On Ubiquitous Mike's other thread, you quoted this verse:
quote:Matthew 12:43: When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
44: Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
45: Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.
Going back a couple of pages when you were talking about pronouns, haven't you just furnished proof that Wierwille was incorrect when he said that every pronoun refers back to the closest noun (paraphrasing, because I don't remember exactly what Wierwille said)? When Wierwille taught the meaning of that verse, didn't he indicate that "he" refers back to the unclean spirit rather than the man, as in "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he [referring to the unclean spirit, not the man, which is the closest noun] walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none."
I'm not sure if this fits the criteria for an Actual Error, but you and Rafael were looking for examples of times that Wierwille may have broken his own rule about pronouns. I know none of this would make it through Mike's thick skull, but it seems to illustrate the point about pronouns that you were making earlier. Does it?
"When a creative thought comes to a man, he must write it down." 'Man' is the proper antecedent for 'he'.
"When an unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places..." 'He' has an ambiguous antecedent. Either the spirit walketh, or the man walketh.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Hi Steve. I'll be out of town on business for a few days, so I wont' be able to address your posts. I'm still mulling them over, though.
And yes--I say, Yes I AM taking diction lessons from Foghorn Leghorn. What was your first clue? Stay with me boy! I keep pitchin `em and you keep duckin'!(Nice boy, but he's about as sharp as a bowlin' ball)
Oh well. I made the effort. But I'll keep my eyes open for others. Actually, the only thing I remember about Wierwille's rules of grammar is that by the time he had finished illustrating the "rule" the entire meaning of the verse (or whatever he was expounding on) bore little resemblance to what made complete sense to begin with. I thought that the purpose for using proper grammar was to make the meaning of language clearer. In The Way, it seemed to distort things. Like those verses in Ecclesiastes. They seem to be illustrating the futility of a spiritual existence, not evidence of a tripartite man. I wonder if using verses to illustrate a point other than the point they are intended to illustrate isn't an Actual Error in itself.
Ecclesiates 3:21 is not making a statement about where "souls" go. It is asking a question which was answered in the two previous verses, both humans and animals "have all one breath ['ruach' = 'wind' or 'spirit']. When they die, all the dust returns to dust; all the spirit returns to God, Who gave it.
Okay, if you want to distinguish between spirit and soul, that's understandable. Personally, I think they're often used synonymously in the Old Testament, but let's that aside for a moment. Verse 21 clearly says that the spirit of the beast and the spirit of man do not go to the same place. There is a distinction made between the fate of the spirit of man and that of the spirit of an animal. I think this makes perfect sense because, from the beginning, God made a distinction between them, giving Adam dominion over animals.
This hierarchy of soul life is seen in the first chapters of Genesis in God's reaction to bloodshed.
Genesis 4:4
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
How does one offer fat of the flock but by slaying an animal? God accepted this offering, indicating that Abel's taking of the life of an innocent creature was a good thing. Compare that with His reaction to the taking of a human life.
quote:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
In contrast to Abel's offering, which was pleasing to the Lord, Cain was rebuked by the Lord and told that the ground was cursed by the shedding of Abel's blood. I think this makes a clear and compelling argument that there is an enormous difference in God's eyes betwen the soul lif of men and animals. Hence the declaration in Ecclesiastes that they both go to one place (dust), but the spirit of man goes back to God who gave it, while the spirit of the beast goes downward to the earth.
In my--I say, in my opinion, this is part of what it means to be "created in the image of God." God gave the human spirit certain elements of His creative nature, self-awareness, shame and pride, compassion, etc. Animals have the same basic physical elements as people, and have breath life, like people, but are vastly different in the nature of that life; in the character of that life, an intangible which the Bible refers to as "spirit".
Peace
JerryB
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on April 28, 2003 at 23:53.]
God bless you, Jerry! I'm feeling a little down tonight. I don't know if it's because I need to go bring my blood sugar up, or because my wife is leaving tomorrow on a trip that's going to last a little over three weeks. I don't agree with your interpretation of Ecclesiates, but I don't feel like hashing it out tonight.
