Even though Saint Vic had his own private interpretation of the bible? Witness what happened to the adultery paper. Witness Penworks book illuminating how Saint Vic used the bible to back up whatever principle he wanted to use to control the masses.
No private interpretation. Yah, sure. That's why Saint Vic said,"I know there's a manuscript out there somewhere supporting this, we just haven't found it."
It would be good to keep in mind that this kind of situation only came up for a very small number of verses. These were just little loose ends.
Earl Burton handles this some in the Festschrift book they did for VPW in 1982, but it is a little too boring to keep me awake.
The way I handle this is I figure if the people who WROTE the scriptures were to divorce their own thinking from what God was telling them to write, then people who READ the scriptures are not to inject their private thoughts into it either.
It's almost a tautology.
It is also self evident. What good is it to read God's Word without getting HIS interpretation, and being side tracked by self generated ideas?
23 hours ago, T-Bone said:
You are very wrong! It's not almost - it's not even close!!!
Tautology = the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession). SIMILAR: repetition, repetitiveness, repetitiousness, reiteration, a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words…in LOGIC a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
The passage merely states the ORIGIN of the prophecy - plain and simple. You are adding assumptions!
the point of genuine honest hermeneutics is to discover what the message meant to the original recipients - which most Bible scholars assume is how God wanted it to be interpreted. That necessitates expertise in the biblical languages / syntax and ancient biblical customs - and good old textual criticism as well...that was all ignored by wierwille's mindless and careless plagiarism which side-tracked PFAL students with his erroneous delusional ideas.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Yeah. It's ALMOST saying the same thing twice.
One saying relates to the Word being issued,
and the other relates to the Word being absorbed.
I quoted your first post on tautology and then my reply with internet definition - your use of the word in your first post and here is a misuse of the word tautology - besides the fact that you misinterpret / make up some silly thing how there is a relation.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
The issuer is forbidden to attach a private nuance to the message.
The implication is clear that the absorber is similarly forbidden.
NOPE ! no such issue is implied in that verse or in all of Scripture...you're reading into it!
HOW - with a capital H capital O and a capital W - are translators going to translate the Bible from the original languages if they go by YOUR forbidden to attach a private nuance rule? what the hell does that mean? How stupid - the way you twist Scripture all around. Please do some due diligence on a refresher course in grammar and logic - and quit trying to make Scripture fit into your stupid thesis.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*
It is a settled issue to me.
In order for a scripture to be valuable it has to be the clean and pure Word from God, and not contaminated by personal perspectives of humans who happen to write it or read it.
and yet here YOU are contaminating the hell out of the Bible with wierwille-infused ideology! FYI: wierwille-infused ideology is wierwille's personal perspective - no ifs, ands or buts about it!
1 hour ago, Mike said:
IF it is the case that the scripture grammar does not allow this, then it should be recognized as self-evident.
see my previous remarks on grammar and logic
1 hour ago, Mike said:
The Bible is OF no private interpretation, and the Bible is FOR no private interpretation.
Mike's interpolation. Peter talked about theorigin of Scripture...refer to Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible on this - this is one of the things Bullinger got right and wierwille the incompetent plagiarist screwed up and got totally wrong in PFAL!
Don't whine about it to me. I didn't make the PFAL class. Go talk to someone in the complaint department. I think his office is located in the ground near the fountain of muddy waters (the fountain feature - NOT the musician )
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Besides, in 1968 it was very stylish for people to "do your own thing," and for me to hear VPW teach back then that I should not absorb the Bible in a private, personal way was good advice.
maybe if wierwille had absorbed the Bible in a private personal way he might have behaved a lot better and not abuse and exploit Christians.
It looks like you fused two things together that don't belong together.
Could you please cite your source for: wierwille says something along the lines "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please".
I don't think that is in Session One at all, or anywhere in the class.
If you have the exact wording, I can check the transcript.
Holy $hit, Batman - the Joker forgot a key element in the first session of PFAL !!!!! You know old chum, he was always chiding us for missing stuff in PFAL - lo and behold it's happening to him!
