean? Well, come on, anyone with a good vocabulary in English knows what a "mortician" is, and probably knows that "mortis" in Latin is "Death" "Mortify" meant "kill off". All of that would have been avoided by just checking a simple Greek-English Interlinear. That word "mortify" is the Greek word "necrosate." The root word is "NECROS." Again, if you have a decent vocabulary, you don't need to look up "necros" to know it means "death." It's used in many words in English. Doctors deal with necrotic tissue, Paul condemned necromancers in the Bible, etc. vpw made a number of ASSUMPTIONS based entirely on the KJV English, and taught them that way, even though a simple check of the Hebrew or Greek would have shown it was a mistake. In pfal, vpw spent MINUTES on the significance of the word "REPLENISH" in Genesis, when the Hebrew root word meant "FILL" and had NONE of the implications of "REPLENISH". If his doctrine was correct, it wasn't because the KJV used the word "replenish" as a poor translation from the Hebrew. (This has been discussed here, more than once, it's in lists of mistakes from pfal.)
Don't be shocked if this is the only answer you get- or the answer is some vague HINTING there's a different answer that he never actually gives.
vpw didn't use those versions, therefore Mike won't use them. The example of the NASB is particularly silly, because the one possible benefit of using the KJV or New KJV is the italics- and the NASB uses the italics. Moreover, since the vocabulary usage of the NASB is more standardized than that of the KJV (more often, if you see a word in English, it's translated from the same word in Greek/Hebrew as before), it's more useful when reading to understand the contents. I'm not sure if it was just complete ignorance of the NASB that led vpw to use the KJV only, but I suspect he preferred the 450-year old vocabulary of the KJV to that of a modern version like the NASB. With few fans of Elizabethan literature taking pfal (fans of Shakespeare, et al) vpw could more easily get away with mistakes based on the KJV and relying on its vocabulary even when what he said was factually incorrect.
As a fan of Shakespeare, I'd found it irksome when people tortured the KJV English in twi, especially when a quick look at a concordance could expose the mistake. I think the one that bothered me most often was in the Intermediate class. When getting to Colossians 3:5 and the KJV said "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth", Earl said that the word "mortify" meant to "blow to smithereens." Ridiculous. As if Paul was referring to a mortar cannon which was invented millenia later. The KJV has a strong influence from the LATIN (like the Vulgate) because it draws from Tyndale's early efforts to go from Latin to English because that's the best he had. However, modern Bibles aren't hobbled the same way. Tyndale did good work with what he had, and the KJV was a fair accomplishment 450 years ago. So, what did "mortify" mean? Well, come on, anyone with a good vocabulary in English knows what a "mortician" is, and probably knows that "mortis" in Latin is "Death" "Mortify" meant "kill off". All of that would have been avoided by just checking a simple Greek-English Interlinear. That word "mortify" is the Greek word "necrosate." The root word is "NECROS." Again, if you have a decent vocabulary, you don't need to look up "necros" to know it means "death." It's used in many words in English. Doctors deal with necrotic tissue, Paul condemned necromancers in the Bible, etc. vpw made a number of ASSUMPTIONS based entirely on the KJV English, and taught them that way, even though a simple check of the Hebrew or Greek would have shown it was a mistake. In pfal, vpw spent MINUTES on the significance of the word "REPLENISH" in Genesis, when the Hebrew root word meant "FILL" and had NONE of the implications of "REPLENISH". If his doctrine was correct, it wasn't because the KJV used the word "replenish" as a poor translation from the Hebrew. (This has been discussed here, more than once, it's in lists of mistakes from pfal.)
Don't be shocked if this is the only answer you get- or the answer is some vague HINTING there's a different answer that he never actually gives.
Thanks, Word Wolf.
The KJV is what I was raised on, and I find many of the Elizabethan phrasings spine-shivering in their beauty. Some passages just can't be rendered so exquisitely in any other English idiom. Just knee-bucklingly beautiful! MOREOVER, as an English major, I have a special affinity for that version.
With that being said, it is the absolute WORST study Bible, in my opinion. One can use it to study, but one should have a subscription to the OED - extremely useful! So many words in Elizabethan English don't mean today what they did then. Like the word STUDY!
I studied French, Spanish and Latin in high school; Latin, Italian and Spanish in college. I'm no expert. Ive forgotten more Latin than most will ever know. I know just enough to know how much I don't know. So, I know something about translation and interpretation of foreign languages. I know that most idioms cannot be translated literally without corrupting the original, intended meaning - hence, the italics. Really, to understand how (H-O-W) the KJV committee made translation decisions and used italics, read the preface. Translation and interpretation is an art and science.