I do think the OT makes a strong distinction between "soul" and "spirit" in most places, mainly in the fact that "soul" seems to be able to die, while "spirit" does not. There are a number of verses that escape interpretation according to my present understanding, which is one of the reasons I'm being a lot more tentative about this than I was about "administrations".
One of the passages of Scripture that has heavily influenced my thinking is Ezekiel 37:1-14. I never payed much attention to this passage until about a year-and-a-half or two years ago. I didn't think it could apply to me since I'm obviously part of the Church, and since the existence of the Church was the great ***MYSTERY***, nothing in the OT could apply to *me*!
But... since improving my understanding of what the "new testament" is, and what Paul was writing about when he referred to the mystery first revealed to him, I'm seeing a lot of ties between the OT and the NT that I never saw before.
I currently think Ezekiel 37:1-14 is a description of the resurrection, and what we call the "gathering together", since we now know that not all shall die, but we shall all be changed. I think the spirit described in Ezekiel 37 was the spirit Jesus was referring to in John 3:5-8. I no longer believe, necessarily, that we were literally "born again" when we received the spirit that was first shed forth on the day of Pentecost. I think we were figuratively "born again" because the Pentecost spirit is our earnest (or "down payment", or "option") of receiving the spirit of the "new birth" at the time of the gathering together.
All for now. I am certainly thankful for your fellowship in this quest for understanding. It's nice to converse with sane people on this board from time to time :-)
I know how you feel Steve. I'm kind of down tonight myself, but I'm not sure why. Nor do I have much interest in continuing this particular discussion. I'd like to get back to sorting out the particulars of eternal life and the hope. But I'll make one more point before retiring.
quote:I do think the OT makes a strong distinction between "soul" and "spirit" in most places, mainly in the fact that "soul" seems to be able to die, while "spirit" does not.
This distinction doesn't seem to fit some of the earliest usages of the word ruach, particularly those recounting the flood.
quote:Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath (ruach) of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath (ruach) of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
And of course, the verses we've already tossed back and forth in Ecclesiastes 3 use the word ruach in the context of death. So I don't see the distinction between spirit and soul being made by mortality.
I tend to agree with VP on this point. "Spirit of life" is simply another term for soul life indicating that a soul is not part of the physical realm.
The problem, as I see it, in defining Old Testament terms such as soul and spirit is the great variety of ways in which they're used. If we followed VP's example and came up with a different usage for each Biblical variant of nephesh or ruach depending on its context, we'd probably have a list of at least 12 distinct usages for each word. That makes it rather difficult to nail down what these terms mean in any specific sense.
Concerning Ezekiel, I see where you are making the connection between wind and spirit, but I see this as figurative. The purpose of the prophesy, in my humble opinion, is not to teach us that spirit means moving air, but to compare the wind reanimating dead people to the spirit of God giving life in the resurrection. This comparison is seen in Jesus statement to Nicodemus.
quote:John 3:7&8
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Just as we see the effects of the wind, but not the wind itself, we see the effects of spirit, but cannot see spirit itself. So, as I see it, wind is a figure of speech representing the intangible power of spirit.
One of the intersesting aspects of Ezekiel that is echoed in I Corinthians 15:50 and Luke 24:39. All of these verses refer to resurrected, spiritual bodies and all of them imply bloodless flesh. I Corinthians 15:50 says flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven. It seems to me that blood, which is associated with the tainted souls we inherited from Big Daddy Adam, will not be carried into the Kingdom of Heaven. The body will be purified by spirit and we who are living souls will become beings of spirit and flesh.
quote:
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Maybe tomorrow?
JerryB
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on April 29, 2003 at 0:28.]
"I no longer believe, necessarily, that we were literally "born again" when we received the spirit that was first shed forth on the day of Pentecost. I think we were figuratively "born again" because the Pentecost spirit is our earnest (or "down payment", or "option") of receiving the spirit of the "new birth" at the time of the gathering together."