1 hour ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*
This "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please" quote is floating around a lot lately, and I would like to get a hold of the context in which it appeared.
first session of PFAL
wonder if they covered it in PFAL Today.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*
As far as VPW interpreting the greatest sin being breaking the greatest commandment I absolutely LOVED that interpretation the instant I heard it.
oh now you remember! figures you'd love it - the principle is self-referential - wierwille twisted around another way too - ANYTHING DONE IN THE LOVE OF GOD IS OKAY..."as long as you love God" = "anything done in the love of God" = assume you love God...it is totally divorced from some clearly stated directives - like the 10 commandments = thou shalt not steal, lie, commit adultery.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
As a child Catholic, I spent a young lifetime trying desperately to keep track of the many grades of sin, to my endless confusion. That one line in the class gave me my money's worth.
I have seen other Catholics react similarly to this one line in the class. It really is SHEER logic. Count VPW's interpretation correct.
It would be good to keep in mind that this kind of situation only came up for a very small number of verses. These were just little loose ends.
I wonder if anyone even knows this?
More rationalization. There's a legal axiom that states: Lie about one thing and you may be lying about everything.
The same is true about private interpretation. Have private interpretation on on verse and you may have private interpretation on all the verses.
PLAF is a monument to private interpretation. From four crucified to the law of believing it boils down to nothing more than private interpretation.
Ironically, Saint Vic didn't believe what he preached otherwise he would have practiced it.
"Love God. Love your neighbor. Do as you damn please." Well, how do you love God? By keeping his commandments. Did Saint Vic keep his commandments? On the contrary, he spent every waking hour seeing how many he could break.
It looks like you fused two things together that don't belong together.
Could you please cite your source for: wierwille says something along the lines "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please".
I don't think that is in Session One at all, or anywhere in the class.
If you have the exact wording, I can check the transcript.
*/*/*/*
This "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please" quote is floating around a lot lately, and I would like to get a hold of the context in which it appeared.
What a horrible idea – I love it!
You’re on your own to verify where in the PFAL class wierwille says that – I know where he says it...it's funny - I usually have a better recollection of what wierwille said or wrote than you do -
BUT
to play your silly game
I’ve found something even better in written form – this is even more outrageous than what he says in the PFAL class …On page 7 of the PFAL book is wierwille’s written version of handling Matthew 22:37, 38- first he quotes the passages and then makes some vague comments:
Matthew 22:37, 38:
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.
If that is the first and great commandment, then what is the first and great sin? By simple logic breaking the first and great commandment of not loving God – of loving something ahead of God – hewing out our own religious systems, our own ideologies, our own thinking patterns – rather than adhering to the divine revelation of God’s wonderful, matchless Word.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
The first thing that should catch the attention of anyone familiar with this account is that wierwille does NOT include verses 39 and 40 which locks in how the first and great commandment is to be interpreted. Instead wierwille offers his own interpretation which proposes merely a subjective reference to one’s own idea of what loving God means. In my 12 years of being indoctrinated by wierwille et al, I can attest to the fact that wierwille has indeed hewn out his own religious system, his own ideology his own thinking patterns – rather than adhering to what’s written in the divine revelation of the Bible.
What?!?!
T-Bone, how can you say that?
It’s easy, I lick my lips and I’m real natural – then I read the rest of Jesus’ discussion with the lawyer…here you go Bible fans:
34But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. 35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment.
39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Basically, what Jesus explains is that the law and the prophets give detailed concrete directions – in no uncertain terms – avoiding any abstract thought that could dilute or rationalize to find loopholes. For example, here’s a few from Exodus 20 - the 10 commandments: don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery, don’t covet…These are some of the specific ways you honor God and act out of real love for God and neighbor if you DON’T do such things as that.
(40) All the law and the prophets.—The words are coupled, as in Matthew 5:17; Matthew 7:12, to indicate the whole of the revelation of the divine will in the Old Testament. The two great commandments lay at the root of all.
22:34-40 An interpreter of the law asked our Lord a question, to try, not so much his knowledge, as his judgment. The love of God is the first and great commandment, and the sum of all the commands of the first table. Our love of God must be sincere, not in word and tongue only. All our love is too little to bestow upon him, therefore all the powers of the soul must be engaged for him, and carried out toward him. To love our neighbour as ourselves, is the second great commandment. There is a self-love which is corrupt, and the root of the greatest sins, and it must be put off and mortified; but there is a self-love which is the rule of the greatest duty: we must have a due concern for the welfare of our own souls and bodies. And we must love our neighbour as truly and sincerely as we love ourselves; in many cases we must deny ourselves for the good of others.
