I am not really saying anything. Just looking at some evidence. No conculsions here either. But if bastard in Deut. means something else than just a child conceived out of wedlock, then the stigma may not have been as great as has been assumed.
In Luke 1, though it would seem that Elizabeth was also privy to Mary's conception.
After her visit from Gabriel, Mary left Nazareth and went to a "city in Juda" to live with Elizabeth for three months. She then returned to Nazareth when she was about three months pregnant but only espoused to Joseph.
Then in Luke 2:4-5 we see Mary and Joseph leave Nazareth for Bethlehem and Mary is "great with child" yet is still only epsoused/betrothed to Joseph. Wouldn't folks in Nazareth have known?
Is is possible that Joseph though to "put her away privily" to save her honor, the antithesis to that was to stick it out with God and accept the stigma that his "son" would be considered by the community as having been conceived before he and Mary were legally married. ?
I personally think they (the Pharisees) were doing both. They were defending themselves as well as accusing Jesus. In John 8:48, they called him both a Samaritan and demon-possessed.
To add to what LongGone said: The Samaritans were the ones who were the offspring of "spriritual fornication" ie the result of Jews intermarrying with pagans.
Research doesn't begin with the answers; it looks for the answers. I did not willfully choose to find what I have found. Also, my conclusion therefore is no Johny-come-lately idea set forth to be iconoclstic, splashy or controversial. I have written up my years of research not to be argumentative, neither am I apologetic. I simply want to set forth my study as a workman for God, realizing that if the research is a right dividing of God's Word, many who believe will be blessed. If my research is a wrong dividing of God's Word, then I stand before God as an unapproved workman. Either way I accept full responsibility...
VPW from p3. of JCING.
VPW has been dead, what? 18 years almost? It's amazing how people still keep bringing up his words just to have something to strive over, usually with no other pupose than to be argumentative and controversial with other people regarding something he wrote years ago. Apparently they missed or overlooked this passage which he also wrote, much less understood his meaning behind it.
This passage doesn't come up very often in heated debates by any of VPW's critics though. Why is that? Probably because there ain't much in that passage one could reasonably argue over I guess. What's most ironic, this passage just happens to be taken from one of his MOST controversial books - JESUS CHRIST IS NOT GOD of all things!
Still, I don't think anything could be more of a total waste of one's precious time than attempting to stand approved before men over something VPW wrote many years ago, regardless if you agreed with whatever he wrote or not! What was that verse in 2 Timothy 2:15 again? Study to show thyself approved unto men? Ooops, that aint right! So I made a big boo boo in the bible myself. What are ya gonna do, argue about it? That would be pretty foolish. Why? Because that error is pretty obvious, readily seen by anyone. But one can't argue over the obvious (but some still do) quite as easily as the "not so obvious", which is what the critics really pick up on to show themselves approved unto ... who?
I came across a critics work a while back who was arguing with VPW over the four crucified with Jesus. They were insising it was only two crucified with Jesus. BTW, it was a very compelling argument the critic presented over the Greek meanings for the words heteros and allos (translated into the English word "other") one of the keys VPW uses to prove there were four crucified with Jesus instead of two. But the critic never dealt with this passage of scripture very well:
Mathew 27:44
The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his [Jesus] teeth. The preceding verses, 41,42, and 43 make it obvious the chief priests, elders, and others who were passing by reviled Jesus, and the theives who were crucified with Jesus did likewise.
The critic got all wrapped up and concerned over the "not so obvious" (the meanings behind the Greek words for heteros and allos) rather than choose to focus on the obvious. How could only two be crucified with Jesus, when Mathew 27:44 says both thieves railed him, while in Luke 23:39,40 only one of the malefactors railed him and the other defended him? But the critics seem to get around the obvious by making the theives out to be the same as the malefactors somehow. They also get around the obvious saying the Son of God means exactly the same thing as God the Son. Now that may be a different arguement, but still the same worn out unworkable reasoning.
If thieves mean the same as malefactors, and Son of God means the same as God the Son, I certainly see how the critic came to the conclusion heteros means the same as allos. What I fail to see is what makes the critic think I can draw the same conclusions. If this is the best argument the critic has, they have only proven they don't understand the meaning behind English words very well, let alone Greek! Why should we believe they have some deeper understanding of the meaning behind Greek words? (Put simply, who's kidding who?)
This critic hasn't convinced me of their conclusions, especially when their conclusions overlook (neglects may be a better word) the obvious things contained in the bible which are easily understood. One could argue the meanings "behind the Greek words in the bible" until h*ll froze over (well, you can argue the meaning behind English words too, lawyers do it all the time!) but it doesn't prove anything when you overlook the obvious. The more the critics argue and strive over the meanings behind the words, the less they seem to understand them apparently. It's bound to happen when you overlook and neglect the obvious, don't you know.
I can't say I am in agreement with everything VPW wrote, only because I haven't read everything he wrote. So what if you agree or don't agree with what VPW wrote? And what if I agree where you don't agree, and you agree with him where I don't? It's only VPW, not God. Maybe he should have wrote a sequel to JCING and called it: "VPW Is NOT God!"? I got a feeling people wouldn't even agree with him on that one, and now wouldn't that be scary!!!
"It's amazing how people still keep bringing up his words just to have something to strive over, usually with no other pupose than to be argumentative and controversial with other people regarding something he wrote years ago"
BEEP---Wrong Again, Not this Cafe (well maybe a little)
Maybe 1 day I'll tell you why I want the truth.
[This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 17, 2003 at 22:48.]
[This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 17, 2003 at 22:53.]
Welcome to our discussion. I'm honored that this thread inspired your first post.
I do believe you misunderstand the purpose of this thread, and that you will be surprised to learn that I disagree with little of what you have written. I think you make some very strong points.
Have you been reading along for long? Are you aware that this thread started because someone claims that the written works of VPW are God-breathed and therefore perfect? That PFAL (the book) is even MORE reliable than the Bible?
quote:Originally posted by What The Hay:
I just read this from p3 of JCING by VPW.
I can't say I am in agreement with everything VPW wrote, only because I haven't read everything he wrote. So what if you agree or don't agree with what VPW wrote? And what if I agree where you don't agree, and you agree with him where I don't? It's only VPW, not God. Maybe he should have wrote a sequel to JCING and called it: "VPW Is NOT God!"? I got a feeling people wouldn't even agree with him on that one, and now wouldn't that be scary!!!
I TOTALLY agree with that. But if I were to tell you that VPW's written works are ALWAYS right and NEVER wrong, would you not challenge my presumption?
I have a reputation on these threads of not dismissing everything VPW wrote, nor accepting everything he wrote, but doing my best to compare it to the Bible in order to, as the Bible instructs, prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.
I don't always get it right. I sometimes change my mind about what I thought was right, or what I thought was wrong.
But I challenge the absurd argument that PFAL is always right. That is the purpose of this thread. If you have time, re-read the thread with that understanding, and you'll see that you and I are not as far apart as your post might initially indicate.