I have thought that for a while. The holy spirit we have now is a "token" of that which is to come at the rapture gathering together.
When was Jesus born again? God said of Jesus, "This day have I begotten thee"
referring to the day that God raised Jesus from the dead and gave him an incorruptable body.
I thnk we've strayed back into the field of interpretational errors. We should probably move this discussion to Steve's Even Deeper Do-Do thread. Despite the fact that Rafael has been called away to higher priorities, we should try to keep this thread on track. So, I move we table this discussion and decide whether VP's statements on this matter should be counted as an Actual Error.
Way back on April 16, Wordwolf voted that the statement in PFAL that a human soul goes nowhere at death should be counted as an actual error, based on the passage in Ecclesiastes 3:19-21. Do we have a consensus on that one?
I agree that our discussion in the last few posts would be more appropriate on the deeper do-do thread. I think Wierwille was partially right about the soul "going nowhere" upon death, but for all the wrong reasons. I think what Wierwille taught was a number of actual errors compounded, but none of them are easily demonstrable, which cuts across Rafael's stated purposes for this thread.
I'm putting the "David was a man after God's own heart" error back on the list.
After learning that David is called "a man after God's own heart" in Acts 13:22, long after the events recorded in II Samuel, my original response was to remove this error from the list. I am no longer inclined to do so. I believe a plain reading of PFAL indicates that, according to Wierwille, David is called "a man after God's own heart" when speaking specifically of a time after the incidents recorded in II Samuel 12. Acts 13:22 is rather plainly speaking of a time before those recorded events. The error stands.
Since it's been a while, I thought I'd remind people of the purpose of this thread.
The point of this thread is to show that Wierwille's works are not free from error or contradiction, and as such, they do not meet Wierwille's own standard for what it means to be "God-breathed."
It was never this thread's purpose to delve into doctrinal differences with Wierwillian theology.
I thought that if we could show, with clarity, that Wierwille sometimes made mistakes, we could establish that he, and not God, was the author of the books that bear his name (plagiarism aside).
I was, frankly, unprepared for the brutal intellectual dishonesty and sycophantic idolatry of my "debate" opponent.
If people want to believe that Wierwille's works are God-breathed, then so be it. It's not my concern. Nothing in Christ's directives to the church instruct us to contend with lunacy. And clearly, dialogue is only a motivating factor on one side of this discussion. Last I checked, it's hard to have a constructive discussion when only one side is actually listening and while the other side has repeatedly declared its intention not to listen to anything that would contradict its preconceived conclusions.
quote:"But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."
How about where Wierwille claims that "Godhead" means "head God"?
(my apologies if this has been discussed before)
I'll look up the Greek word and the definition later, but I recall that it means something like "divine", or "deriving from God". There is nothing in the Greek word to indicate that the "head" portion of the word Godhead means chief or paramount.
In fact even the 16th century use of the suffix "head" indicates source, e.g. "the fountainhead of truth.
Actual error?...
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
As this thread evolved, we tried to look only at errors that are actually in print in the Wierwille canon. So, if you can see in the magazines (which I do not have) or the books (which I do have) where Wierwille wrote what you say about the Godhead-head God, then we might have an actual error (assuming the rest of what you write is not only true, but indisputably so).
Def,
I think I've looked at some of the John Juedes work for this thread's purposes, except I might have credited his source rather than crediting him. I'm not too sure about that.
I know he wrote an interesting challenge to "The Four Crucified," but using a rather loose definition, I consider his conclusions disputable.
I know this got tiresome after a while, but in reality, the whole purpose of this thread was to show that the Wierwille books do not meet Wierwille's own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. They contain the kind of miniscule errors Wierwille said would be enough to cause the Bible to fall to pieces (orthotomounta instead of orthotomeo, for example). They contain baseless speculation with no foundation whatsoever in accepted scripture (David WOULD HAVE beheaded Nathan if he had told any other story). They contain significant misinterpretations of obvious Biblical truths (the difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven).