And the second is like unto it, commanding love also; so that, as the apostle saith, love is the fulfilling of the law. Thy neighbour, that is, every man, as thyself; doing as much for him as thou wouldst have him do for thee, and doing no more against him than thou wouldst willingly he should do against thee: as truly and sincerely as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets: there is nothing commanded in all the Old Testament but may be reduced to these two heads. This is the whole duty of man there commanded. The whole book of God is our rule, and we are obliged to every precept in it. Moses summed up all in the ten commandments, to which, truly interpreted, all the precepts of Scripture are reducible. Christ here brings the ten to two. The apostle brings all to one, telling us love is the fulfilling of the law. There is nothing forbidden in Scripture but what offends the royal law of love, either to God or man; there is nothing commanded but what will fall under it. Mark addeth, that the scribe applauds our Saviour, as having said the truth, and confessing that the fulfilling these two precepts was more than all sacrifices and burnt offerings; in which he agreed with Samuel, who long since told Saul that to obey was better than sacrifice; and it needs must be so, seeing that all the true value of sacrifices lay in the obedience by them given to the will of God. Christ tells the scribe he was not far from the kingdom of God. He who once rightly understands the law of God, and hath cast off that silly fancy of thinking to please God with ritual things, hath made a great proficiency under that schoolmaster, who, if rightly understood, will show him the need of another righteousness than his own wherein to appear before God.
Matthew 22:40. ὁ. ὁ νόμος κρέμαται. Jesus winds up by declaring that on these two hangs, is suspended, the whole law, also the prophets = the moral drift of the whole O. T. is love; no law or performance of law of any value save as love is the soul of it. So Jesus soars away far above the petty disputes of the schools about the relative worth of isolated precepts; teaching the organic unity of duty.
Verse 40. - Hang all the Lawand the prophets;i.e. all Scripture, which is comprised in these terms (comp. Matthew 5:17; Matthew 7:12); in other words, all the revelations which God has made to man in every age. The clause is peculiar to St. Matthew. It signifies that on love of God and love of man depend all the moral and religious, ceremonial and judicial precepts contained in the Law, all the utterances of the prophets, all the voices of history. Scripture enunciates the duty to God and our neighbour, shows the right method of fulfilling it, warns against the breach of it, gives examples of punishment and reward consequent upon the way in which the obligation has been treated. Thus the unity and integrity of revelation is demonstrated. Its Author is one; its design is uniform; it teaches one path, leading to one great end. Matthew 22:40
~ ~ ~ ~
End of excerpts from commentaries on Matthew 22:40
~ ~ ~ ~
Unlike phonies like wierwille who could talk a good walk but never walked the talk – being the hypocrite that he was - John the Baptist called people to more than talking a good walk or ritual – he told them to change their behavior:
7But when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to watch him baptize, he denounced them. “You brood of snakes!” he exclaimed. “Who warned you to flee the coming wrath? 8Prove by the way you live that you have repented of your sins and turned to God. 9Don’t just say to each other, ‘We’re safe, for we are descendants of Abraham.’ That means nothing, for I tell you, God can create children of Abraham from these very stones. 10Even now the ax of God’s judgment is poised, ready to sever the roots of the trees. Yes, every tree that does not produce good fruit will be chopped down and thrown into the fire.
Several other translations reflect this same idea; God who knows us and sees us - even in moments when we think no one is watching and no one will know – looks beyond our words and religious activities that may fool others – God sees if our conduct backs up what we profess – He judges our words by the actions that accompany them:
Amplified Bible So produce fruit that is consistent with repentance [demonstrating new behavior that proves a change of heart, and a conscious decision to turn away from sin];
Mike, in case you ever wonder why your sales campaign for PFAL and PFAL Today are in a slump, I’ll give you some honest feedback – since I have no dog in this fight of yours. You come across as a gung-ho sales rep who is unfamiliar with the very product you are peddling…but who knows - for you to say of wierwille’s statement as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please – “I don't think that is in Session One at all, or anywhere in the class” may be a sign you are in denial of being a fervent admirer of a hypocritical pseudo-Christian harmful and controlling cult-leader who is dead. Currently your idol remains idle in the ground of unholy grounds at The Way International.
“If that is the first and great commandment, then what is the first and great sin? By simple logic breaking the first and great commandment of not loving God – of loving something ahead of God – hewing out our own religious systems, our own ideologies, our own thinking patterns – rather than adhering to the divine revelation of God’s wonderful, matchless Word.”
