Am I the only one who didn't check this for years?
No, you are not :o-->
Why is it that so many people accepted Wierwille's definitions in the PFAL class without question? Especially when TWI sold study aides that often contradicted what he said?
Part of it IMHO is that he did a pretty good job of demonstrating that most churches were teaching other than what a plain reading of the bible would support. (Read what is written) In doing so he built a trust for what he said and a distrust of what others said. He dazzled us with b.s.
I believe the expression "turn the other cheek" is a figure of speech here in the Word. If that is the case, then the definition VPW provided for allos may (or it may not) be the correct one.
------------------
I disagree. The language in the figure still has to be consistent. This is a plain old ordinary every day error.
Fine if you disagree. However the expression, "turn the other cheek" is an orientalism. Now we may call it and also refer to it as a figure of speech, but it is an oriental expression. In the oriental culture backhanding someone was a gesture of contempt. It was how you treated someone beneath you in class and in status. Giving someone the back of your hand was saying (by gesture) "Remember your place! I am superiour to you!" That was how a father rebuked his son, a brother his sister, a husband his wife and a master his slave.
Jesus advice in Matt. 5:39 to: "turn the other cheek" is loaded with symbolism. Despite what the pacifists might say, Jesus was not implying one should just submit to evil and let somebody slap them upside the other side of the head! (so then, it's not impling of the same kind). The expression "turn the other cheek" has at least two meanings.
1. I deny that I am inferior to you and I demand you acknowledge me as your equal by striking me a forehand blow [striking someone on the right-cheek with their backhand was really an insult, as the right side was the side of blessing] (and)
2. As your equal I have the right to strike you back.
Turning the other cheek could have been Jesus' admonition to the people under oppression by the Romans and other class structures at that time to stop being passive and to start resisting - but to never be the aggressor. This verse is not a verse about pacifism, but a verse about repaying in kind. Jesus himself believed in self-defense. In Luke 22:36 he said, ... he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. He wasn't talking about agression here but rather self-defense.
However I believe (and I am sure you will agree) a slap on the cheek is not a life-threatening attack, but rather it is intended as an insult. What Jesus was saying in this verse by "turning the other cheek" is that we should not return insult for insult. We should therefore resist the temptation to return an insult by "turning the other cheek".
If the word 'allos' for "other" is used in this verse here, than it can mean of a different kind - especially when one takes into consideration the oriental figure implied in this verse.
You've completely missed my point, on a number of levels.
First, you've justified an interpretation of the verse using linguistic acrobatics instead of a plain reading of the texts. If you want to convince yourself that your right cheek is of a different kind than your left cheek, be my guest: I've nothing to say about that. Frankly, I have no time whatsoever to discuss it.
But even if allos means "another of a different kind" in that case, it's not the presence of a confirming case that establishes Wierwille was right about the definition: it's the presence of contradicting cases that proves he was wrong. There are plenty of cases where allos is clearly "another of the same kind," not "another of a different kind" as Wierwille said and originally wrote. That means he was wrong. I have no problem with him being wrong about this. It is one of the farthest things from a big deal that I could imagine. Even Mike wouldn't care about Wierwille being wrong about this! That's how irrelevant it is.
But more importantly, you addressed a point I was not making, in any way, shape or form.
Wierwille said and wrote that "allos" is "another when more than two are involved." There are multiple Biblical references to show that he was flat out wrong in that definition.
Remember that Wierwille's argument on these definitions is that their sharp mathematical accuracy and scientific precision help prove what he was saying about the four crucified. But any argument on the four crucified that relies on Wierwille's definitions of heteros and allos is utterly discredited.
So what if VPW was wrong about the meanings for allos and heteros? That's what you're saying Raf? Contrary to what one critic recently stated, the meanings for the words allos and heteros are not critical to establishing whether 4 were crucified with Jesus or not. There are many other scriptures to consider which establish this fact, and the meanings for allos and heteros have little to do with those scriptures.
I am not sure why this issue matters to people anyway, since most could care less whether 4 were crucified with Jesus or 2. The usual reaction to the 4 crucified with Jesus is, “What difference does it make?” (With that type of attitude toward the scriptures we are supposed to believe they care about the meanings of the words for allos and heteros?) Who are these critics trying to kid anyway? Well, let’s suppose ol’ VPW really was wrong in this situation. Just what would it change then? About the only thing it would change is: Which of the ‘others’ legs did the soldiers brake after they broke the legs of the first? Was it the legs of the malefactor or the legs of the robber: the ‘other’ of the same kind (or) the ‘other’ of a different kind?
