You guys aren't following the script. We're supposed to all hate Wierwille and be incapable of thinking he might be right on anything. We're never supposed to agree with him, ever. That would reflect independent thought, if we were able to agree with him sometimes and disagree other times. Now get back in line.
Sorry, I missed this bit at the bottom of Page 1, too.
Remember that bit about "the truth needs no defense"? I'd suggest that it should be "the truth can withstand all assaults" instead.
I have been less than patient with a lot of the passionate anti-Wierwillites because the truth about the man speaks clearly. Any vengeful emotional embellishments actually detract from that damning truth.
No matter how good it may feel to some to imagine VPW as some Machiavellian Snidely Whiplash who took secret commands from his penis to create a ministry to provide him with unlimited women, it isn't objectively convincing. Like this thread stresses, it's the actual, demonstrable, indisputable errors that demolish any ideas of Wierwillian infallibility, rather than a bunch of sophomoric d1ck jokes.
So, to the passionate Wierwille-despisers, I'd just say that you have more than enough actual reasons to hate the man, without having to create imaginary, implausible, exaggerated evils to hang on him. The emotion muddies the message, which needs to be as clear as glass to those still inside.
To that end, the honest thing to do is not blanket-condemn everything VPW said, but rather be able to demonstrate each singular place where he was wrong (or right, even) such that no one can dispute your logic. If you can't conclusively disprove something, just "leave it" until you can. "It's wrong just because HE said it" is not the argument of a learned person, just as "it's RIGHT just because he was the MOG" is an idiot's argument.
he is a brief excerpt: 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."
This would seem to indicate this might be a pfal error as well
i forget something about christians should be prosperous. my first little red pamphlet said tithe out of net income. it may have been changed to gross income later.
i remember asking el meano craigo about a teaching he did and i showed him the quote in the one i got when i took pfal. he yelled at me
Okay, Word Wolf (if anyone hasn't figured it out yet, Word Wolf and I are old friends)...
I was debating the anablepto - eidon inconsistency. In the class, he says Enoch did not see (anablepto) death. In the book, he says Enoch did not see (eidon) death. For both, he provides the same meaning. Remarkably enough, Vine's bears this out. The two words are synonymous.
Does this count as an "actual error?" Yes and no. In my original post, I wrote that I'm talking about errors mostly from the book, but from the class too. So it is an actual error by that definition.
But from the definitions of those who worship PFAL (the book) as God-breathed, the answer would be no. He got it right in the book, and that's what matters.
I do recall the "atheist" statement, and yes, it did get under my skin. Wierwille said its impossible to be an atheist because that means you don't believe, and not believing IS a belief.
Well, that's just stupid, poor grammar. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe... IN GOD. Of course it's possible to not believe in God. The Bible ADDRESSES it. How could it be impossible?
I can't find that reference in the written edition, so it's an actual error in the spoken class, at the least.
By the way, earlier reference was made to the account of Nathan and David, and I thought I'd clear it up once and for all: Wierwille discusses the conversation between God and Nathan without indicating that he's embellishing on the Biblical record. I'm troubled at this as an actual error. AS WRITTEN, it is an actual error. Wierwille says it happened. There's no evidence that it happened. None at all. Wierwille made it up. For those of us who are logical, this is a dismissable offense. But for those who have abandoned logic in favor of worshipping a document its own author told us not to worship, it would appear that God is revealing to Wierwille, for the first time in history, the details of what led to Nathan's confrontation with David.
Absurd? Absolutely. But remember, we're dealing with an opposing viewpoint that is marked by absurdity. So I'll leave the Nathan-God conversation off the list of actual errors.
The statement that every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king, on the other hand, counts as an actual error. Wierwille is making a statement of historical and cultural reality. His statement is false on every level: historically, culturally, and ESPECIALLY Biblically. It is indefensible.
Okay, back to current events. ABRAHAM!
Word Wolf, didn't you once find an example of Abraham FOREtelling? I can't find it now, but didn't you? I'm going BATS trying to find it.
With all due respect to George, I don't think "God will provide" is an example of Abraham foretelling. I think it's an example of Abraham lying.
Regarding Faith and Believing:
I'm finding it hard to tell if this is an interpretation error or an actual error. I'm torn. I think it's on the line, one foot on either side. I have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER IN MY MIND that this is an error. Wierwille's distinction between faith and believing is foolish and arbitrary. The question is where it fits in MY foolish and arbitrary distinction between interpretation errors and actual errors.
So, since there IS a definite article in the "before (THE) faith came" text, and the presence of the definite article is indisputable; and since the presence of the definite article DOES alter and clarify the meaning of the sentence, I am going to say this is an actual error.
The "closest anyone came to being born again is... almost" also counts as an actual error.
The Felix or Festus comment is a spoken error in the class.