Well! I go away on holiday for a few weeks, and come back to find this. Which looked as though it just might have a little substance and seems to have rapidly deteriorated to the same-old same-old. I started to read it from the beginning and at page 8 realised it's 31 pages long.
If there is any new idea or thought, please say so.
Otherwise, instead of wasting time dissecting the words, works and life of a nonentity man of low reputation and dishonour, it is of more value to spend that time studying the words, works and life of an outstanding Man of exemplary reputation and honour, whose words, works and life will stand for ever.
Do you REALLY think I am believing that we should not master 2/3 of the manifestations? That would be kinda crazy, wouldn’t it?Were you more HOPING that I believed that,so you’d have an easy target to pounce on?
*/*/*
My belief is the AC is missing from VPW’s final instructions for a couple of much better reasons.
One it that since we had failed to adequately master the foundational and intermediate classes, we ought to focus FIRST on the first 3 manifestations.But really, we were told to not only master those manifestations but the entire classes and the written collaterals also.
I don’t know why you zeroed your question down to just the manifestations.
*/*/*
Another reason I see for the AC being missing from the master list is because VPW’s understanding and teaching were not refined to that point.In hindsight, I see the 1942 promise ending up in the collaterals, and not so much as the classes.The classes were introductions to the collaterals.
*/*/*/*
As for the “By the Way” articles in the local newspapers, and the “Our Times” articles in the magazine, I am not sure how to handle all of them.Some are obvious gems, and others seem less so.
There are things I am still working on, and the exact boundaries on what should be regarded as worth special attention are still a bit of an unknown to me.
*/*/*
Worth mentioning again is the process may college professors use to write their books, with most of the dog work going to grad students.This process is not well known, but I think it is justifiable.I know that within this framework, some authors are unfair to their workers in not crediting them, but that is the university system.
I focused on the missing reference from VPs last teaching simply because you are so focused on that teaching as guidance for 20+ years. No other reason or hopes involved.
I personally took that direction as that teaching preceded my time in-residence in the Way Corps and that is what we focused on in the Way Corps in lieu of any accredited classes.
So been there done that have the t shirt.
I don’t view TWI as having any insight on the “first 3 manifestations”. Over a 20 year period I observed plenty of problems teaching those things and running classes for others and their interpretation has more to do with control of others as opposed to truth which frees others.
I view TWI as scribes and Pharisees with scribe and Pharisee interpretation of scripture resulting in scribe and Pharisee fruit in their individual lives and in the group.
Well! I go away on holiday for a few weeks, and come back to find this. Which looked as though it just might have a little substance and seems to have rapidly deteriorated to the same-old same-old.
In between the same-olds are a few items you might find interesting. I posted only half of the scriptures (the double doors half), and the other half (budget) is coming soon.
I think we formed some new perspectives on the law of believing, also.
All I can say is: God hasn't run out of miracles. He's not on a budget.
To think otherwise is to need a miracle repair-job on one's brain.
That’s an interesting point to mention, Twinky – which reminded me of something in the blue book The Bible Tells Me So, chapter 5, The Law of Believing, on page 43 where wierwille says:
In every Biblical record believing is always required on the part of everyone having a need, with the exceptions indicated above: certain types of mental derangement, dead people and children.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
Since I have tossed out the PFAL-filter years ago which made wierwille’s bull-$hit palatable – I ask the following of anyone who still believes in his nonsense:
1.WHERE are the Scriptures to support the idea that in the FICTITIOUS law of believing “rule book” believing is not required for certain types of mental derangement, dead people, and children?
2.WHERE are the Scriptures that specify the types of mental derangementthat qualify for the exemption from the law of believing?
3.What about in the cases ofmental illnesses and mental disabilities?
if you ask me these stupid stipulations of wierwille are just more excuses why the law of believing does NOT work! There is no such law !
Now before anyone gets their PFAL syllabus bunched up in a wad – about the category of children being exempted – I realize that on page 42, wierwille cites Matthew 15 NIV
in reference to the Canaanite woman’s daughter vexed by a demon – wierwille explains that Jesus required the believing of the parents for their children.
BUT
Read the full account – click on the hyperlink I provided for Matthew 15 – and note Jesus’ response to the persistent mother
Verse 28 - Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
Jesus praised her great faith – but notice what he says after that - Your request is granted. That phrasing further highlights the woman’s appeal and it was NOT her faith that accomplished the healing - it was that the Lord GRANTED her wish. Who did the miracle? The Lord did it! Who asked for it ? The mother!