And I am not so sure just ‘how’ wrong VPW was to begin with on this issue like you want to believe he was. What I do know is exactly what it would take, and also the amount of time required it would take to prove him wrong on this point. That is the time you yourself said you didn’t have to give to this issue from your last post. The truth is, it would take a lot of time going into the scriptures and looking up every instance of the words for allos and heteros. We are talking about the possibility of dealing with at least 259 different scriptures, because there are 162 instances for allos and 97 instances for heteros. Of course this does not take into consideration or include the variations of other words from which allos and heteros stem, as I have only counted the instances of these root words. Heck, even I could be wrong in my counting of these instances since I used an old calculator that had sticky buttons to add them up, so you could easily prove me wrong just on this point alone. So much for my accuracy - based on my old calculator.
But who today wants to look up over 250+ instances in the scriptures for allos and heteros and then compare their uses with one another to find out the exact meaning - and which usage carries the most weight comparatively? Not very many - if any. You yourself stated you didn’t have the time for it. Why? It’s too time consuming and unprofitable. There isn’t that much to gain here. It doesn’t make me any $ because my time is $$$. You (like many others) don’t believe the accuracy and integrity of God’s Word is worth your time or the return on the investment of your time. Your only concern today is with, and could well be: where are the results? Another poster, Mr. Hammeroni asked the same question and put it in another thread – the PFAL thread I believe.
Well, there is at least one man I know and whom I also met that thought it was worth his time. Of course that doesn’t prove he was correct in every case or that he rightly divided the word of God in every situation. All it proves is he considered the integrity and accuracy of God’s Word to be worth his time and also worth the return on his investment of his time. He certainly can’t speak for you or for anyone else any more than I can.
I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION MR. HAM – THE RESULTS ARE FREEDOM! Everything else in life without it results in bondage - whether it’s money, marriage, business, name whatever happens to be your worldly trip. The result is: knowing the truth, and the truth shall [absolute tense] make you free! Even if you spent your entire life gaining knowledge and then wrongly applied it, or if you listen to those who wrongly apply it (even those who were/are in TWI) well, it’s still bondage, not freedom. I was never called to a ministry of the inaccuracy of God’s Word, - that’s probably why I still rub a lot of people the wrong way, but at least I am free. It’s never too late to escape bondage. How? Just ask yourself the following:
What has the integrity and accuracy of God’s Word cost me? That’s the question I am asking (I believe that’s the question another poster Mike might be asking - but only saying it differently: "Master PFAL") especially when the answer to that is hardly anything to nothing. That’s why the integrity of God’s Word has so little value and why it is only worth one’s ridicule today - and ridiculing those who still believe it has value. The majority of posters on this thread as well as the chat and discussion board here have proven it to themselves over and over. They don’t have “the time” for the integrity and accuracy of God’s Word any longer. Most only have the time to ridicule it and those who still want to believe it, so they remain in the bondage they mistakenly call freedom. Oh that’s right - you wanted me to prove that point too. All right, I will.
Most think since they aren’t under Old Testament law anymore they are therefore free from carrying out the law. Since they are free from Old Testament law that means they don’t have to give anymore. The truth is, one is just as much a slave to money by not giving as they are a slave to money by giving out of fear – fearing if they don’t give God won’t bother to spit in their direction. I imagine that is supposed to be some previous TWI leader’s way of saying, Get more! The truth is, people have become slaves to money – either out of their greed or out of their fear, but both extremes are bondage. What is sad is people will continue to call either one of those extremes freedom - it just depends what side of the religious fence you wish to be on. I’ll call it what God’s Word calls it: bondage! But people are all caught up in the argument now with the guy on the opposite side of the fence, neither one realizing their own preferred personal religious extreme is nothing more than bondage. That’s how it is with most other spiritual matters as well.