The response to these indisputable errors has been to attack us all as "unfit researchers" intent on finding what's wrong. Of course, that's hardly what we were doing. What we were intent on was proving that there are errors in those books.
The response to these indisputable errors has been a fundamentally dishonest approach that gloats in evading the valid challenges to the inerrancy of the Wierwille breathed word.
I haven't really thought much about returning to this thread because I think its purpose was served. Those who hold Wierwille's works to be God-breathed have not shown the ability to honestly and effectively address a single one of these errors, and at least one has bragged about his antipathy toward doing so. The basis is not the quality of the work here, but a false accusation about our motives.
Wierwille's work was not perfect. He never claimed it was. Wierwille's work was not God-breathed. He never claimed it was. Wierwille's work was not intended to replace the Bible as some kind of bizarro-world, "New and Improved Testament." He never claimed it was.
If someone's happy disagreeing with the above paragraph, I say go in peace.
HI RAFAEL!! Good to see ya! I hope all is well with you.
I'm in Raleigh, NC now, still quite busy opening a new office & warehouse, but I try to keep abreast of a few threads. I just got internet access back yesterday, so I've got some catching up to do.
And I'm pleased that you restored the David stuff to the list. There are several things wrong with Wierwille's presentation of that material, imo.
Oakspear - I looked "godhead" up in the Oxford unabriged dictionary one time when I was analysing a paper Dale Sides wrote on the subject. "Godhead" is an antique variant English spelling of the English word "godhood". The Greek words could have been as easily translated "divinity" or "godness" or "diety" or something else like that. In the verses where the KJV has "godhead", there isn't anything in the Greek that corresponds to the English idea of being "head" or "chief".
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
laleo
Zixar:
On Ubiquitous Mike's other thread, you quoted this verse:
Going back a couple of pages when you were talking about pronouns, haven't you just furnished proof that Wierwille was incorrect when he said that every pronoun refers back to the closest noun (paraphrasing, because I don't remember exactly what Wierwille said)? When Wierwille taught the meaning of that verse, didn't he indicate that "he" refers back to the unclean spirit rather than the man, as in "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he [referring to the unclean spirit, not the man, which is the closest noun] walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none."
I'm not sure if this fits the criteria for an Actual Error, but you and Rafael were looking for examples of times that Wierwille may have broken his own rule about pronouns. I know none of this would make it through Mike's thick skull, but it seems to illustrate the point about pronouns that you were making earlier. Does it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
laleo: Absolutely. Good catch. Like this:
"When a creative thought comes to a man, he must write it down." 'Man' is the proper antecedent for 'he'.
"When an unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places..." 'He' has an ambiguous antecedent. Either the spirit walketh, or the man walketh.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Actually, VPW's quote was in regard to relative pronouns (who, which, what, that, etc.) so technically, this isn't a supporting verse after all.
Sorry, I didn't remember that sooner...
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Hi Steve. I'll be out of town on business for a few days, so I wont' be able to address your posts. I'm still mulling them over, though.
And yes--I say, Yes I AM taking diction lessons from Foghorn Leghorn. What was your first clue? Stay with me boy! I keep pitchin `em and you keep duckin'!(Nice boy, but he's about as sharp as a bowlin' ball)
Peace!
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Zixar,
Oh well. I made the effort. But I'll keep my eyes open for others. Actually, the only thing I remember about Wierwille's rules of grammar is that by the time he had finished illustrating the "rule" the entire meaning of the verse (or whatever he was expounding on) bore little resemblance to what made complete sense to begin with. I thought that the purpose for using proper grammar was to make the meaning of language clearer. In The Way, it seemed to distort things. Like those verses in Ecclesiastes. They seem to be illustrating the futility of a spiritual existence, not evidence of a tripartite man. I wonder if using verses to illustrate a point other than the point they are intended to illustrate isn't an Actual Error in itself.
Carry on . . .