And to reiterate my concern - WHERE in that account or anywhere else in Scripture does it show parents are required to believe for the children?
Back in the days of yore, the Catholic church declared earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it. Any decenting voices were tagged heritics (something like being anti-cherry only there was a lot more pain involved).
But the planets wouldn't cooperate. Some of them actually went into retrograde, causing astronomers to question the churches decision. But the church held fast.
So astronomers came up with some very exotic calculations to compensate for the retrograde motion. One of them, I seen diagrammed out had the planets doing mini-orbits around a point in their orbit (sort of like the moon orbiting around the earth if no earth was there).
Then along came Galileo. He suggested that the calculations would be easier if astronomers acted like the earth revolved around the sun.
For that, Galileo was put under house arrest for the rest of his life. The church exonerated him 20 or 30 years ago. Bureaucracies are slow to admit they're wrong.
My point? This whole thread is an attempt to avoid what's obvious. We're putting the miracles before the MOG, as it were. We're taking, as a given, that Saint Vic was a MOG, therefore miracle should be happening. What proof do we have to support that presupposition?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
358
229
215
220
Popular Days
Mar 4
144
May 2
83
Apr 29
77
Mar 5
70
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 358 posts
So_crates 229 posts
OldSkool 215 posts
Nathan_Jr 220 posts
Popular Days
Mar 4 2023
144 posts
May 2 2023
83 posts
Apr 29 2023
77 posts
Mar 5 2023
70 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
I believe that the real deal is possible and the path toward it is to address and correct all the doctrinal and practical error introduced by VPs box top doctorate research. isolation from other
chockfull
The Corps is a necessary cult element providing free labor at the expense of volunteers lives. Any imagery like the Marines promotes extremist behavior. No other Christian seminary or school use
Nathan_Jr
"Teaching" Romans to the Corps, Q&A: LCM: How much does your behavior that people do not see influence your example to them? VPW: It doesn't, unless you believe it will. LCM: You u
Posted Images
Mike
It would be good to keep in mind that this kind of situation only came up for a very small number of verses. These were just little loose ends.
I wonder if anyone even knows this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I quoted your first post on tautology and then my reply with internet definition - your use of the word in your first post and here is a misuse of the word tautology - besides the fact that you misinterpret / make up some silly thing how there is a relation.
NOPE ! no such issue is implied in that verse or in all of Scripture...you're reading into it!
HOW - with a capital H capital O and a capital W - are translators going to translate the Bible from the original languages if they go by YOUR forbidden to attach a private nuance rule? what the hell does that mean? How stupid - the way you twist Scripture all around.
Please do some due diligence on a refresher course in grammar and logic - and quit trying to make Scripture fit into your stupid thesis.
and yet here YOU are contaminating the hell out of the Bible with wierwille-infused ideology! FYI: wierwille-infused ideology is wierwille's personal perspective - no ifs, ands or buts about it!
see my previous remarks on grammar and logic
Mike's interpolation. Peter talked about the origin of Scripture...refer to Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible on this - this is one of the things Bullinger got right and wierwille the incompetent plagiarist screwed up and got totally wrong in PFAL!
Don't whine about it to me. I didn't make the PFAL class. Go talk to someone in the complaint department. I think his office is located in the ground near the fountain of muddy waters (the fountain feature - NOT the musician
)
maybe if wierwille had absorbed the Bible in a private personal way he might have behaved a lot better and not abuse and exploit Christians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Rationalization. Wrong is wrong...faithful in least faithful in much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Holy $hit, Batman - the Joker forgot a key element in the first session of PFAL !!!!! You know old chum, he was always chiding us for missing stuff in PFAL - lo and behold it's happening to him!
first session of PFAL
wonder if they covered it in PFAL Today.
oh now you remember! figures you'd love it - the principle is self-referential - wierwille twisted around another way too - ANYTHING DONE IN THE LOVE OF GOD IS OKAY..."as long as you love God" = "anything done in the love of God" = assume you love God...it is totally divorced from some clearly stated directives - like the 10 commandments = thou shalt not steal, lie, commit adultery.
no thanks - you can though - it's a free country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
More rationalization. There's a legal axiom that states: Lie about one thing and you may be lying about everything.
The same is true about private interpretation. Have private interpretation on on verse and you may have private interpretation on all the verses.
PLAF is a monument to private interpretation. From four crucified to the law of believing it boils down to nothing more than private interpretation.