In one thread I posted time was speeding up. Well I am not so certain if it is time speeding up as much as it is the spiritual laws that God originally set in place in the beginning just now starting to catch up with people - making it appear time is speeding up. One thing is very certain and that is time is running out. We will all reap the results of what we have sown here – whether it is good or bad. In a short time we will reap the abundance of the same type and proportion of that which we have sown in our lives, as well as the lives of others.
If you don’t like the results of what you have been receiving in life Mr. Ham, then maybe you should consider changing the seed you are sowing. It’s not too late. I am not just speaking to you and to others here for their benefit, but for myself as well. That’s the same problem the apostle Paul had with his flesh. Knowing what was right to do from his knowledge of the scriptures, but then not always doing it.
If you don’t like the results of what you have been receiving in life Mr. Ham, then maybe you should consider changing the seed you are sowing.
Well.. good statement- don't know how well it applies. If you call twenty plus slavish years servitude to a stinking cult, like some do, sowing seed.. I have a problem. It didn't work once, and I'm not about to try it again.
I LIKE the results that I am getting, at least now. I also acknowledge where I lacked results.
No longer do I try to "boss" God around, trying to tell Him all the specifics of what He HAS to do. No longer am I bound to an insane thought that if somehow, by a freak of nature, and against all odds, I get every stinking detail right that magically, I can manipulate God Almighty into changing the hell about me into some kind of spiritual "nirvana"- and then have "heaven on earth" practically in spite of the Almighty.
My Bible says that I have already "arrived", and that before I lifted a finger to do anything other than make Jesus lord and believe God raised him from the dead.
I think TWI in a lot of ways was trying to sell to me what I ALREADY HAD. Peace with God. Righteousness. All of the good things in Christ, and more.
They had no business trying to peddle what is obviously free- especially the exhorbitant fee they required.
But for the topic of the thread- I think the quotations of the Bible of itself are very interesting. If you are looking for pure accuracy- and we were taught that only the word spoken VERBATIM would back down the adversary- you won't find it in how the word quotes itself. Not verbatim- and that troubled me as a young wafer..
I still think reading what is written is a valid concept. Has to be if anybody's gonna understand anything- but sometimes, the "distinctions" we think are there are not really there. Sometimes they are.
Interesting- from what I remember, most of the quotations in the word agreed more closely with the Septuagint, and that's a translation, not the "original". This fact does not bother me anymore.
I think even ole doc got tired of some of the nonsense- said something like "food is for eating, not analyzing".
The truth is, it would take a lot of time going into the scriptures and looking up every instance of the words for allos and heteros.
No, that's a lie. It would not take all that much time at all. An hour, maybe two, will establish all you need to know. What I posted earlier only took a few minutes.
But here's what's stupid to me: you declare with zero research that the definitions are fairly consistent. I look into that claim and show they are not. Then you criticize ME for taking the time to look it up.
You should have stopped at "if he's wrong about it, so what?" You were on stronger ground then.
You (like many others) don’t believe the accuracy and integrity of God’s Word is worth your time or the return on the investment of your time.
No, sir, you have me mistaken with the man in your mirror.
If you want to spend the time with me comparing notes on allos and heteros, and comparing them with what Wierwille wrote, I'm game.
Oh, and for the record, I said I did not have the time to try to convince you that your right cheek is of the same kind as your left. Here is my exact quote:
quote:
If you want to convince yourself that your right cheek is of a different kind than your left cheek, be my guest: I've nothing to say about that. Frankly, I have no time whatsoever to discuss it.
Then you wrote:
quote:
And I am not so sure just ‘how’ wrong VPW was to begin with on this issue like you want to believe he was. What I do know is exactly what it would take, and also the amount of time required it would take to prove him wrong on this point. That is the time you yourself said you didn’t have to give to this issue from your last post.
You were either accidentally wrong about what I posted, or deliberately lying and trying to mischaracterize my words. Either way, your mistake is exposed.
Well, there is at least one man I know and whom I also met that thought it was worth his time. Of course that doesn’t prove he was correct in every case or that he rightly divided the word of God in every situation. All it proves is he considered the integrity and accuracy of God’s Word to be worth his time and also worth the return on his investment of his time. He certainly can’t speak for you or for anyone else any more than I can.
Clearly, you cannot be speaking of Wierwille, for whom the concept of "research" in this particular instance meant regurgitating what so-and-so said about allos and heteros (had his research extended further, he would have seen that he was wrong).