I never studied Greek until I took the class. And I still know very little, but I probably know more than victor ever did. And what I don't know, I know how (H-O-W) to find out.
funny how you give wierwille's old man nature a free pass
No, actually, it's always a disgusting mess when ANYONE’S old man nature is closely examined.
I just don't find any profit in ME discussing that. I have my reasons for focusing on what I can understand and grasp.
I find it tragic that VPW was not the man he knew to be.
Had he been, many more could have been blessed and blessed bigger.
But as it was, many did get blessed, and God gave him a free pass, just like He wants to give us all one we don't deserve, and far more.
I have a hard time giving up grudges. There were times I had a grudge against VPW. I only went full bore PFAL starting in 1998. There were plenty of times in the 1980s I was disappointed in him. But I did see enough good that I wanted others to see the same good I saw.
I am sure many people in Israel, and especially in Uriah’s family, had great angst over David.
For those who knew David well, and that he was often inspired by the True God, it must have given them great pain.
What a waste! But some of them eventually saw that the Psalms were worth more than them having great angst and throwing the Psalms away. That is not an easy position to hold, TRUST me, because it is very similar to my position.
*/*/*/*
We think too small. I try and resist that and choose to look away from what went wrong in the ministry, and look VERY closely at what MASSIVE went right.
I have a right to do that, and there is a NEED for you and the others here to have a strong voice of opposition. That is why you are in my face. I am seriously rocking your boat on the absent Christ.
If I was not hot on the truth, you'd just laugh me off, but you can’t.
Suggestion:
Be like Gamaliel and say to yourself when I make a strong point,
that if I am off the will of God, my words will die without you having
to do anything to oppose them.
But if I am speaking truth, then there is nothing you can do,
nor should want to do, to oppose it.
Christ is not absent, "he" is in me. Another way of putting that is: holy spirit is in me.
It is not Jesus, the flesh man, in me. That man is gone, absent, hidden by God.
If and when God wants him present here in the flesh realm, personally, that will happen.
*/*/*/*
I only have so much time and energy, and I choose to look away from the things that went wrong.
WHY? Too many things went right.
Two of those many right things were we that WERE taught the answers to my two moderately difficult questions, and the answers are really cool.
Summary:
Christ Jesus is seated at the right hand of God and all the angels under his feet and command. He and the Father don't miss a shred of what goes on here, so they both are present in that sense.
But when we walk in the flesh, we are oblivious to their spiritual presence.
If you (speaking rhetorically) want Christ the man-mediator to be "present" spiritually, then you got to be right with God and in fellowship.... otherwise God and Christ are absent for you... but lovingly watching for when you want to be in fellowship.
Christ Jesus, the flesh man is absent, but it's only temporary.
Meanwhile.....
Oops! I almost gave away the answer to one of the moderately difficult questions.
T-Bone, I just thought I’d give you all the energy I had left tonight and answer one of your questions or challenges. I won’t have time or energy to even READ the other responses here, so please vouch for me that at least I spent the time and answered you one.
I wonder if any of the others are working on my two moderately difficult questions, or if they are just attacking me for not dealing with attacks on me, over and over.
I hope they can focus on the MANY more points I made, besides the two moderately difficult questions, a few pages above on the absent Christ. I still have more material on this topic, but I'll wait and let everyone have a chance to discuss the many details I already posted above.... or have a chance to attack me not caring for the right things.
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
T-Bone
Mike: An interesting thought flashed across my mind. Tell me it this rings accurate. If not I will check the video. In the Rock of Ages movie, there is a scene with VPW talking to a little boy. VPW asks him "Where's Jesus?" The little boy points up. VPW points to the little boy's chest and says "He's in there." or something like that.
~ ~ ~ ~
T-Bone: That just a shameful whitewashing of that pontificating hypocritical sexual predator. Shame on you, Mike !
You reminded me of an interesting thread… very interesting because YOU started it. Here’s the link to a comment I made on YOUR thread > here where Grease Spotters can read the entire post. Your dismissive tone and absurd arguments to defend wierwille to the uttermost is truly astonishing to me. I find your obsession so fascinating because I can’t fathom why someone would be so driven.