Ironically, Saint Vic didn't believe what he preached otherwise he would have practiced it.
"Love God. Love your neighbor. Do as you damn please." Well, how do you love God? By keeping his commandments. Did Saint Vic keep his commandments? On the contrary, he spent every waking hour seeing how many he could break.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
What a horrible idea – I love it!
You’re on your own to verify where in the PFAL class wierwille says that – I know where he says it...it's funny - I usually have a better recollection of what wierwille said or wrote than you do -
BUT
to play your silly game
I’ve found something even better in written form – this is even more outrageous than what he says in the PFAL class …On page 7 of the PFAL book is wierwille’s written version of handling Matthew 22:37, 38 - first he quotes the passages and then makes some vague comments:
Matthew 22:37, 38:
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.
If that is the first and great commandment, then what is the first and great sin? By simple logic breaking the first and great commandment of not loving God – of loving something ahead of God – hewing out our own religious systems, our own ideologies, our own thinking patterns – rather than adhering to the divine revelation of God’s wonderful, matchless Word.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
The first thing that should catch the attention of anyone familiar with this account is that wierwille does NOT include verses 39 and 40 which locks in how the first and great commandment is to be interpreted. Instead wierwille offers his own interpretation which proposes merely a subjective reference to one’s own idea of what loving God means. In my 12 years of being indoctrinated by wierwille et al, I can attest to the fact that wierwille has indeed hewn out his own religious system, his own ideology his own thinking patterns – rather than adhering to what’s written in the divine revelation of the Bible.
What?!?!
T-Bone, how can you say that?
It’s easy, I lick my lips and I’m real natural – then I read the rest of Jesus’ discussion with the lawyer…here you go Bible fans:
34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. 35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Matthew 22 KJV
~ ~ ~ ~
Basically, what Jesus explains is that the law and the prophets give detailed concrete directions – in no uncertain terms – avoiding any abstract thought that could dilute or rationalize to find loopholes. For example, here’s a few from Exodus 20 - the 10 commandments : don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery, don’t covet…These are some of the specific ways you honor God and act out of real love for God and neighbor if you DON’T do such things as that.
Note excerpts from various commentaries on verse 40 ( excerpts from Matthew 22:40 Commentaries_Bible Hub ):
Elicott's Commentary for English Readers
(40) All the law and the prophets.—The words are coupled, as in Matthew 5:17; Matthew 7:12, to indicate the whole of the revelation of the divine will in the Old Testament. The two great commandments lay at the root of all.
~ ~ ~ ~
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
22:34-40 An interpreter of the law asked our Lord a question, to try, not so much his knowledge, as his judgment. The love of God is the first and great commandment, and the sum of all the commands of the first table. Our love of God must be sincere, not in word and tongue only. All our love is too little to bestow upon him, therefore all the powers of the soul must be engaged for him, and carried out toward him. To love our neighbour as ourselves, is the second great commandment. There is a self-love which is corrupt, and the root of the greatest sins, and it must be put off and mortified; but there is a self-love which is the rule of the greatest duty: we must have a due concern for the welfare of our own souls and bodies. And we must love our neighbour as truly and sincerely as we love ourselves; in many cases we must deny ourselves for the good of others.
~ ~ ~ ~
Matthew Poole's Commentary
And the second is like unto it, commanding love also; so that, as the apostle saith, love is the fulfilling of the law. Thy neighbour, that is, every man, as thyself; doing as much for him as thou wouldst have him do for thee, and doing no more against him than thou wouldst willingly he should do against thee: as truly and sincerely as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets: there is nothing commanded in all the Old Testament but may be reduced to these two heads. This is the whole duty of man there commanded. The whole book of God is our rule, and we are obliged to every precept in it. Moses summed up all in the ten commandments, to which, truly interpreted, all the precepts of Scripture are reducible. Christ here brings the ten to two. The apostle brings all to one, telling us love is the fulfilling of the law. There is nothing forbidden in Scripture but what offends the royal law of love, either to God or man; there is nothing commanded but what will fall under it. Mark addeth, that the scribe applauds our Saviour, as having said the truth, and confessing that the fulfilling these two precepts was more than all sacrifices and burnt offerings; in which he agreed with Samuel, who long since told Saul that to obey was better than sacrifice; and it needs must be so, seeing that all the true value of sacrifices lay in the obedience by them given to the will of God. Christ tells the scribe he was not far from the kingdom of God. He who once rightly understands the law of God, and hath cast off that silly fancy of thinking to please God with ritual things, hath made a great proficiency under that schoolmaster, who, if rightly understood, will show him the need of another righteousness than his own wherein to appear before God.