WTH, you are missing the point sir. Not only have we demonstrably showed that Weirwille got his research wrong, but the allos and heteros issue is not the only problem with VP's four crucified teaching.
As I've already posted once, he also ignored a very simple fact. Luke's account is not given in chronological order. This can be seen simply by comparing Luke's account of the rending of the temple veil with the one in Matthew.
quote:
Matthew 27:50 & 51
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Luke 23:45 & 46
45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
So either Luke's account is simply not written in chronological order, or, by VP's logic, the veil was rent just before Jesus died, then God miraculously fixed it, then He rent it again right after Jesus died. "silly it becomes."
And we can't assume Weirwille didn't consider the fact that some gospels aren't written chronologically, because, in his presentation of the information from the gospel of John, he plainly stated the John's gospel isn't concerned with time, but rather place. (Then he goes into the whole argument about breaking the legs of the first, then the other.) So if he knew John's account wasn't written chronologically, why didn't he notice that Luke wasn't either?
Wierwille used the definitions of heteros and allos as part of his proof that there were four crucified, not two, with Jesus. That part of his argument is discredited. I agree with WTH in that it doesn't mean (by itself) that the four crucified position is wrong. It simply means that the heteros allos part of the evidence does not prove what Wierwille said it proved.
They don’t have “the time” for the integrity and accuracy of God’s Word any longer. Most only have the time to ridicule it and those who still want to believe it, so they remain in the bondage they mistakenly call freedom.
I want to point out that I have no problem with the accuracy and integrity of God's Word. I simply do not believe that PFAL is synonymous with that term, and the fact that something appears in PFAL is not evidence to me that it is "the accuracy and integrity of God's Word." It is a thesis to be tested, as the scripture instructs us to do. I'm tired of sycophants criticizing researchers who do exactly what God's Word instructs us to do, which is to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. I think Wierwille got a lot right. Allos and heteros is something he got wrong. Big whoop? Yeah, big whoop, unless you are so wedded to his "rightness" that you are both unwilling and unable to see the plain truth right in front of your eyes, merely because it plainly and flatly contradicts what the earth-shaker wrote and taught in a class. He was fallible. His works were fallible. So why does it surprise anyone when a flaw is pointed out and documented?
So either Luke's account is simply not written in chronological order, or, by VP's logic, the veil was rent just before Jesus died, then God miraculously fixed it, then He rent it again right after Jesus died. "silly it becomes."
That's right folks, there MUST have been TWO veils, or the whole Word o' God falls to pieces
Your humorous example is not that far off from the logic that brought us four crucified, six denials, two enties in Jerusalem, etc. - biblical nit-picking.
...and yes, I know Bullinger came up with it first. If there was ever a guy who could suck the life out of a passage of scripture, it was Bullinger with his anal-retentive attention to detail and over-emphasis on structure and correspondance and all the rest.
wadda klown -- your act is getting as tediously boring as Mike's is...why not climb down off your high horse and give up your crusade for the legacy of vp...it will stand or fall w/o all or any of us, myself included...and wth, as well...
When we die Vic's legacy goes down into the ground and gets buried...he will be an unknown.
He wasn't a Paul, or a Peter, or a Luther, or Wesley, or Calvin, or anywhere near those men. He ain't even near this generation's Oral Roberts or Derek Prince or Kenneth Copeland.
And the Bible he taught was far from error free. Far from it.
And may I add the Raf and Jerry have done a lot good work in the arena of Piffle.
In one thread I posted time was speeding up. Well I am not so certain if it is time speeding up as much as it is the spiritual laws that God originally set in place in the beginning just now starting to catch up with people - making it appear time is speeding up.
I think this is a natural by product of getting older. :D--> It does seem to get faster every year and those kids I used to babysit no longer get carded at the bars anymore.
quote:
I am not sure why this issue matters to people anyway, since most could care less whether 4 were crucified with Jesus or 2. The usual reaction to the 4 crucified with Jesus is, “What difference does it make?” (With that type of attitude toward the scriptures we are supposed to believe they care about the meanings of the words for allos and heteros?)