Wierwille's doctrine is our common denominator. It's fair game for discussion. The Bible teaches us to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. We're simply applying that principle to PFAL: in this case, pointing out the negative ONLY BECAUSE of the assertion that there IS NO negative in PFAL, that it's ALWAYS right, and that it is more reliable as God's Word than the Bible itself.
Perhaps there's a separate thread that needs to be written to discuss the perfectly valid role of criticism in just about every walk of life. My math teacher was very critical of my work, but his criticism helped improve my math grades. My writing coaches are often critical, but it makes me a better writer. Movie critics help us all decide whether to spend our hard earned money at the theaters. But let someone "criticize" a presentation that purports to be God's Word, and all of a sudden the critic is criticized! How ironic.
Again, nice post, welcome to the cafe, and please don't hold back. Speak up. Your voice is welcome (although I caution you, it WILL be challenged).
You're correct of course. Such counting could spark a rumor or two.
We do need to remember that betrothal is a lot stronger than what we think of as engagement. The only way to dissolve a betrothal was through divorce. Now, I could be wrong, but I suspect the first presumption would be that Mary and Joseph got together prematurely, because otherwise there would have been calls for punishing Mary, no?
I don't know. Fascinating discussion (and a good example of why I'm separating actual errors from interpretations).
quote:I can't say I am in agreement with everything VPW wrote, only because I haven't read everything he wrote.
Am I reading this right? Does this mean that it is only because you have not read "some" of VPW writings that you cannot say that you agree with "all" of them - implying that you do agree with "all" that you have read?
In any case, this thread has nothing to do with, "bringing up VPW's words just to have something to strive over..."
A claim was made by one poster that the PFAL book is/was God- breathed, and by covenant in 1942 it supersedes the scrptures which are horribly impotent. He further claims that it is only by "mastery" of PFAL that anyone can truly walk with God - implying that no person anywhere who does not "master" PFAL cannot really know God. In other words PFAL is Divine Truth and the God-breathed word and the Bible is a powerless approximation of the Word.
In response to these claims, this discussion is on the vein that if PFAL is indeed the Word of God, then as VPW taught, it must be error free, yet many have doccumented some errors. The one poster claims that these are only "apparent errors". We are attempting to have some dialog concerning these errors in PFAL.
So this thread has little to with anyone "attempting to stand approved before men" or simply to prove VPW wrong just for the sake of argument. The implications of what the one poster has claimed are serious enough that these errors, whether apparent or real, warrant debate and discussion.
This breathing in to receive holy spirit and the subsequest reversal of the order of verses in Acts 2 is an error. I bring this up here because it was taught in the foundational class PFAL but is printed in Receiving the holy spirit today.
The Way International strives to teach of its members how they may "receive the holy spirit into manifestation" the act of believing and in-breathing. Victor Paul Wierwille, The Way's late founder, taught that opening one's mouth and breathing in deeply is an act of belief that God honors by bestowing the Holy Spirit upon the believer. (1) (Literature from The Way International always refers to the Holy Spirit in all lower-case letters. Most Christian literature capitalizes Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit is deity.)
New converts are taught a four-point method to help them receive, in a way they can sense, the Holy Spirit. First, the convert is told to become quiet and relaxed. Next, the convert is told to rest his head back "and breathe in deeply." (2) He is told that the "word 'inspiration' also means 'in-breathing." (3) The third step requires the convert to pray: "Father, I now receive the holy spirit, the power from on high, which you made available through Jesus Christ." (4) Finally, the convert is told to willfully move his lips, tongue and throat, making the sounds that are considered to be "Speaking-In-Tongues." The person doing this is told he is forming words that the spirit wants him to speak. (5)
Michael Gudorf, a writer for The Way International, says that one of the main reasons why born-again Christians are ignorant of the importance of speaking in tongues shortly after the new birth is that they have "a wrong interpretation of John 20:22." (6) Gudorf contends that the verse has been misunderstood because it has been mistranslated in most English texts. (7) He also believes that if the true meaning of John 20:22 is balanced with the remoter context of Genesis 2:7 and Acts 2:1-4, the student of scripture would be able to rightly divide and understand how this all relates to speaking in tongues. (8)
Traditional Christian scholarship has almost unanimously trans- lated John 20:22 similarly to the way it is recorded in the King James Version. (9) The KJV is as follows:
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost."
The Way contests this translation and offers one it believes is more accurate. The difference between The Way's version and the traditional one can be seen by taking a look at Wierwille's elaboration on this verse in his book Receiving the Holy Spirit Today.
And when he had said this, he breathed on (en, in; He breathed in) them, (delete), and saith unto them, "Receive (lambano) ye the Holy Ghost (pneuma hagion)." (10)
Scholars will not contest Wierwille's argument that the word "them" is not a part of the original text. The attestation of manuscripts using this word is very weak indeed. (11) However, just because the word is not present in the Greek text does not mean that we can not read it in our English text. What one needs to remember is that the reader of the Greek text is expected to supply the word "them" to the text when reading it. This is not uncommon in scripture and is known as ellipsis - when a word or words are omitted but are supposed to be supplied by the reader. (12) In Mark 6:5 the word (etherapeusen), meaning "he healed," is used without a direct object. The reader is expected to supply the word "them" (those who were sick) to the text. Matthew 8:25 tells the story of the disciples and Jesus on the stormy sea. The text says the disciples "having come (to him; i.e. Jesus) they awoke him saying, 'Lord, Save.'" The reader is expected to insert two missing words in the text. First, he is expected to know that the disciples came "to him" (Jesus) and second, he is expected to know that the Lord was to save "us" (the disciples). These are just two texts where one can see the use of a implied words. An in-depth study of the Old and New Testaments will reveal many more instances where ellipses were used. (13)
It should be no problem for the reader to insert the word "them" into the text of John 20:22, even though it is not present in the Greek text. Wierwille's deletion of this word is unfounded and unwarranted. The only reason Wierwille omits the word is because it helps support his translation of the Greek word enephusasen (meaning, "he breathed") in this verse.
Wierwille's translation of the Greek verb (enephusasen) is important in his misinterpretation of the text. Wierwille translates this Greek verb as "he breathed in." He seems to believe that by placing the word "en" (Greek preposition meaning "in") as a prefix to the Greek word phusao (meaning: "to puff") (14) that it must mean a type of inhaling on Jesus' part. According to Wierwille, Jesus was showing his disciples what they were to do on the day of Pentecost. Jesus' 'breathing in' was a type of demonstration that showed them what they were to do at the proper moment. They were to "breathe in heavily." (15)
Can the word enephusasen be translated as "to breathe in" or "inhale"? Wierwille would certainly have the reader believe so. However, the evidence does not support this translation. The New Testament can offer no help because it is found only in John 20:22. The verb used in this text is an aorist, active, indicative, third-person, singular form of the Greek word emphusao. While it is not used in any other place in the New Testament, it is used 11 times in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. (16)
In each case, the word carries with it the meaning of "to blow upon" and not "to breathe in" or "inhale". The classic example of the use of this word is recorded in Genesis 2:7 in the Septuagint. God formed man from the dust of the ground and "breathed upon (enephusesen) his face the breath of life."