~ ~ ~ ~
Expositor's Greek Testament
Matthew 22:40. ὁ. ὁ νόμος κρέμαται. Jesus winds up by declaring that on these two hangs, is suspended, the whole law, also the prophets = the moral drift of the whole O. T. is love; no law or performance of law of any value save as love is the soul of it. So Jesus soars away far above the petty disputes of the schools about the relative worth of isolated precepts; teaching the organic unity of duty.
~ ~ ~ ~
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 40. - Hang all the Law and the prophets; i.e. all Scripture, which is comprised in these terms (comp. Matthew 5:17; Matthew 7:12); in other words, all the revelations which God has made to man in every age. The clause is peculiar to St. Matthew. It signifies that on love of God and love of man depend all the moral and religious, ceremonial and judicial precepts contained in the Law, all the utterances of the prophets, all the voices of history. Scripture enunciates the duty to God and our neighbour, shows the right method of fulfilling it, warns against the breach of it, gives examples of punishment and reward consequent upon the way in which the obligation has been treated. Thus the unity and integrity of revelation is demonstrated. Its Author is one; its design is uniform; it teaches one path, leading to one great end. Matthew 22:40
~ ~ ~ ~
End of excerpts from commentaries on Matthew 22:40
~ ~ ~ ~
Unlike phonies like wierwille who could talk a good walk but never walked the talk – being the hypocrite that he was - John the Baptist called people to more than talking a good walk or ritual – he told them to change their behavior:
7 But when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to watch him baptize, he denounced them. “You brood of snakes!” he exclaimed. “Who warned you to flee the coming wrath? 8 Prove by the way you live that you have repented of your sins and turned to God. 9 Don’t just say to each other, ‘We’re safe, for we are descendants of Abraham.’ That means nothing, for I tell you, God can create children of Abraham from these very stones. 10 Even now the ax of God’s judgment is poised, ready to sever the roots of the trees. Yes, every tree that does not produce good fruit will be chopped down and thrown into the fire.
Matthew 3 NLT
Several other translations reflect this same idea; God who knows us and sees us - even in moments when we think no one is watching and no one will know – looks beyond our words and religious activities that may fool others – God sees if our conduct backs up what we profess – He judges our words by the actions that accompany them:
New International Version
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.
New American Standard Bible
Therefore produce fruit consistent with repentance;
Amplified Bible
So produce fruit that is consistent with repentance [demonstrating new behavior that proves a change of heart, and a conscious decision to turn away from sin];
New American Bible
Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance.
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike, in case you ever wonder why your sales campaign for PFAL and PFAL Today are in a slump, I’ll give you some honest feedback – since I have no dog in this fight of yours. You come across as a gung-ho sales rep who is unfamiliar with the very product you are peddling…but who knows - for you to say of wierwille’s statement as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please – “I don't think that is in Session One at all, or anywhere in the class” may be a sign you are in denial of being a fervent admirer of a hypocritical pseudo-Christian harmful and controlling cult-leader who is dead. Currently your idol remains idle in the ground of unholy grounds at The Way International.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Mmmmmph
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Oh, Irony, my friend! I seeeeee yooouuuu…
Edited by Nathan_JrMatchless gloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It’s hard to pick a favorite point in your post, Mr. Bone, but this one easily makes my top two.
Edited by Nathan_JrMatching gloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
His whole "freedom from condemnation" doctrine was crafted to fit this premise.
"Do what you like, as long as you like what you do."---VPW
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Well! I go away on holiday for a few weeks, and come back to find this. Which looked as though it just might have a little substance and seems to have rapidly deteriorated to the same-old same-old. I started to read it from the beginning and at page 8 realised it's 31 pages long.
If there is any new idea or thought, please say so.
Otherwise, instead of wasting time dissecting the words, works and life of a nonentity man of low reputation and dishonour, it is of more value to spend that time studying the words, works and life of an outstanding Man of exemplary reputation and honour, whose words, works and life will stand for ever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I focused on the missing reference from VPs last teaching simply because you are so focused on that teaching as guidance for 20+ years. No other reason or hopes involved.