The fact that most of what vee pee taught was wrong is what matters. He made such a big deal about being the only one to teach the "rightly divided word" like it hasn't been known since the first century. The fact that he couldn't even get this right says a lot about the fallacy of his "revelations" which we now know weren't revelations but rather plagarisms. ;)-->
In addition to that, I ask not - what did it cost me, but rather what did it add to my life? IMO, I spent so much time straining gnats and swallowing camels that I missed out on the seeing the forest for the tiny pine needles on the trees.
Being anal about Biblical research just doesn't help me be a better person or have a better relationship with God or my Lord and Savior. I'm glad that I know how to study and to be able to defend my positions, but I really learned how to do that before TWI - I basically took vee pee and lcm's word for what they said they researched while I was involved.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
9
11
8
Popular Days
Mar 18
16
Mar 21
13
Mar 23
12
Mar 24
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 23 posts
def59 9 posts
Jbarrax 11 posts
Belle 8 posts
Popular Days
Mar 18 2005
16 posts
Mar 21 2005
13 posts
Mar 23 2005
12 posts
Mar 24 2005
12 posts
Oakspear
Why is it that so many people accepted Wierwille's definitions in the PFAL class without question? Especially when TWI sold study aides that often contradicted what he said?
Part of it IMHO is that he did a pretty good job of demonstrating that most churches were teaching other than what a plain reading of the bible would support. (Read what is written) In doing so he built a trust for what he said and a distrust of what others said. He dazzled us with b.s.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Other: allos when only two are involved...
Matt 5:39; 12:13; 27:61
Mark 3:5
Luke 6:10, 29
Not comprehensive, this list.
Heteros used as other when more than two are involved:
Matt 12:45
Luke 3:18; 4:43; 10:1; 11:16...
You get the idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
Fine if you disagree. However the expression, "turn the other cheek" is an orientalism. Now we may call it and also refer to it as a figure of speech, but it is an oriental expression. In the oriental culture backhanding someone was a gesture of contempt. It was how you treated someone beneath you in class and in status. Giving someone the back of your hand was saying (by gesture) "Remember your place! I am superiour to you!" That was how a father rebuked his son, a brother his sister, a husband his wife and a master his slave.
Jesus advice in Matt. 5:39 to: "turn the other cheek" is loaded with symbolism. Despite what the pacifists might say, Jesus was not implying one should just submit to evil and let somebody slap them upside the other side of the head! (so then, it's not impling of the same kind). The expression "turn the other cheek" has at least two meanings.
1. I deny that I am inferior to you and I demand you acknowledge me as your equal by striking me a forehand blow [striking someone on the right-cheek with their backhand was really an insult, as the right side was the side of blessing] (and)
2. As your equal I have the right to strike you back.
Turning the other cheek could have been Jesus' admonition to the people under oppression by the Romans and other class structures at that time to stop being passive and to start resisting - but to never be the aggressor. This verse is not a verse about pacifism, but a verse about repaying in kind. Jesus himself believed in self-defense. In Luke 22:36 he said, ... he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. He wasn't talking about agression here but rather self-defense.
However I believe (and I am sure you will agree) a slap on the cheek is not a life-threatening attack, but rather it is intended as an insult. What Jesus was saying in this verse by "turning the other cheek" is that we should not return insult for insult. We should therefore resist the temptation to return an insult by "turning the other cheek".
If the word 'allos' for "other" is used in this verse here, than it can mean of a different kind - especially when one takes into consideration the oriental figure implied in this verse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What the Hay,
You've completely missed my point, on a number of levels.
First, you've justified an interpretation of the verse using linguistic acrobatics instead of a plain reading of the texts. If you want to convince yourself that your right cheek is of a different kind than your left cheek, be my guest: I've nothing to say about that. Frankly, I have no time whatsoever to discuss it.
But even if allos means "another of a different kind" in that case, it's not the presence of a confirming case that establishes Wierwille was right about the definition: it's the presence of contradicting cases that proves he was wrong. There are plenty of cases where allos is clearly "another of the same kind," not "another of a different kind" as Wierwille said and originally wrote. That means he was wrong. I have no problem with him being wrong about this. It is one of the farthest things from a big deal that I could imagine. Even Mike wouldn't care about Wierwille being wrong about this! That's how irrelevant it is.
But more importantly, you addressed a point I was not making, in any way, shape or form.