A quick glance at various Greek lexicons also helps in understanding the meaning of this word. Liddell-Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon gives the basic meaning of the word as "blow in". (17) Bauer, Arndt, Ginrich and Danker's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature gives the meaning of the word as "breathe on". (18) Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament gives the meaning as "to blow" or "breathe on". (19) Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament gives the meaning as "to breathe upon" or "over". (20) Even E.W. Bullinger's Lexicon, which is used by The Way, gives the meaning of the word as "to breathe upon, blow upon." (21)
The unanimous evidence, therefore, shows that the word means to "blow upon" or "breathe upon." Jesus was not inhaling in John 20:22. He was not showing his disciples what they were to do on the day of Pentecost. He actually breathed upon them and said "receive the Holy Spirit." When Pentecost came, the loud sound heard by the people was not the disciples breathing hard, following the example of Jesus, but the Spirit of God coming upon them.
In light of the above evidence, Wierwille's teaching of "in-breathing" to receive the Holy Spirit is meaningless. Nowhere does scripture indicate that we receive spiritual power through breathing in, even if it is connected with believing. The Apostle Paul writes concerning receiving the Spirit:
"Did you receive (lambano) the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?"
The Holy Spirit is received by hearing the message of the Gospel and believing it. Any other way is considered "a work of the law" and against the Gospel.
The validity of speaking in tongues is not being questioned here. What is being questioned and rejected is Wierwille's mechanistic and unscriptural teaching concerning receiving the Spirit and speaking in tongues. The Way is certainly not a group from which one would want to learn about this special gift or ability. Its inability to understand this phenomena of scripture makes it a poor instructor in this and other teachings.
I always wondered why the need for the reversals of the scriptures. It's simple really -- what better sign than "the breath of life" to indicate the pouring forth of the new spiritual life -- the rushing mighty wind that filled all the house where they were sitting. Why all of this advanced theology? Because Wierwille spent too much time with pentecostal preachers and faith healers and all the other nonsense. This is where the scriptures were squeezed to lead people to speak in tongues out loud. It seems like many a thing taught in PFAL was towards that end -- hence the verses out of context -- the squeezing of dechomai and lambano into too narrow of definitons etc...
edited to clarify --- I am all for manifestations --- just not for twisting scripture
[This message was edited by troubledwine on January 18, 2003 at 8:43.]
I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the verse in John 20 should be translated "he breathed on them." But is it actual error or a difference of opinion? I don't know.
Likewise, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the definitions of dechomai and lambano were in some places oversimplified and in other places contorted. The fact that no one with an independent, non-Wierwille influenced knowledge of Greek can verify these definitions weighs heavily against the veracity of the definitions Wierwille provides.
Of course, when the counterargument is "God told him that's what those words mean," it's impossible to settle the point.
At the risk of getting sidetracked here.....I'm still thinking about the discussion about whether or not Jesus was considered "illegitimate" by family and friends or whoever. I don't think the circumstances of his birth were as obvious as Grizz and Raf seem to think.
Some of the reasons being.....Mary didn't spend her entire pregnancy in Nazareth. She went to visit her cousin Elizabeth, and then she and Joseph left town to go to Bethlehem before Jesus was born. Why take a difficult trip like that being "great with child?" Why did Mary and Joseph go when they did? Could it have been for "rumour control?" (The trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem was difficult enough in a tour bus, I can't imagine walking it being really pregnant. :)--> )
Also, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem, I think they stayed there for a while (the Magi did see a young child living in a house) and then the family took off for Egypt and stayed there a while til Herod died. By the time they got back to Nazareth to settle down, it could've been years since Jesus' birth. Would anyone there have kept that close tabs on what was happening with Mary and Joseph?
In John 7:2-5 is an interesting fact. Even Jesus' brothers didn't believe in him. Did they know the miraculous circumstances of his birth? or not? Maybe they thought he was simply their big brother?
Also John 7:41-43 are interesting verses in light of this question. Evidently, the circumstnces of Jesus birth were not that well known.
Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here. These are simply things I've been wondering about since they came up in my bible study as we've been discussing John.
Along these lines of Holy Spirit vs holy spirit, dechomai lambano etc... --- donald dicks come to the conclusion that nowhere in Wierwille's writings does he ever state the rule he uses to make his distinctions esp in holy spirit field. That means that we cannot examine his criteria. He explicitly points out how many times wierwille changed his mind on certain verses esp in rev chapter 3. And he even altered his supposed rules and broke them on several occasions. He goes on to say, having looked at his changes of mind in subsequent editions of Receiving the Holy spirit today and in some cases back and forth between capital H and lower case h which means all the difference in the world, he finds it hard to believe that Wierwille was "taught of God" when it came to making these distinctions.
Now we go back to a reoccuring theme in my posts which is IF you are going to make these kind of changes then do they not need to put out a paper or article discussing WHY they have made the changes? How can you change a verse from the giver to the gift and not think it is important enough to put out a letter or something explaining the change in theology?
I don't think you're beating a dead horse at all, but you are demonstrating why I wouldn't call the illegitimacy discussion one of PFAL's "actual errors." There's lots of room for discussion and debate on who knew what, where and when.
Yes, people could have counted backward from his birth date and started scratching their heads.
Yes, there COULD HAVE been rumors that Mary cheated on Joseph while betrothed to him.
Yes, there COULD HAVE been rumors that Mary and Joseph got together before they were supposed to.
It COULD BE that the record in Acts 8 was not referring at all to the circumstances of Jesus' conception. It could also be that the record WAS about it.
In my opinion, it CANNOT BE that Luke 2:41 ff has anything whatsoever to do with the circumstances of Jesus' conception. 40 years of failure to produce the "old piece of literature" convinces me that this was simply an error. There's OODLES of information to indicate that young men went through a coming of age (NOT a Bar-mitzvah, but a predecessor of what that ceremony came to commemorate) at age 12 at various times.
Personally, I think the reason the record refers to Jesus being 12 years old is, that's the year he was left behind yapping with the rabbis in the Temple. There's no evidence that younger children weren't around. Those who speculate that this verse makes any reference to Jesus' Bar-mitzvah (or equivalent) are 100% speculating. There's nothing in the text to justify it.
But this thread isn't about "Blind speculation in PFAL," or I would have made fun of the silly insistence that Judas was present in Acts 1.
This is about "Actual Errors," which is why I conceded to Goey's evidence and agreed to remove it from the list.
---------------------------------------------
Troubledwine:
For the purpose of the larger discussion at hand, all I will say is this: Wierwille's comfort at going back over what he wrote and adding words, subtracting words, and changing words is, to me, proof positive that he did NOT consider his own writings to be "The Word of God," else he would not have had the audacity to tamper with it.