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Have fun, Jerry! I'm looking forward to reading the fruits of your mulling.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Okay, if you want to distinguish between spirit and soul, that's understandable. Personally, I think they're often used synonymously in the Old Testament, but let's that aside for a moment. Verse 21 clearly says that the spirit of the beast and the spirit of man do not go to the same place. There is a distinction made between the fate of the spirit of man and that of the spirit of an animal. I think this makes perfect sense because, from the beginning, God made a distinction between them, giving Adam dominion over animals.
This hierarchy of soul life is seen in the first chapters of Genesis in God's reaction to bloodshed.
Genesis 4:4
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
How does one offer fat of the flock but by slaying an animal? God accepted this offering, indicating that Abel's taking of the life of an innocent creature was a good thing. Compare that with His reaction to the taking of a human life.
In contrast to Abel's offering, which was pleasing to the Lord, Cain was rebuked by the Lord and told that the ground was cursed by the shedding of Abel's blood. I think this makes a clear and compelling argument that there is an enormous difference in God's eyes betwen the soul lif of men and animals. Hence the declaration in Ecclesiastes that they both go to one place (dust), but the spirit of man goes back to God who gave it, while the spirit of the beast goes downward to the earth.
In my--I say, in my opinion, this is part of what it means to be "created in the image of God." God gave the human spirit certain elements of His creative nature, self-awareness, shame and pride, compassion, etc. Animals have the same basic physical elements as people, and have breath life, like people, but are vastly different in the nature of that life; in the character of that life, an intangible which the Bible refers to as "spirit".
Peace
JerryB
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on April 28, 2003 at 23:53.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
God bless you, Jerry! I'm feeling a little down tonight. I don't know if it's because I need to go bring my blood sugar up, or because my wife is leaving tomorrow on a trip that's going to last a little over three weeks. I don't agree with your interpretation of Ecclesiates, but I don't feel like hashing it out tonight.
I do think the OT makes a strong distinction between "soul" and "spirit" in most places, mainly in the fact that "soul" seems to be able to die, while "spirit" does not. There are a number of verses that escape interpretation according to my present understanding, which is one of the reasons I'm being a lot more tentative about this than I was about "administrations".
One of the passages of Scripture that has heavily influenced my thinking is Ezekiel 37:1-14. I never payed much attention to this passage until about a year-and-a-half or two years ago. I didn't think it could apply to me since I'm obviously part of the Church, and since the existence of the Church was the great ***MYSTERY***, nothing in the OT could apply to *me*!
But... since improving my understanding of what the "new testament" is, and what Paul was writing about when he referred to the mystery first revealed to him, I'm seeing a lot of ties between the OT and the NT that I never saw before.
I currently think Ezekiel 37:1-14 is a description of the resurrection, and what we call the "gathering together", since we now know that not all shall die, but we shall all be changed. I think the spirit described in Ezekiel 37 was the spirit Jesus was referring to in John 3:5-8. I no longer believe, necessarily, that we were literally "born again" when we received the spirit that was first shed forth on the day of Pentecost. I think we were figuratively "born again" because the Pentecost spirit is our earnest (or "down payment", or "option") of receiving the spirit of the "new birth" at the time of the gathering together.
All for now. I am certainly thankful for your fellowship in this quest for understanding. It's nice to converse with sane people on this board from time to time :-)
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I know how you feel Steve. I'm kind of down tonight myself, but I'm not sure why. Nor do I have much interest in continuing this particular discussion. I'd like to get back to sorting out the particulars of eternal life and the hope. But I'll make one more point before retiring.
This distinction doesn't seem to fit some of the earliest usages of the word ruach, particularly those recounting the flood.
And of course, the verses we've already tossed back and forth in Ecclesiastes 3 use the word ruach in the context of death. So I don't see the distinction between spirit and soul being made by mortality.
I tend to agree with VP on this point. "Spirit of life" is simply another term for soul life indicating that a soul is not part of the physical realm.