Wierwille said and wrote that "allos" is "another when more than two are involved." There are multiple Biblical references to show that he was flat out wrong in that definition.
Remember that Wierwille's argument on these definitions is that their sharp mathematical accuracy and scientific precision help prove what he was saying about the four crucified. But any argument on the four crucified that relies on Wierwille's definitions of heteros and allos is utterly discredited.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
So what if VPW was wrong about the meanings for allos and heteros? That's what you're saying Raf? Contrary to what one critic recently stated, the meanings for the words allos and heteros are not critical to establishing whether 4 were crucified with Jesus or not. There are many other scriptures to consider which establish this fact, and the meanings for allos and heteros have little to do with those scriptures.
I am not sure why this issue matters to people anyway, since most could care less whether 4 were crucified with Jesus or 2. The usual reaction to the 4 crucified with Jesus is, “What difference does it make?” (With that type of attitude toward the scriptures we are supposed to believe they care about the meanings of the words for allos and heteros?) Who are these critics trying to kid anyway? Well, let’s suppose ol’ VPW really was wrong in this situation. Just what would it change then? About the only thing it would change is: Which of the ‘others’ legs did the soldiers brake after they broke the legs of the first? Was it the legs of the malefactor or the legs of the robber: the ‘other’ of the same kind (or) the ‘other’ of a different kind?
And I am not so sure just ‘how’ wrong VPW was to begin with on this issue like you want to believe he was. What I do know is exactly what it would take, and also the amount of time required it would take to prove him wrong on this point. That is the time you yourself said you didn’t have to give to this issue from your last post. The truth is, it would take a lot of time going into the scriptures and looking up every instance of the words for allos and heteros. We are talking about the possibility of dealing with at least 259 different scriptures, because there are 162 instances for allos and 97 instances for heteros. Of course this does not take into consideration or include the variations of other words from which allos and heteros stem, as I have only counted the instances of these root words. Heck, even I could be wrong in my counting of these instances since I used an old calculator that had sticky buttons to add them up, so you could easily prove me wrong just on this point alone. So much for my accuracy - based on my old calculator.
But who today wants to look up over 250+ instances in the scriptures for allos and heteros and then compare their uses with one another to find out the exact meaning - and which usage carries the most weight comparatively? Not very many - if any. You yourself stated you didn’t have the time for it. Why? It’s too time consuming and unprofitable. There isn’t that much to gain here. It doesn’t make me any $ because my time is $$$. You (like many others) don’t believe the accuracy and integrity of God’s Word is worth your time or the return on the investment of your time. Your only concern today is with, and could well be: where are the results? Another poster, Mr. Hammeroni asked the same question and put it in another thread – the PFAL thread I believe.
Well, there is at least one man I know and whom I also met that thought it was worth his time. Of course that doesn’t prove he was correct in every case or that he rightly divided the word of God in every situation. All it proves is he considered the integrity and accuracy of God’s Word to be worth his time and also worth the return on his investment of his time. He certainly can’t speak for you or for anyone else any more than I can.
I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION MR. HAM – THE RESULTS ARE FREEDOM! Everything else in life without it results in bondage - whether it’s money, marriage, business, name whatever happens to be your worldly trip. The result is: knowing the truth, and the truth shall [absolute tense] make you free! Even if you spent your entire life gaining knowledge and then wrongly applied it, or if you listen to those who wrongly apply it (even those who were/are in TWI) well, it’s still bondage, not freedom. I was never called to a ministry of the inaccuracy of God’s Word, - that’s probably why I still rub a lot of people the wrong way, but at least I am free. It’s never too late to escape bondage. How? Just ask yourself the following:
What has the integrity and accuracy of God’s Word cost me? That’s the question I am asking (I believe that’s the question another poster Mike might be asking - but only saying it differently: "Master PFAL") especially when the answer to that is hardly anything to nothing. That’s why the integrity of God’s Word has so little value and why it is only worth one’s ridicule today - and ridiculing those who still believe it has value. The majority of posters on this thread as well as the chat and discussion board here have proven it to themselves over and over. They don’t have “the time” for the integrity and accuracy of God’s Word any longer. Most only have the time to ridicule it and those who still want to believe it, so they remain in the bondage they mistakenly call freedom. Oh that’s right - you wanted me to prove that point too. All right, I will.