What the Hay's post made it clear, by quoting Wierwille himself, that Wierwille AT THE VERY LEAST considered it possible that his research is a wrong dividing of God's Word. "Either way, I accept full responsibility," Wierwille writes.
I believe Wierwille was trying to be three things when it comes to dechomai and lambano, Holy Spirit and holy spirit. He was trying to be simple, exhaustive and consistent. So as he considered his words more, he edited. Writers do that all the time. I've won PRIZES for writing I'd love to go back and fix.
Problem is, once you commit something to writing, it's there. You can't escape it. It's right there in black and white.
In short, the answer to your question is, Wierwille's writing wasn't perfect and he knew it. No one was claiming that his writing WAS perfect. Well, not until recently, anyway.
At the risk of getting sidetracked here.....I'm still thinking about the discussion about whether or not Jesus was considered "illegitimate" by family and friends or whoever. I don't think the circumstances of his birth were as obvious as Grizz and Raf seem to think.
[and]
Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here. These are simply things I've been wondering about since they came up in my bible study as we've been discussing John.
Ex10,
Sidetrack or not, it stems from the main discussion and you’re interested. As I said, I haven’t studied this stuff in years but I did once. Here are a few things I remember from that study that you may wish to consider. (Throw in qualifiers like “I think” or “it seems to me” wherever it seems appropriate.)
An illegitimate child is one born out of wedlock, not one conceived out of wedlock.
Even modern cultures don’t consider a marriage to be consummated until the couple has sexual intercourse. In our culture, a marriage that is not consummated can be annulled. After it is consummated, a divorce is required to end the marriage. That first time was even more significant in the Bible (tokens of virginity – Deuteronomy 22:13-21).
Mary was already espoused to Joseph when Gabriel visited her. Espousal was not the same as a modern engagement. It was legally binding and espoused couples were considered to be married. “Espoused” simply meant that they had not yet consummated their marriage. Biblically, the only permissible reason for a husband to put away his espoused wife was fornication, which is why the tokens of virginity were so important to them.
The Bible does not say that Mary conceived at the time of Gabriel’s visit or that she was pregnant when she visited Elizabeth. Elizabeth said, “there shall be a performance of those things…” That could include a yet future conception.
Matthew 1:18 says that Mary was espoused to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant. It does not say how far along her pregnancy was. It also does not say who found her to be pregnant. Considering the loose clothing she would have worn, it probably wouldn’t have been the neighbors. It would be much more likely that Joseph found her to be pregnant just before their intended first “get together.” That would be the normal time when the question of what to do about a wife who had (possibly) committed fornication would come up (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Joseph was considering that question when the angel appeared to him.
Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph did not know Mary until after she had brought forth Jesus. That is why Mary was still Joseph’s “espoused” wife at the time of Jesus’ birth. They had not yet consummated their marriage. However, they were clearly living together, so everyone else would likely have thought that they had.
The people clearly thought that Jesus was Joseph’s son. Even if counting back from Jesus’ birth would have brought up questions about when Joseph and Mary first came together, it would not have brought up questions about Jesus’ legitimacy because Joseph and Mary were already married before Jesus was conceived, even though they had not yet come together. Even if Joseph and Mary had never known of each other’s existence until after Jesus was conceived, it is likely that the people would have just assumed something along the lines of Deuteronomy 22:28,29, in which case Jesus would still be legitimate. They almost certainly wouldn’t have assumed that Mary had “played the whore in her father’s house” (Deuteronomy 22:21) because they would have assumed that if she had, Joseph would have done exactly what he considered doing, except that they probably would have assumed the “publick example” option.
[This message was edited by Long Gone on January 18, 2003 at 13:26.]
Now you and I and most everyone on this thread seem to be able to approach his writing from a "prove all things and hold fast that which is good" point of view. By sheer logic that verse also means to not hold fast the things which are not good. Why can TWI not do the same? I'll give credit to VPW that he did debate his own research and change his interpretations in this holy spirit field but I still can't fathom the lack of explanation from him or the current BOD.
The presumption surrounding Jesus WAS that he was the son of Joseph, not one who was conceived through fornication as John 8 would suggest.
While an alternative explanation for John 8 exists (and has been presented on this thread), no alternative explanation exists for Matthew 13:53-58. COMPLETELY CONTRARY to Wierwille's so called "excellent point" in PFAL, Jesus was NOT rejected because his parenthood was questioned. It says right there in the verse that Joseph was presumed to be his father. Jesus was rejected precisely because they KNEW his family, not because they did not!
Let's not forget the clear record of Luke 3:23
quote:And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli
If Jesus was presumed to be the son of Joseph, as this verse CLEARLY STATES, then he was not presumed to be illegitimate.
How did I fail to see this before? Thank you, Long Gone!
Now, I am still way to early in this process to say that I've completely changed my mind on this subject, but it is DANGED compelling.
What say ye, judges? Is this enough to move Wierwille's interpretation into "actual error?"
---------
Troubledwine:
I can fathom a lack of explanation. There's really only one explanation possible: further research caused him to change his mind. He doesn't have to completely change his theology just because he changed a capital to a lower case or a d to an l, does he?
No I wouldn't say change of theology -- that is a little strong. But I would say that a change from uppercase Holy Spirit the giver to lower case holy spirit the gift warrants an explanation. This I think is the root of the problem -- he does not explain HOW he came to these conclusions so we cannot examine if his method was faulty.
Of course, the "official minority voice" on this thread would probably just say the method Wierwille used was direct revelation from God, so we're back at square one.
Two more points on the "illegitimacy" issue.
1. Wierwille writes that Jesus got bar-mitvah'd early because he was considered illegitimate. Actually, Joseph and Mary, knowing that he was NOT illegitimate, would not have considered him so, and would not have brought him through the process a year early (assuming such a tradition did exist, for which there is no evidence except an old piece of literature in the imagination of a man who conjures up snowstorms for dramatic effect).
2. I have been liberally using the terms "illegitimate" and, less frequently, "bastard" to describe children born out of wedlock. I've said this before on another thread, long long ago, but it bears repeating: I generally do not use these terms. While they began as neutral terms to describe people, the term bastard degenerated into an epithet, while the term "illegitimate" stopped being a legal reference and started being a cultural one. All children are legitimate, regardless of their parents' sins. I use the term with its old, non-judgmental meaning. It's also the term Wierwille used in PFAL. There is no offense intended in my repeating it.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 18, 2003 at 14:45.]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Goey
Rafael,
I am not really saying anything. Just looking at some evidence. No conculsions here either. But if bastard in Deut. means something else than just a child conceived out of wedlock, then the stigma may not have been as great as has been assumed.
In Luke 1, though it would seem that Elizabeth was also privy to Mary's conception.
After her visit from Gabriel, Mary left Nazareth and went to a "city in Juda" to live with Elizabeth for three months. She then returned to Nazareth when she was about three months pregnant but only espoused to Joseph.