The problem, as I see it, in defining Old Testament terms such as soul and spirit is the great variety of ways in which they're used. If we followed VP's example and came up with a different usage for each Biblical variant of nephesh or ruach depending on its context, we'd probably have a list of at least 12 distinct usages for each word. That makes it rather difficult to nail down what these terms mean in any specific sense.
Concerning Ezekiel, I see where you are making the connection between wind and spirit, but I see this as figurative. The purpose of the prophesy, in my humble opinion, is not to teach us that spirit means moving air, but to compare the wind reanimating dead people to the spirit of God giving life in the resurrection. This comparison is seen in Jesus statement to Nicodemus.
Just as we see the effects of the wind, but not the wind itself, we see the effects of spirit, but cannot see spirit itself. So, as I see it, wind is a figure of speech representing the intangible power of spirit.
One of the intersesting aspects of Ezekiel that is echoed in I Corinthians 15:50 and Luke 24:39. All of these verses refer to resurrected, spiritual bodies and all of them imply bloodless flesh. I Corinthians 15:50 says flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven. It seems to me that blood, which is associated with the tainted souls we inherited from Big Daddy Adam, will not be carried into the Kingdom of Heaven. The body will be purified by spirit and we who are living souls will become beings of spirit and flesh.
Maybe tomorrow?
JerryB
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on April 29, 2003 at 0:28.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Golfie
Steve Lortz,
wrote
"I no longer believe, necessarily, that we were literally "born again" when we received the spirit that was first shed forth on the day of Pentecost. I think we were figuratively "born again" because the Pentecost spirit is our earnest (or "down payment", or "option") of receiving the spirit of the "new birth" at the time of the gathering together."
I have thought that for a while. The holy spirit we have now is a "token" of that which is to come at the rapture gathering together.
When was Jesus born again? God said of Jesus, "This day have I begotten thee"
referring to the day that God raised Jesus from the dead and gave him an incorruptable body.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I thnk we've strayed back into the field of interpretational errors. We should probably move this discussion to Steve's Even Deeper Do-Do thread. Despite the fact that Rafael has been called away to higher priorities, we should try to keep this thread on track. So, I move we table this discussion and decide whether VP's statements on this matter should be counted as an Actual Error.
Way back on April 16, Wordwolf voted that the statement in PFAL that a human soul goes nowhere at death should be counted as an actual error, based on the passage in Ecclesiastes 3:19-21. Do we have a consensus on that one?
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I agree that our discussion in the last few posts would be more appropriate on the deeper do-do thread. I think Wierwille was partially right about the soul "going nowhere" upon death, but for all the wrong reasons. I think what Wierwille taught was a number of actual errors compounded, but none of them are easily demonstrable, which cuts across Rafael's stated purposes for this thread.
All for tonight.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Jerry: I think Rafael already declared that interpretational and not actual, higher up on this page.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
For those of you cool cats who arrived after
the movie started, here's something a bunch of
us discussed a while back.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
popping this back to the top...
:)-->
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm putting the "David was a man after God's own heart" error back on the list.
After learning that David is called "a man after God's own heart" in Acts 13:22, long after the events recorded in II Samuel, my original response was to remove this error from the list. I am no longer inclined to do so. I believe a plain reading of PFAL indicates that, according to Wierwille, David is called "a man after God's own heart" when speaking specifically of a time after the incidents recorded in II Samuel 12. Acts 13:22 is rather plainly speaking of a time before those recorded events. The error stands.
Actual Errors in PFAL
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The Point of "Actual Errors"
Since it's been a while, I thought I'd remind people of the purpose of this thread.
The point of this thread is to show that Wierwille's works are not free from error or contradiction, and as such, they do not meet Wierwille's own standard for what it means to be "God-breathed."
It was never this thread's purpose to delve into doctrinal differences with Wierwillian theology.
I thought that if we could show, with clarity, that Wierwille sometimes made mistakes, we could establish that he, and not God, was the author of the books that bear his name (plagiarism aside).