Most think since they aren’t under Old Testament law anymore they are therefore free from carrying out the law. Since they are free from Old Testament law that means they don’t have to give anymore. The truth is, one is just as much a slave to money by not giving as they are a slave to money by giving out of fear – fearing if they don’t give God won’t bother to spit in their direction. I imagine that is supposed to be some previous TWI leader’s way of saying, Get more! The truth is, people have become slaves to money – either out of their greed or out of their fear, but both extremes are bondage. What is sad is people will continue to call either one of those extremes freedom - it just depends what side of the religious fence you wish to be on. I’ll call it what God’s Word calls it: bondage! But people are all caught up in the argument now with the guy on the opposite side of the fence, neither one realizing their own preferred personal religious extreme is nothing more than bondage. That’s how it is with most other spiritual matters as well.
In one thread I posted time was speeding up. Well I am not so certain if it is time speeding up as much as it is the spiritual laws that God originally set in place in the beginning just now starting to catch up with people - making it appear time is speeding up. One thing is very certain and that is time is running out. We will all reap the results of what we have sown here – whether it is good or bad. In a short time we will reap the abundance of the same type and proportion of that which we have sown in our lives, as well as the lives of others.
If you don’t like the results of what you have been receiving in life Mr. Ham, then maybe you should consider changing the seed you are sowing. It’s not too late. I am not just speaking to you and to others here for their benefit, but for myself as well. That’s the same problem the apostle Paul had with his flesh. Knowing what was right to do from his knowledge of the scriptures, but then not always doing it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
I just want to know if it was the left or right leg broken first?
And what instument was used?
details ya know~~~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
I guess it all depends on whether or not they turned the other cheek?
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
!0-4 WTH
I am laughing the right and left cheeks off
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Well.. good statement- don't know how well it applies. If you call twenty plus slavish years servitude to a stinking cult, like some do, sowing seed.. I have a problem. It didn't work once, and I'm not about to try it again.
I LIKE the results that I am getting, at least now. I also acknowledge where I lacked results.
No longer do I try to "boss" God around, trying to tell Him all the specifics of what He HAS to do. No longer am I bound to an insane thought that if somehow, by a freak of nature, and against all odds, I get every stinking detail right that magically, I can manipulate God Almighty into changing the hell about me into some kind of spiritual "nirvana"- and then have "heaven on earth" practically in spite of the Almighty.
My Bible says that I have already "arrived", and that before I lifted a finger to do anything other than make Jesus lord and believe God raised him from the dead.
I think TWI in a lot of ways was trying to sell to me what I ALREADY HAD. Peace with God. Righteousness. All of the good things in Christ, and more.
They had no business trying to peddle what is obviously free- especially the exhorbitant fee they required.
But for the topic of the thread- I think the quotations of the Bible of itself are very interesting. If you are looking for pure accuracy- and we were taught that only the word spoken VERBATIM would back down the adversary- you won't find it in how the word quotes itself. Not verbatim- and that troubled me as a young wafer..
I still think reading what is written is a valid concept. Has to be if anybody's gonna understand anything- but sometimes, the "distinctions" we think are there are not really there. Sometimes they are.
Interesting- from what I remember, most of the quotations in the word agreed more closely with the Septuagint, and that's a translation, not the "original". This fact does not bother me anymore.
I think even ole doc got tired of some of the nonsense- said something like "food is for eating, not analyzing".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Exactly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What further proof do you need, assuming you actually care about the issue?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No, that's a lie. It would not take all that much time at all. An hour, maybe two, will establish all you need to know. What I posted earlier only took a few minutes.
But here's what's stupid to me: you declare with zero research that the definitions are fairly consistent. I look into that claim and show they are not. Then you criticize ME for taking the time to look it up.
You should have stopped at "if he's wrong about it, so what?" You were on stronger ground then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No, sir, you have me mistaken with the man in your mirror.
If you want to spend the time with me comparing notes on allos and heteros, and comparing them with what Wierwille wrote, I'm game.