Then in Luke 2:4-5 we see Mary and Joseph leave Nazareth for Bethlehem and Mary is "great with child" yet is still only epsoused/betrothed to Joseph. Wouldn't folks in Nazareth have known?
Is is possible that Joseph though to "put her away privily" to save her honor, the antithesis to that was to stick it out with God and accept the stigma that his "son" would be considered by the community as having been conceived before he and Mary were legally married. ?
Just some thoughts.
Goey
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Vert
I personally think they (the Pharisees) were doing both. They were defending themselves as well as accusing Jesus. In John 8:48, they called him both a Samaritan and demon-possessed.
To add to what LongGone said: The Samaritans were the ones who were the offspring of "spriritual fornication" ie the result of Jews intermarrying with pagans.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
ex10
I was just going to edit my post to say "or both"!!
You guys are really cool!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Zix,
Thanks, I did look at the Septuigant. In Deut 23: 2 the Greek used is "pornes" and is translated by Brenton as "one born of a harlot".
porn?s Greek for harlot or prostitute.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
I just read this from p3 of JCING by VPW.
Research doesn't begin with the answers; it looks for the answers. I did not willfully choose to find what I have found. Also, my conclusion therefore is no Johny-come-lately idea set forth to be iconoclstic, splashy or controversial. I have written up my years of research not to be argumentative, neither am I apologetic. I simply want to set forth my study as a workman for God, realizing that if the research is a right dividing of God's Word, many who believe will be blessed. If my research is a wrong dividing of God's Word, then I stand before God as an unapproved workman. Either way I accept full responsibility...
VPW from p3. of JCING.
VPW has been dead, what? 18 years almost? It's amazing how people still keep bringing up his words just to have something to strive over, usually with no other pupose than to be argumentative and controversial with other people regarding something he wrote years ago. Apparently they missed or overlooked this passage which he also wrote, much less understood his meaning behind it.
This passage doesn't come up very often in heated debates by any of VPW's critics though. Why is that? Probably because there ain't much in that passage one could reasonably argue over I guess. What's most ironic, this passage just happens to be taken from one of his MOST controversial books - JESUS CHRIST IS NOT GOD of all things!
Still, I don't think anything could be more of a total waste of one's precious time than attempting to stand approved before men over something VPW wrote many years ago, regardless if you agreed with whatever he wrote or not! What was that verse in 2 Timothy 2:15 again? Study to show thyself approved unto men? Ooops, that aint right! So I made a big boo boo in the bible myself. What are ya gonna do, argue about it? That would be pretty foolish. Why? Because that error is pretty obvious, readily seen by anyone. But one can't argue over the obvious (but some still do) quite as easily as the "not so obvious", which is what the critics really pick up on to show themselves approved unto ... who?
I came across a critics work a while back who was arguing with VPW over the four crucified with Jesus. They were insising it was only two crucified with Jesus. BTW, it was a very compelling argument the critic presented over the Greek meanings for the words heteros and allos (translated into the English word "other") one of the keys VPW uses to prove there were four crucified with Jesus instead of two. But the critic never dealt with this passage of scripture very well:
Mathew 27:44
The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his [Jesus] teeth. The preceding verses, 41,42, and 43 make it obvious the chief priests, elders, and others who were passing by reviled Jesus, and the theives who were crucified with Jesus did likewise.
The critic got all wrapped up and concerned over the "not so obvious" (the meanings behind the Greek words for heteros and allos) rather than choose to focus on the obvious. How could only two be crucified with Jesus, when Mathew 27:44 says both thieves railed him, while in Luke 23:39,40 only one of the malefactors railed him and the other defended him? But the critics seem to get around the obvious by making the theives out to be the same as the malefactors somehow. They also get around the obvious saying the Son of God means exactly the same thing as God the Son. Now that may be a different arguement, but still the same worn out unworkable reasoning.
If thieves mean the same as malefactors, and Son of God means the same as God the Son, I certainly see how the critic came to the conclusion heteros means the same as allos. What I fail to see is what makes the critic think I can draw the same conclusions. If this is the best argument the critic has, they have only proven they don't understand the meaning behind English words very well, let alone Greek! Why should we believe they have some deeper understanding of the meaning behind Greek words? (Put simply, who's kidding who?)
This critic hasn't convinced me of their conclusions, especially when their conclusions overlook (neglects may be a better word) the obvious things contained in the bible which are easily understood. One could argue the meanings "behind the Greek words in the bible" until h*ll froze over (well, you can argue the meaning behind English words too, lawyers do it all the time!) but it doesn't prove anything when you overlook the obvious. The more the critics argue and strive over the meanings behind the words, the less they seem to understand them apparently. It's bound to happen when you overlook and neglect the obvious, don't you know.
I can't say I am in agreement with everything VPW wrote, only because I haven't read everything he wrote. So what if you agree or don't agree with what VPW wrote? And what if I agree where you don't agree, and you agree with him where I don't? It's only VPW, not God. Maybe he should have wrote a sequel to JCING and called it: "VPW Is NOT God!"? I got a feeling people wouldn't even agree with him on that one, and now wouldn't that be scary!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
What The Hay-
"attempting to stand approved before men" ??
Nope - NOT - No Way
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
What The Hay - u said
"It's amazing how people still keep bringing up his words just to have something to strive over, usually with no other pupose than to be argumentative and controversial with other people regarding something he wrote years ago"
BEEP---Wrong Again, Not this Cafe (well maybe a little)
Maybe 1 day I'll tell you why I want the truth.
[This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 17, 2003 at 22:48.]
[This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 17, 2003 at 22:53.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
What The Hay says;
"So what if you agree or don't agree with what VPW wrote? And what if I agree where you don't agree, and you agree with him where I don't?"
So?????What????? twi's version of "likeminded" ain't happening here!
Try not to jump to conclusions
Peace
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What the Hay,
Welcome to our discussion. I'm honored that this thread inspired your first post.
I do believe you misunderstand the purpose of this thread, and that you will be surprised to learn that I disagree with little of what you have written. I think you make some very strong points.
Have you been reading along for long? Are you aware that this thread started because someone claims that the written works of VPW are God-breathed and therefore perfect? That PFAL (the book) is even MORE reliable than the Bible?
I TOTALLY agree with that. But if I were to tell you that VPW's written works are ALWAYS right and NEVER wrong, would you not challenge my presumption?
I have a reputation on these threads of not dismissing everything VPW wrote, nor accepting everything he wrote, but doing my best to compare it to the Bible in order to, as the Bible instructs, prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.
I don't always get it right. I sometimes change my mind about what I thought was right, or what I thought was wrong.
But I challenge the absurd argument that PFAL is always right. That is the purpose of this thread. If you have time, re-read the thread with that understanding, and you'll see that you and I are not as far apart as your post might initially indicate.
Wierwille's doctrine is our common denominator. It's fair game for discussion. The Bible teaches us to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. We're simply applying that principle to PFAL: in this case, pointing out the negative ONLY BECAUSE of the assertion that there IS NO negative in PFAL, that it's ALWAYS right, and that it is more reliable as God's Word than the Bible itself.