I was, frankly, unprepared for the brutal intellectual dishonesty and sycophantic idolatry of my "debate" opponent.
If people want to believe that Wierwille's works are God-breathed, then so be it. It's not my concern. Nothing in Christ's directives to the church instruct us to contend with lunacy. And clearly, dialogue is only a motivating factor on one side of this discussion. Last I checked, it's hard to have a constructive discussion when only one side is actually listening and while the other side has repeatedly declared its intention not to listen to anything that would contradict its preconceived conclusions.
Good advice.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Nice to see you back Rafael
:D-->
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
How about where Wierwille claims that "Godhead" means "head God"?
(my apologies if this has been discussed before)
I'll look up the Greek word and the definition later, but I recall that it means something like "divine", or "deriving from God". There is nothing in the Greek word to indicate that the "head" portion of the word Godhead means chief or paramount.
In fact even the 16th century use of the suffix "head" indicates source, e.g. "the fountainhead of truth.
Actual error?...
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Does anyone take into account John Jedues' work here.
I have read some of it and it sounds good.
In light of this thread, does anyone or has anyone talked about it?M
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oakspear,
As this thread evolved, we tried to look only at errors that are actually in print in the Wierwille canon. So, if you can see in the magazines (which I do not have) or the books (which I do have) where Wierwille wrote what you say about the Godhead-head God, then we might have an actual error (assuming the rest of what you write is not only true, but indisputably so).
Def,
I think I've looked at some of the John Juedes work for this thread's purposes, except I might have credited his source rather than crediting him. I'm not too sure about that.
I know he wrote an interesting challenge to "The Four Crucified," but using a rather loose definition, I consider his conclusions disputable.
I know this got tiresome after a while, but in reality, the whole purpose of this thread was to show that the Wierwille books do not meet Wierwille's own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. They contain the kind of miniscule errors Wierwille said would be enough to cause the Bible to fall to pieces (orthotomounta instead of orthotomeo, for example). They contain baseless speculation with no foundation whatsoever in accepted scripture (David WOULD HAVE beheaded Nathan if he had told any other story). They contain significant misinterpretations of obvious Biblical truths (the difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven).
The response to these indisputable errors has been to attack us all as "unfit researchers" intent on finding what's wrong. Of course, that's hardly what we were doing. What we were intent on was proving that there are errors in those books.
The response to these indisputable errors has been a fundamentally dishonest approach that gloats in evading the valid challenges to the inerrancy of the Wierwille breathed word.
I haven't really thought much about returning to this thread because I think its purpose was served. Those who hold Wierwille's works to be God-breathed have not shown the ability to honestly and effectively address a single one of these errors, and at least one has bragged about his antipathy toward doing so. The basis is not the quality of the work here, but a false accusation about our motives.
Wierwille's work was not perfect. He never claimed it was. Wierwille's work was not God-breathed. He never claimed it was. Wierwille's work was not intended to replace the Bible as some kind of bizarro-world, "New and Improved Testament." He never claimed it was.
If someone's happy disagreeing with the above paragraph, I say go in peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
HI RAFAEL!! Good to see ya! I hope all is well with you.
I'm in Raleigh, NC now, still quite busy opening a new office & warehouse, but I try to keep abreast of a few threads. I just got internet access back yesterday, so I've got some catching up to do.
And I'm pleased that you restored the David stuff to the list. There are several things wrong with Wierwille's presentation of that material, imo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Oakspear - I looked "godhead" up in the Oxford unabriged dictionary one time when I was analysing a paper Dale Sides wrote on the subject. "Godhead" is an antique variant English spelling of the English word "godhood". The Greek words could have been as easily translated "divinity" or "godness" or "diety" or something else like that. In the verses where the KJV has "godhead", there isn't anything in the Greek that corresponds to the English idea of being "head" or "chief".
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That's what I always thought it meant.
The sentence is nonsensical if that word means
something other than God's authority, power or
entitlements.
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.