It was on YOUR thread that you were dismissive about Penworks’ book “Undertow” and revealed your ignorance of hermeneutics by defending wierwille’s absurd dictum “Scripture interprets itself.” In your typical impatient, calloused, illogical and offhand way you asked if there was a section of the book you could skip to that I felt was important for you to read…That’s when I realized I was not discussing a doctrinal issue but rather arguing with a brick wall erected by someone who does not want to hear about how intellectually inadequate and morally depraved wierwille was.
so, I recommended another book Losing the Way: A Memoir of Spiritual Longing, Manipulation, Abuse, and Escape by Kristen Skedgell and bearing in mind YOUR preference for something less cerebral and that cuts to the chase – I recommended YOU skip ahead to pages 117 to 120 of her book – where Kristen relates an incident of wierwille sexually molesting her in the Coachman Suite at the Rome City campus – and afterwards wierwille says “It’s the lockbox, honey. You have to keep this in the lockbox of your soul. Many of God’s people wouldn’t understand what we’ve just done.” …no kidding – I certainly don’t understand how a supposed minister…president and founder of a biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry could do something like that to a Christian woman in the way corps - a training program wierwille created.
Hey, Mike where was Jesus in the Coachman Suite? Imagine if that little boy you spoke of was playing hide and seek that day and hid himself in the Coachman Suite. Unbeknownst to wierwille or Kristen the little boy witnesses the president and founder of a biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry – the “man of God” who had pointed at his little chest and said Jesus was in there – now observes that same man sexually molesting a young Christian woman. What would that little boy think? Probably wierwille would not have cared. I mean, he didn’t seem to care what Kristen thought or felt. What do you think that would have done to YOUR belief system if YOU had been her?
Don’t you get it, Mike?
wierwille was a lying, thieving, plagiarizing, Drambuie-guzzling, sexual predator – but he sure had a lot of people fooled. It’s weird how some still persist to mindlessly defend his “ministry”.
Edited by T-BoneEven the editor says shame on you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It seems "Christ" has multiple meanings. I can accept this. Three meanings. A TRINITY of meanings. A trinity of Christs, in a way.
Some concepts are just too complex or deep or esoteric that they require nuanced, paradoxical models to illustrate meaning.
"The Word" has many more than three meanings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think this is off topic.
Back to topic:
Can you answer my two moderately difficult questions above?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I disagree – my posts and questions are very much on topic!
The topic is the absent Christ in wierwille’s PFAL class, in his ideology, in his lifestyle, especially in his example behind closed doors.
Let the record show Mike's response is to ignore the topic.
Edited by T-Boneshameful typos...but that's a whole other topic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I want to discuss what we were taught about the absent Christ, and what the Bible says about it.
I think this is a needed subject, and VPW's old-man nature has already been discussed ad infinitum.
What I brought up so far, like my two moderately difficult questions, have not gotten nearly the posting or thought.
I think you are trying to change the subject, because you can't answer my two moderately difficult questions. Did I guess right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Can YOU?
victor hated questions, too. My fellowship/PFAL leader hated questions, also. He probably couldn't hear my questions over his own "mmmmmphs!"
Why do those who pretend to know how (H-O-W) to teach, those who fetishize teaching, those who fetishize leading, hate questions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I've asked multiple times. If you don't know or they are rhetorical questions, just say so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
But you aren't.
I don't know what you were taught. That's why I'm asking the questions. What do you think the Bible says about it? The absent paradise? Go ahead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I know the answers, because we were taught them.
They are not rhetorical. God had good reasons for doing what He did in Acts 1:9 and in Genesis.
I think someone will remember the answers, or at least try to fighre them out. Probably someone who listened well, long ago.
Nathan_Jr, why is it you never asked the same questions that I did?
Were you never curious why Jesus is absent, hidden, and hard to meet at Starbucks?
(deleted a poorly written sentence here)
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I told you that I want the others to have a chance at answering the questions. Wait a few days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Nathan_Jr, I'll give you a hint.
Edited by MikeRead carefully and study Romans chapters 4 thru 8 in the KJV.
Find the New English Bible and read that version also.
This will point you in the direction of understanding the absent Paradise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
What about the NASB and RSV?
FYI. Paul wasn't accurate about EVERYTHING. But he sure thought he was.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I have a strong feeling, from that response above and many others, that you will NOT understand the answer.
Don't get your hopes up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
that's already been discussed
funny how you give wierwille's old man nature a free pass - didn't he say "I'd rather see a sermon than hear one"? I can’t hear his teachings over the roar of his unconscionable behavior
seems like wierwlle's old man nature got the best of him and he let it sabotage his ministry - that's a subject YOU need to come to grips with
No, you guessed wrong...you're the one trying to change the subject
Edited by T-BoneMe typos again
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The NASB and RSV utilize the oldest and best manuscripts. What's your problem with those versions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
There you go supposing again. Btw, I asked my questions before you posed your "two moderately difficult questions."
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Sigh... there Mike goes yanking everyone else on the thread by a chain while he cannot and does not do anything but obfuscate.