Perhaps there's a separate thread that needs to be written to discuss the perfectly valid role of criticism in just about every walk of life. My math teacher was very critical of my work, but his criticism helped improve my math grades. My writing coaches are often critical, but it makes me a better writer. Movie critics help us all decide whether to spend our hard earned money at the theaters. But let someone "criticize" a presentation that purports to be God's Word, and all of a sudden the critic is criticized! How ironic.
Again, nice post, welcome to the cafe, and please don't hold back. Speak up. Your voice is welcome (although I caution you, it WILL be challenged).
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm leaning towards what's been said about
slandering Jesus by "tarring" him with the
label "Samaritan". It would make a lot of
sense-notably in that same chapter, by those
"We're Children of ABRAHAM!" types.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
I think that it was very obvious that Jesus was born several weeks if not months before Joe and Mary hit their nine month anniversary.
Even in this day and age in many churches people count back from a birth to see if the woman *had* to get married.
First one can come at any time, after that it takes nine months.............
Grizzy COLOR>SIZE>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Grizz,
You're correct of course. Such counting could spark a rumor or two.
We do need to remember that betrothal is a lot stronger than what we think of as engagement. The only way to dissolve a betrothal was through divorce. Now, I could be wrong, but I suspect the first presumption would be that Mary and Joseph got together prematurely, because otherwise there would have been calls for punishing Mary, no?
I don't know. Fascinating discussion (and a good example of why I'm separating actual errors from interpretations).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
What the Hay,
Am I reading this right? Does this mean that it is only because you have not read "some" of VPW writings that you cannot say that you agree with "all" of them - implying that you do agree with "all" that you have read?
In any case, this thread has nothing to do with, "bringing up VPW's words just to have something to strive over..."
A claim was made by one poster that the PFAL book is/was God- breathed, and by covenant in 1942 it supersedes the scrptures which are horribly impotent. He further claims that it is only by "mastery" of PFAL that anyone can truly walk with God - implying that no person anywhere who does not "master" PFAL cannot really know God. In other words PFAL is Divine Truth and the God-breathed word and the Bible is a powerless approximation of the Word.
In response to these claims, this discussion is on the vein that if PFAL is indeed the Word of God, then as VPW taught, it must be error free, yet many have doccumented some errors. The one poster claims that these are only "apparent errors". We are attempting to have some dialog concerning these errors in PFAL.
So this thread has little to with anyone "attempting to stand approved before men" or simply to prove VPW wrong just for the sake of argument. The implications of what the one poster has claimed are serious enough that these errors, whether apparent or real, warrant debate and discussion.
BTW, Welcome to GreaseSpot.
Goey
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
This breathing in to receive holy spirit and the subsequest reversal of the order of verses in Acts 2 is an error. I bring this up here because it was taught in the foundational class PFAL but is printed in Receiving the holy spirit today.
Here is the research taken from this website:
http://www.caic.org.au/biblebase/way/inhaling.htm
------------------------------------------------------
INHALING THE SPIRIT or "What Was That Sound?"
by Douglas V. Morton
The Way International strives to teach of its members how they may "receive the holy spirit into manifestation" the act of believing and in-breathing. Victor Paul Wierwille, The Way's late founder, taught that opening one's mouth and breathing in deeply is an act of belief that God honors by bestowing the Holy Spirit upon the believer. (1) (Literature from The Way International always refers to the Holy Spirit in all lower-case letters. Most Christian literature capitalizes Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit is deity.)
New converts are taught a four-point method to help them receive, in a way they can sense, the Holy Spirit. First, the convert is told to become quiet and relaxed. Next, the convert is told to rest his head back "and breathe in deeply." (2) He is told that the "word 'inspiration' also means 'in-breathing." (3) The third step requires the convert to pray: "Father, I now receive the holy spirit, the power from on high, which you made available through Jesus Christ." (4) Finally, the convert is told to willfully move his lips, tongue and throat, making the sounds that are considered to be "Speaking-In-Tongues." The person doing this is told he is forming words that the spirit wants him to speak. (5)
Michael Gudorf, a writer for The Way International, says that one of the main reasons why born-again Christians are ignorant of the importance of speaking in tongues shortly after the new birth is that they have "a wrong interpretation of John 20:22." (6) Gudorf contends that the verse has been misunderstood because it has been mistranslated in most English texts. (7) He also believes that if the true meaning of John 20:22 is balanced with the remoter context of Genesis 2:7 and Acts 2:1-4, the student of scripture would be able to rightly divide and understand how this all relates to speaking in tongues. (8)
Traditional Christian scholarship has almost unanimously trans- lated John 20:22 similarly to the way it is recorded in the King James Version. (9) The KJV is as follows:
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost."
The Way contests this translation and offers one it believes is more accurate. The difference between The Way's version and the traditional one can be seen by taking a look at Wierwille's elaboration on this verse in his book Receiving the Holy Spirit Today.
And when he had said this, he breathed on (en, in; He breathed in) them, (delete), and saith unto them, "Receive (lambano) ye the Holy Ghost (pneuma hagion)." (10)
Scholars will not contest Wierwille's argument that the word "them" is not a part of the original text. The attestation of manuscripts using this word is very weak indeed. (11) However, just because the word is not present in the Greek text does not mean that we can not read it in our English text. What one needs to remember is that the reader of the Greek text is expected to supply the word "them" to the text when reading it. This is not uncommon in scripture and is known as ellipsis - when a word or words are omitted but are supposed to be supplied by the reader. (12) In Mark 6:5 the word (etherapeusen), meaning "he healed," is used without a direct object. The reader is expected to supply the word "them" (those who were sick) to the text. Matthew 8:25 tells the story of the disciples and Jesus on the stormy sea. The text says the disciples "having come (to him; i.e. Jesus) they awoke him saying, 'Lord, Save.'" The reader is expected to insert two missing words in the text. First, he is expected to know that the disciples came "to him" (Jesus) and second, he is expected to know that the Lord was to save "us" (the disciples). These are just two texts where one can see the use of a implied words. An in-depth study of the Old and New Testaments will reveal many more instances where ellipses were used. (13)
It should be no problem for the reader to insert the word "them" into the text of John 20:22, even though it is not present in the Greek text. Wierwille's deletion of this word is unfounded and unwarranted. The only reason Wierwille omits the word is because it helps support his translation of the Greek word enephusasen (meaning, "he breathed") in this verse.