Oh, and for the record, I said I did not have the time to try to convince you that your right cheek is of the same kind as your left. Here is my exact quote:
Then you wrote:
You were either accidentally wrong about what I posted, or deliberately lying and trying to mischaracterize my words. Either way, your mistake is exposed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Now I'm LMwholeAO!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Clearly, you cannot be speaking of Wierwille, for whom the concept of "research" in this particular instance meant regurgitating what so-and-so said about allos and heteros (had his research extended further, he would have seen that he was wrong).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Well said Raf.
WTH, you are missing the point sir. Not only have we demonstrably showed that Weirwille got his research wrong, but the allos and heteros issue is not the only problem with VP's four crucified teaching.
As I've already posted once, he also ignored a very simple fact. Luke's account is not given in chronological order. This can be seen simply by comparing Luke's account of the rending of the temple veil with the one in Matthew.
So either Luke's account is simply not written in chronological order, or, by VP's logic, the veil was rent just before Jesus died, then God miraculously fixed it, then He rent it again right after Jesus died. "silly it becomes."
And we can't assume Weirwille didn't consider the fact that some gospels aren't written chronologically, because, in his presentation of the information from the gospel of John, he plainly stated the John's gospel isn't concerned with time, but rather place. (Then he goes into the whole argument about breaking the legs of the first, then the other.) So if he knew John's account wasn't written chronologically, why didn't he notice that Luke wasn't either?
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Wierwille used the definitions of heteros and allos as part of his proof that there were four crucified, not two, with Jesus. That part of his argument is discredited. I agree with WTH in that it doesn't mean (by itself) that the four crucified position is wrong. It simply means that the heteros allos part of the evidence does not prove what Wierwille said it proved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I want to point out that I have no problem with the accuracy and integrity of God's Word. I simply do not believe that PFAL is synonymous with that term, and the fact that something appears in PFAL is not evidence to me that it is "the accuracy and integrity of God's Word." It is a thesis to be tested, as the scripture instructs us to do. I'm tired of sycophants criticizing researchers who do exactly what God's Word instructs us to do, which is to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. I think Wierwille got a lot right. Allos and heteros is something he got wrong. Big whoop? Yeah, big whoop, unless you are so wedded to his "rightness" that you are both unwilling and unable to see the plain truth right in front of your eyes, merely because it plainly and flatly contradicts what the earth-shaker wrote and taught in a class. He was fallible. His works were fallible. So why does it surprise anyone when a flaw is pointed out and documented?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Your humorous example is not that far off from the logic that brought us four crucified, six denials, two enties in Jerusalem, etc. - biblical nit-picking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
...and yes, I know Bullinger came up with it first. If there was ever a guy who could suck the life out of a passage of scripture, it was Bullinger with his anal-retentive attention to detail and over-emphasis on structure and correspondance and all the rest.
Smart guy, but give it a freakin' rest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
wadda klown -- your act is getting as tediously boring as Mike's is...why not climb down off your high horse and give up your crusade for the legacy of vp...it will stand or fall w/o all or any of us, myself included...and wth, as well...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
engine
I agree wit alfakat on the legacy of Vic.
When we die Vic's legacy goes down into the ground and gets buried...he will be an unknown.
He wasn't a Paul, or a Peter, or a Luther, or Wesley, or Calvin, or anywhere near those men. He ain't even near this generation's Oral Roberts or Derek Prince or Kenneth Copeland.
And the Bible he taught was far from error free. Far from it.
And may I add the Raf and Jerry have done a lot good work in the arena of Piffle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
WTH
I think this is a natural by product of getting older.
:D--> It does seem to get faster every year and those kids I used to babysit no longer get carded at the bars anymore.
The fact that most of what vee pee taught was wrong is what matters. He made such a big deal about being the only one to teach the "rightly divided word" like it hasn't been known since the first century. The fact that he couldn't even get this right says a lot about the fallacy of his "revelations" which we now know weren't revelations but rather plagarisms.
;)-->
In addition to that, I ask not - what did it cost me, but rather what did it add to my life? IMO, I spent so much time straining gnats and swallowing camels that I missed out on the seeing the forest for the tiny pine needles on the trees.
Being anal about Biblical research just doesn't help me be a better person or have a better relationship with God or my Lord and Savior. I'm glad that I know how to study and to be able to defend my positions, but I really learned how to do that before TWI - I basically took vee pee and lcm's word for what they said they researched while I was involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Sounds like a wedding made in the "other" place, heh heh.
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.