It boggles my mind to consider why people still let him do it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Don't get your hopes up that Mike will speak plainly. If he did, you'd see his "special hidden" doctrines are not special at all. They're either constructed of suppositions, or plainly obvious and hardly unique to Mike. But as long as he play coy and never actually get anywhere, he can at least tell HIMSELF he's got something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike: "I suppose a lot of posters here would find the wording of the "HIDDEN Christ" just as repulsive as the absent Christ?
I like them both."
Rocky:"Why do you "suppose" anything about anyone?
Why would you not simply pose the question, do any of the posters here find the expressions "HIDDEN Christ" or "absent Christ" repulsive, or otherwise believe they are inappropriate? If so, please explain the reason for your belief and/or feelings."
WordWolf responds.
It is only when Mike has IMAGINARY discussions on an IMAGINARY GSC that he actually gets to make points he likes. When he posts his faulty ideas on the real GSC, they get refuted. However, in his mind, he rewrites the discussions so that he "wins" all the time and refutes even the most unassailable logic. I mean, in his mind he rewrites twi materials, and in his mind he rewrites the discussions here. It's all of a piece.
Otherwise, yes, he would actually DISCUSS. When we asked questions, he would ANSWER. Instead, it's post after post of OBFUSCATION, never getting to a point.
Besides, if Mike ever actually POSTED his points, the readers could see that they were built on cotton candy. As long as he hides everything, and PRETENDS he's got something, someone (Mike, if nobody else) can imagine he's actually got SOMETHING.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think, every once in a while, it benefits the new people to see Mike. After all, they can see us, all having gotten on with our lives without vpw, twi, etc. Without Mike, there's no concrete example of what happens when you just put vpw and pfal in your brain and nothing else. Instead of being able to have an intelligent conversation with us about any of hundreds of topics, all Mike can do is his geek show- talk around things for pages and pages and claim he doesn't have time to post one clear paragraph, hint he knows something special but won't show anyone the special candy until they get in the van, etc.
If nothing else, Mike's posts are very uplifting. After all, even the most wounded posters here can arrive, trying to understand how to rebuild their life in a healthy manner. Then they can see that their situation could be a lot worse- they could be forever doubling-down on the imaginary specialness of vpw, the imaginary specialness of pfal, the imaginary specialness of twi....... They've already come so far, and so, they can see they have indeed begun their recovery without having hit rock bottom. After all, rock bottom's here and posting!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
vpw didn't use those versions, therefore Mike won't use them. The example of the NASB is particularly silly, because the one possible benefit of using the KJV or New KJV is the italics- and the NASB uses the italics. Moreover, since the vocabulary usage of the NASB is more standardized than that of the KJV (more often, if you see a word in English, it's translated from the same word in Greek/Hebrew as before), it's more useful when reading to understand the contents. I'm not sure if it was just complete ignorance of the NASB that led vpw to use the KJV only, but I suspect he preferred the 450-year old vocabulary of the KJV to that of a modern version like the NASB. With few fans of Elizabethan literature taking pfal (fans of Shakespeare, et al) vpw could more easily get away with mistakes based on the KJV and relying on its vocabulary even when what he said was factually incorrect.
As a fan of Shakespeare, I'd found it irksome when people tortured the KJV English in twi, especially when a quick look at a concordance could expose the mistake. I think the one that bothered me most often was in the Intermediate class. When getting to Colossians 3:5 and the KJV said "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth", Earl said that the word "mortify" meant to "blow to smithereens." Ridiculous. As if Paul was referring to a mortar cannon which was invented millenia later. The KJV has a strong influence from the LATIN (like the Vulgate) because it draws from Tyndale's early efforts to go from Latin to English because that's the best he had. However, modern Bibles aren't hobbled the same way. Tyndale did good work with what he had, and the KJV was a fair accomplishment 450 years ago. So, what did "mortify" mean? Well, come on, anyone with a good vocabulary in English knows what a "mortician" is, and probably knows that "mortis" in Latin is "Death" "Mortify" meant "kill off". All of that would have been avoided by just checking a simple Greek-English Interlinear. That word "mortify" is the Greek word "necrosate." The root word is "NECROS." Again, if you have a decent vocabulary, you don't need to look up "necros" to know it means "death." It's used in many words in English. Doctors deal with necrotic tissue, Paul condemned necromancers in the Bible, etc. vpw made a number of ASSUMPTIONS based entirely on the KJV English, and taught them that way, even though a simple check of the Hebrew or Greek would have shown it was a mistake. In pfal, vpw spent MINUTES on the significance of the word "REPLENISH" in Genesis, when the Hebrew root word meant "FILL" and had NONE of the implications of "REPLENISH". If his doctrine was correct, it wasn't because the KJV used the word "replenish" as a poor translation from the Hebrew. (This has been discussed here, more than once, it's in lists of mistakes from pfal.)