Wierwille's translation of the Greek verb (enephusasen) is important in his misinterpretation of the text. Wierwille translates this Greek verb as "he breathed in." He seems to believe that by placing the word "en" (Greek preposition meaning "in") as a prefix to the Greek word phusao (meaning: "to puff") (14) that it must mean a type of inhaling on Jesus' part. According to Wierwille, Jesus was showing his disciples what they were to do on the day of Pentecost. Jesus' 'breathing in' was a type of demonstration that showed them what they were to do at the proper moment. They were to "breathe in heavily." (15)
Can the word enephusasen be translated as "to breathe in" or "inhale"? Wierwille would certainly have the reader believe so. However, the evidence does not support this translation. The New Testament can offer no help because it is found only in John 20:22. The verb used in this text is an aorist, active, indicative, third-person, singular form of the Greek word emphusao. While it is not used in any other place in the New Testament, it is used 11 times in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. (16)
In each case, the word carries with it the meaning of "to blow upon" and not "to breathe in" or "inhale". The classic example of the use of this word is recorded in Genesis 2:7 in the Septuagint. God formed man from the dust of the ground and "breathed upon (enephusesen) his face the breath of life."
A quick glance at various Greek lexicons also helps in understanding the meaning of this word. Liddell-Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon gives the basic meaning of the word as "blow in". (17) Bauer, Arndt, Ginrich and Danker's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature gives the meaning of the word as "breathe on". (18) Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament gives the meaning as "to blow" or "breathe on". (19) Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament gives the meaning as "to breathe upon" or "over". (20) Even E.W. Bullinger's Lexicon, which is used by The Way, gives the meaning of the word as "to breathe upon, blow upon." (21)
The unanimous evidence, therefore, shows that the word means to "blow upon" or "breathe upon." Jesus was not inhaling in John 20:22. He was not showing his disciples what they were to do on the day of Pentecost. He actually breathed upon them and said "receive the Holy Spirit." When Pentecost came, the loud sound heard by the people was not the disciples breathing hard, following the example of Jesus, but the Spirit of God coming upon them.
In light of the above evidence, Wierwille's teaching of "in-breathing" to receive the Holy Spirit is meaningless. Nowhere does scripture indicate that we receive spiritual power through breathing in, even if it is connected with believing. The Apostle Paul writes concerning receiving the Spirit:
"Did you receive (lambano) the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?"
The Holy Spirit is received by hearing the message of the Gospel and believing it. Any other way is considered "a work of the law" and against the Gospel.
The validity of speaking in tongues is not being questioned here. What is being questioned and rejected is Wierwille's mechanistic and unscriptural teaching concerning receiving the Spirit and speaking in tongues. The Way is certainly not a group from which one would want to learn about this special gift or ability. Its inability to understand this phenomena of scripture makes it a poor instructor in this and other teachings.
------------------------------------------------------
I always wondered why the need for the reversals of the scriptures. It's simple really -- what better sign than "the breath of life" to indicate the pouring forth of the new spiritual life -- the rushing mighty wind that filled all the house where they were sitting. Why all of this advanced theology? Because Wierwille spent too much time with pentecostal preachers and faith healers and all the other nonsense. This is where the scriptures were squeezed to lead people to speak in tongues out loud. It seems like many a thing taught in PFAL was towards that end -- hence the verses out of context -- the squeezing of dechomai and lambano into too narrow of definitons etc...
edited to clarify --- I am all for manifestations --- just not for twisting scripture
[This message was edited by troubledwine on January 18, 2003 at 8:43.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Troubledwine gives us much to digest.
I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the verse in John 20 should be translated "he breathed on them." But is it actual error or a difference of opinion? I don't know.
Likewise, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the definitions of dechomai and lambano were in some places oversimplified and in other places contorted. The fact that no one with an independent, non-Wierwille influenced knowledge of Greek can verify these definitions weighs heavily against the veracity of the definitions Wierwille provides.
Of course, when the counterargument is "God told him that's what those words mean," it's impossible to settle the point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
At the risk of getting sidetracked here.....I'm still thinking about the discussion about whether or not Jesus was considered "illegitimate" by family and friends or whoever. I don't think the circumstances of his birth were as obvious as Grizz and Raf seem to think.
Some of the reasons being.....Mary didn't spend her entire pregnancy in Nazareth. She went to visit her cousin Elizabeth, and then she and Joseph left town to go to Bethlehem before Jesus was born. Why take a difficult trip like that being "great with child?" Why did Mary and Joseph go when they did? Could it have been for "rumour control?" (The trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem was difficult enough in a tour bus, I can't imagine walking it being really pregnant.
:)--> )
Also, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem, I think they stayed there for a while (the Magi did see a young child living in a house) and then the family took off for Egypt and stayed there a while til Herod died. By the time they got back to Nazareth to settle down, it could've been years since Jesus' birth. Would anyone there have kept that close tabs on what was happening with Mary and Joseph?
In John 7:2-5 is an interesting fact. Even Jesus' brothers didn't believe in him. Did they know the miraculous circumstances of his birth? or not? Maybe they thought he was simply their big brother?
Also John 7:41-43 are interesting verses in light of this question. Evidently, the circumstnces of Jesus birth were not that well known.
Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here. These are simply things I've been wondering about since they came up in my bible study as we've been discussing John.
Carry on....
:)-->
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
Rafael,
Along these lines of Holy Spirit vs holy spirit, dechomai lambano etc... --- donald dicks come to the conclusion that nowhere in Wierwille's writings does he ever state the rule he uses to make his distinctions esp in holy spirit field. That means that we cannot examine his criteria. He explicitly points out how many times wierwille changed his mind on certain verses esp in rev chapter 3. And he even altered his supposed rules and broke them on several occasions. He goes on to say, having looked at his changes of mind in subsequent editions of Receiving the Holy spirit today and in some cases back and forth between capital H and lower case h which means all the difference in the world, he finds it hard to believe that Wierwille was "taught of God" when it came to making these distinctions.
Now we go back to a reoccuring theme in my posts which is IF you are going to make these kind of changes then do they not need to put out a paper or article discussing WHY they have made the changes? How can you change a verse from the giver to the gift and not think it is important enough to put out a letter or something explaining the change in theology?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
ex10:
I don't think you're beating a dead horse at all, but you are demonstrating why I wouldn't call the illegitimacy discussion one of PFAL's "actual errors." There's lots of room for discussion and debate on who knew what, where and when.
Yes, people could have counted backward from his birth date and started scratching their heads.
Yes, there COULD HAVE been rumors that Mary cheated on Joseph while betrothed to him.
Yes, there COULD HAVE been rumors that Mary and Joseph got together before they were supposed to.
It COULD BE that the record in Acts 8 was not referring at all to the circumstances of Jesus' conception. It could also be that the record WAS about it.
In my opinion, it CANNOT BE that Luke 2:41 ff has anything whatsoever to do with the circumstances of Jesus' conception. 40 years of failure to produce the "old piece of literature" convinces me that this was simply an error. There's OODLES of information to indicate that young men went through a coming of age (NOT a Bar-mitzvah, but a predecessor of what that ceremony came to commemorate) at age 12 at various times.
Personally, I think the reason the record refers to Jesus being 12 years old is, that's the year he was left behind yapping with the rabbis in the Temple. There's no evidence that younger children weren't around. Those who speculate that this verse makes any reference to Jesus' Bar-mitzvah (or equivalent) are 100% speculating. There's nothing in the text to justify it.