I personally took that direction as that teaching preceded my time in-residence in the Way Corps and that is what we focused on in the Way Corps in lieu of any accredited classes.
So been there done that have the t shirt.
I don’t view TWI as having any insight on the “first 3 manifestations”. Over a 20 year period I observed plenty of problems teaching those things and running classes for others and their interpretation has more to do with control of others as opposed to truth which frees others.
I view TWI as scribes and Pharisees with scribe and Pharisee interpretation of scripture resulting in scribe and Pharisee fruit in their individual lives and in the group.
Convince me I’m wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
In between the same-olds are a few items you might find interesting. I posted only half of the scriptures (the double doors half), and the other half (budget) is coming soon.
I think we formed some new perspectives on the law of believing, also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
New perspectives? Kinda…
The mother’s negative believing didn’t kill that little boy, God’s budget cuts did.
Yeah. That’s new.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
All I can say is: God hasn't run out of miracles. He's not on a budget.
To think otherwise is to need a miracle repair-job on one's brain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't know about you guys, but I have definitely formed some new perspectives on the law of believing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That’s an interesting point to mention, Twinky – which reminded me of something in the blue book The Bible Tells Me So, chapter 5, The Law of Believing, on page 43 where wierwille says:
In every Biblical record believing is always required on the part of everyone having a need, with the exceptions indicated above: certain types of mental derangement, dead people and children.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
Since I have tossed out the PFAL-filter years ago which made wierwille’s bull-$hit palatable – I ask the following of anyone who still believes in his nonsense:
1. WHERE are the Scriptures to support the idea that in the FICTITIOUS law of believing “rule book” believing is not required for certain types of mental derangement, dead people, and children?
2. WHERE are the Scriptures that specify the types of mental derangement that qualify for the exemption from the law of believing?
3. What about in the cases of mental illnesses and mental disabilities?
if you ask me these stupid stipulations of wierwille are just more excuses why the law of believing does NOT work! There is no such law !
Now before anyone gets their PFAL syllabus bunched up in a wad – about the category of children being exempted – I realize that on page 42, wierwille cites Matthew 15 NIV
in reference to the Canaanite woman’s daughter vexed by a demon – wierwille explains that Jesus required the believing of the parents for their children.
BUT
Read the full account – click on the hyperlink I provided for Matthew 15 – and note Jesus’ response to the persistent mother
Verse 28 - Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
Jesus praised her great faith – but notice what he says after that - Your request is granted. That phrasing further highlights the woman’s appeal and it was NOT her faith that accomplished the healing - it was that the Lord GRANTED her wish. Who did the miracle? The Lord did it! Who asked for it ? The mother!
And to reiterate my concern - WHERE in that account or anywhere else in Scripture does it show parents are required to believe for the children?
Edited by T-BoneAxis bold as love
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It is written in an undiscovered manuscript. I beleeve one day that manuscript will be found, but not in my lifetime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Back in the days of yore, the Catholic church declared earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it. Any decenting voices were tagged heritics (something like being anti-cherry only there was a lot more pain involved).
But the planets wouldn't cooperate. Some of them actually went into retrograde, causing astronomers to question the churches decision. But the church held fast.
So astronomers came up with some very exotic calculations to compensate for the retrograde motion. One of them, I seen diagrammed out had the planets doing mini-orbits around a point in their orbit (sort of like the moon orbiting around the earth if no earth was there).
Then along came Galileo. He suggested that the calculations would be easier if astronomers acted like the earth revolved around the sun.
For that, Galileo was put under house arrest for the rest of his life. The church exonerated him 20 or 30 years ago. Bureaucracies are slow to admit they're wrong.
My point? This whole thread is an attempt to avoid what's obvious. We're putting the miracles before the MOG, as it were. We're taking, as a given, that Saint Vic was a MOG, therefore miracle should be happening. What proof do we have to support that presupposition?
How do we know Saint Vic was a MOG?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
A music coordinator said he was the seventh THE man of god. Must be something to it if a music coordinator said it
Plus, Vic wore a silver bracelet engraved with “The man of god.” The bracelet says it, I believe it, that settles it.
Did you ever see the movie The Omen?
Edited by Nathan_JrHey! I didn’t write the book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
In other screwball news,
someone brought their PFAL syllabus made from golden plates,
to the Antiques Roadshow for appraisal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
and he 'manifested' the lucky 7 rewards
also known as the 7 deadly prizes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Cult-leader forming a new perspective of himself.
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.