Don't be shocked if this is the only answer you get- or the answer is some vague HINTING there's a different answer that he never actually gives.
Edited by WordWolf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thanks, Word Wolf.
The KJV is what I was raised on, and I find many of the Elizabethan phrasings spine-shivering in their beauty. Some passages just can't be rendered so exquisitely in any other English idiom. Just knee-bucklingly beautiful! MOREOVER, as an English major, I have a special affinity for that version.
With that being said, it is the absolute WORST study Bible, in my opinion. One can use it to study, but one should have a subscription to the OED - extremely useful! So many words in Elizabethan English don't mean today what they did then. Like the word STUDY!
I studied French, Spanish and Latin in high school; Latin, Italian and Spanish in college. I'm no expert. Ive forgotten more Latin than most will ever know. I know just enough to know how much I don't know. So, I know something about translation and interpretation of foreign languages. I know that most idioms cannot be translated literally without corrupting the original, intended meaning - hence, the italics. Really, to understand how (H-O-W) the KJV committee made translation decisions and used italics, read the preface. Translation and interpretation is an art and science.
I never studied Greek until I took the class. And I still know very little, but I probably know more than victor ever did. And what I don't know, I know how (H-O-W) to find out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, actually, it's always a disgusting mess when ANYONE’S old man nature is closely examined.
I just don't find any profit in ME discussing that. I have my reasons for focusing on what I can understand and grasp.
I find it tragic that VPW was not the man he knew to be.
Had he been, many more could have been blessed and blessed bigger.
But as it was, many did get blessed, and God gave him a free pass, just like He wants to give us all one we don't deserve, and far more.
I have a hard time giving up grudges. There were times I had a grudge against VPW. I only went full bore PFAL starting in 1998. There were plenty of times in the 1980s I was disappointed in him. But I did see enough good that I wanted others to see the same good I saw.
I am sure many people in Israel, and especially in Uriah’s family, had great angst over David.
For those who knew David well, and that he was often inspired by the True God, it must have given them great pain.
What a waste! But some of them eventually saw that the Psalms were worth more than them having great angst and throwing the Psalms away. That is not an easy position to hold, TRUST me, because it is very similar to my position.
*/*/*/*
We think too small. I try and resist that and choose to look away from what went wrong in the ministry, and look VERY closely at what MASSIVE went right.
I have a right to do that, and there is a NEED for you and the others here to have a strong voice of opposition. That is why you are in my face. I am seriously rocking your boat on the absent Christ.
If I was not hot on the truth, you'd just laugh me off, but you can’t.
Suggestion:
Be like Gamaliel and say to yourself when I make a strong point,
that if I am off the will of God, my words will die without you having
to do anything to oppose them.
But if I am speaking truth, then there is nothing you can do,
nor should want to do, to oppose it.
Christ is not absent, "he" is in me. Another way of putting that is: holy spirit is in me.
It is not Jesus, the flesh man, in me. That man is gone, absent, hidden by God.
If and when God wants him present here in the flesh realm, personally, that will happen.
*/*/*/*
I only have so much time and energy, and I choose to look away from the things that went wrong.
WHY? Too many things went right.
Two of those many right things were we that WERE taught the answers to my two moderately difficult questions, and the answers are really cool.
Summary:
Christ Jesus is seated at the right hand of God and all the angels under his feet and command. He and the Father don't miss a shred of what goes on here, so they both are present in that sense.
But when we walk in the flesh, we are oblivious to their spiritual presence.
If you (speaking rhetorically) want Christ the man-mediator to be "present" spiritually, then you got to be right with God and in fellowship.... otherwise God and Christ are absent for you... but lovingly watching for when you want to be in fellowship.
Christ Jesus, the flesh man is absent, but it's only temporary.
Meanwhile.....
Oops! I almost gave away the answer to one of the moderately difficult questions.
T-Bone, I just thought I’d give you all the energy I had left tonight and answer one of your questions or challenges. I won’t have time or energy to even READ the other responses here, so please vouch for me that at least I spent the time and answered you one.
I wonder if any of the others are working on my two moderately difficult questions, or if they are just attacking me for not dealing with attacks on me, over and over.
I hope they can focus on the MANY more points I made, besides the two moderately difficult questions, a few pages above on the absent Christ. I still have more material on this topic, but I'll wait and let everyone have a chance to discuss the many details I already posted above.... or have a chance to attack me not caring for the right things.
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.