But this thread isn't about "Blind speculation in PFAL," or I would have made fun of the silly insistence that Judas was present in Acts 1.
This is about "Actual Errors," which is why I conceded to Goey's evidence and agreed to remove it from the list.
---------------------------------------------
Troubledwine:
For the purpose of the larger discussion at hand, all I will say is this: Wierwille's comfort at going back over what he wrote and adding words, subtracting words, and changing words is, to me, proof positive that he did NOT consider his own writings to be "The Word of God," else he would not have had the audacity to tamper with it.
What the Hay's post made it clear, by quoting Wierwille himself, that Wierwille AT THE VERY LEAST considered it possible that his research is a wrong dividing of God's Word. "Either way, I accept full responsibility," Wierwille writes.
I believe Wierwille was trying to be three things when it comes to dechomai and lambano, Holy Spirit and holy spirit. He was trying to be simple, exhaustive and consistent. So as he considered his words more, he edited. Writers do that all the time. I've won PRIZES for writing I'd love to go back and fix.
Problem is, once you commit something to writing, it's there. You can't escape it. It's right there in black and white.
In short, the answer to your question is, Wierwille's writing wasn't perfect and he knew it. No one was claiming that his writing WAS perfect. Well, not until recently, anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Ex10,
Sidetrack or not, it stems from the main discussion and you’re interested. As I said, I haven’t studied this stuff in years but I did once. Here are a few things I remember from that study that you may wish to consider. (Throw in qualifiers like “I think” or “it seems to me” wherever it seems appropriate.)
An illegitimate child is one born out of wedlock, not one conceived out of wedlock.
Even modern cultures don’t consider a marriage to be consummated until the couple has sexual intercourse. In our culture, a marriage that is not consummated can be annulled. After it is consummated, a divorce is required to end the marriage. That first time was even more significant in the Bible (tokens of virginity – Deuteronomy 22:13-21).
Mary was already espoused to Joseph when Gabriel visited her. Espousal was not the same as a modern engagement. It was legally binding and espoused couples were considered to be married. “Espoused” simply meant that they had not yet consummated their marriage. Biblically, the only permissible reason for a husband to put away his espoused wife was fornication, which is why the tokens of virginity were so important to them.
The Bible does not say that Mary conceived at the time of Gabriel’s visit or that she was pregnant when she visited Elizabeth. Elizabeth said, “there shall be a performance of those things…” That could include a yet future conception.
Matthew 1:18 says that Mary was espoused to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant. It does not say how far along her pregnancy was. It also does not say who found her to be pregnant. Considering the loose clothing she would have worn, it probably wouldn’t have been the neighbors. It would be much more likely that Joseph found her to be pregnant just before their intended first “get together.” That would be the normal time when the question of what to do about a wife who had (possibly) committed fornication would come up (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Joseph was considering that question when the angel appeared to him.
Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph did not know Mary until after she had brought forth Jesus. That is why Mary was still Joseph’s “espoused” wife at the time of Jesus’ birth. They had not yet consummated their marriage. However, they were clearly living together, so everyone else would likely have thought that they had.
The people clearly thought that Jesus was Joseph’s son. Even if counting back from Jesus’ birth would have brought up questions about when Joseph and Mary first came together, it would not have brought up questions about Jesus’ legitimacy because Joseph and Mary were already married before Jesus was conceived, even though they had not yet come together. Even if Joseph and Mary had never known of each other’s existence until after Jesus was conceived, it is likely that the people would have just assumed something along the lines of Deuteronomy 22:28,29, in which case Jesus would still be legitimate. They almost certainly wouldn’t have assumed that Mary had “played the whore in her father’s house” (Deuteronomy 22:21) because they would have assumed that if she had, Joseph would have done exactly what he considered doing, except that they probably would have assumed the “publick example” option.
[This message was edited by Long Gone on January 18, 2003 at 13:26.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
Rafael,
Now you and I and most everyone on this thread seem to be able to approach his writing from a "prove all things and hold fast that which is good" point of view. By sheer logic that verse also means to not hold fast the things which are not good. Why can TWI not do the same? I'll give credit to VPW that he did debate his own research and change his interpretations in this holy spirit field but I still can't fathom the lack of explanation from him or the current BOD.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Long Gone,
I think you made a couple of MAJOR, MAJOR points.
The presumption surrounding Jesus WAS that he was the son of Joseph, not one who was conceived through fornication as John 8 would suggest.
While an alternative explanation for John 8 exists (and has been presented on this thread), no alternative explanation exists for Matthew 13:53-58. COMPLETELY CONTRARY to Wierwille's so called "excellent point" in PFAL, Jesus was NOT rejected because his parenthood was questioned. It says right there in the verse that Joseph was presumed to be his father. Jesus was rejected precisely because they KNEW his family, not because they did not!
Let's not forget the clear record of Luke 3:23
If Jesus was presumed to be the son of Joseph, as this verse CLEARLY STATES, then he was not presumed to be illegitimate.
How did I fail to see this before? Thank you, Long Gone!
Now, I am still way to early in this process to say that I've completely changed my mind on this subject, but it is DANGED compelling.
What say ye, judges? Is this enough to move Wierwille's interpretation into "actual error?"
---------
Troubledwine:
I can fathom a lack of explanation. There's really only one explanation possible: further research caused him to change his mind. He doesn't have to completely change his theology just because he changed a capital to a lower case or a d to an l, does he?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
Rafael,
No I wouldn't say change of theology -- that is a little strong. But I would say that a change from uppercase Holy Spirit the giver to lower case holy spirit the gift warrants an explanation. This I think is the root of the problem -- he does not explain HOW he came to these conclusions so we cannot examine if his method was faulty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh, I see what you're saying, tw.
Of course, the "official minority voice" on this thread would probably just say the method Wierwille used was direct revelation from God, so we're back at square one.
Two more points on the "illegitimacy" issue.
1. Wierwille writes that Jesus got bar-mitvah'd early because he was considered illegitimate. Actually, Joseph and Mary, knowing that he was NOT illegitimate, would not have considered him so, and would not have brought him through the process a year early (assuming such a tradition did exist, for which there is no evidence except an old piece of literature in the imagination of a man who conjures up snowstorms for dramatic effect).
2. I have been liberally using the terms "illegitimate" and, less frequently, "bastard" to describe children born out of wedlock. I've said this before on another thread, long long ago, but it bears repeating: I generally do not use these terms. While they began as neutral terms to describe people, the term bastard degenerated into an epithet, while the term "illegitimate" stopped being a legal reference and started being a cultural one. All children are legitimate, regardless of their parents' sins. I use the term with its old, non-judgmental meaning. It's also the term Wierwille used in PFAL. There is no offense intended in my repeating it.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 18, 2003 at 14:45.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
This insensitive bastard thinks that your use of those words in this thread is legitimate.
;)-->
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.