I honestly don't recall the 3x3 denials statement. I remember "twice thou shalt deny me thrice," but that could be from any number of sources.
My jury is still out on "breathed in." Again, I believe it's an error, but one of interpretation.
I do believe the greatest error one can commit is breaking the first and great commandment. All sins are derivatives of it.
The statement that there are no degrees of sin is likewise an interpretation error, if it's an error at all. God meted out different punishments for different sins. Some punishments were more severe than others. We may conclude, therefore, that some sins are more severe than others.
However, when it comes to the statement "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," the degree of sin doesn't matter. The tiniest little sin, and you fall short.
The four crucified and the six denials are obviously errors of interpretation (assuming they are errors at all). As strongly as you feel, Karl, I'm sure you'd agree.
George: Regarding the order of the church epistles never changing: I'll call that an actual error, on the condition that someone can name or number the manuscript in which they are in a different order. I'll get to work on that too.
Mortify=blow to smithereens (someone mentioned this earlier). Good catch. Definitely a spoken error. Is it in the book? (Mortify, in Biblical usage, simply means "kill.")
Re:"With all due respect to George, I don't think 'God will provide' is an example of Abraham foretelling. I think it's an example of Abraham lying."
I'm not going to give up that easy on this one.
Sure, maybe Abraham THOUGHT he was lying, but he was a MOG, afterall, so why couldn't he unknowingly be prophesying? You know what great weight the words of a MOG have, afterall.
And Wierwille was so adamant about it. "Abraham never foretold anything!" "I'll eat the book!" "If you can't find anything, then YOU eat it, fair enough?"
Abraham said something - it came to pass just as he said it would . Why is that not foretelling? Whether he meant it or not seems irrelevent to me.
Just because something was in the film but not in the book, does not mean he was correcting a mistake.
Quite a few things, like even "It's CHRIST in you...", are not in the book. It definitely edited for clarity!
As far as that bogus definition of "atheist", I scratched my head on that one too.
What bothered me more than the fact that he made the statement (I chalked it up to him sometimes aying things off the top of his head without thinking it through) was when people would quote it as if it were true. People were always referring back to these Wierwille slips of the tongue as if they were gospel.
Hey...I just thought of something...why did they call non-wayfers "unbelievers"? They believe something don't they? Even if the believe that they don't believe! :D-->
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
quote:Just because something was in the film but not in the book, does not mean he was correcting a mistake.
I never meant to imply otherwise. In the case of anablepto/eidon, it was a correction. But that was not intended to be a blanket statement.
As for Abraham, I'm still not with you, George. I think Wierwille was referring to foretelling or forthtelling information from God. I'm sure there were times when Abraham looked up at the sky and said, "looks like rain," and sure enough, it rained. That's not prophecy, not by Wierwille's definition.
HOWEVER! Abraham DID relay God's promise to his servant. In Genesis 24:7, he says that God told him "Unto thy seed will I give this land."
That's foretelling, even by Wierwille's definition. God told Abraham, Abraham told someone else. And it was concerning a future event. So Abraham did foretell.
Wierwille's statement regarding Abraham does not appear to be in the book, as far as I can see. If anyone can correct me, feel free.
I read that earlier, but I have to admit, I fail to see the distinction. Wierwille taught that ekklesia meant "a group of people who have gathered for a specific purpose." I don't see how that's different from what Nida writes above. Please elaborate, if you can.
Meanwhile, here’s two more actual errors from the same page of PFAL (p. 119).
In PFAL, Wierwille writes:
quote:The English words “rightly dividing” are the Greek word orthotomounta.
In truth, the word is orthotomeo. The word orthotomounta does not occur in the New Testament.
In PFAL, Wierwille writes:
quote:The first word in II Timothy 2:15 is “Study.” The very first thing a person must do to rightly divide The Word is study. He is not told to study commentaries or secular writers; he must study The Word.
In truth, the word “study” in II Timothy 2:15 would more accurately be translated “endeavor.” It does not mean “study” in the way Wierwille uses it. The NIV translates it “do your best.” So does the Contemporary English Version. The New Living Translation renders it, “Work hard.” It does not mean “study.” Wierwille deliberately uses a mistranslated word to prove his point. The point was valid, but the error remains.
I think it could be argued that Abraham WAS receiving revelation, he just wasn't aware of it. Similar to Samuel when he was having his spell of hearing voices (holy ones that is) and assuming that someone in the room was talking to him. Aren't there several incidents like that in the Bible?
I dunno myself anymore. To me it's kinda like musing about what Uncle Remus REALLY said. It's all fiction anyway, at least IMNSHO.
Where's that guy on the Oddlist who knows Steve Keil? I went through the 14th Corps with Steve, and he used to bring a Greek Bible to Sunday night service and everything else. I don't mean a Greek interlinear with an English translation, I mean a New Testament with nothing but Greek. He could "shed some light" on a great many of these discussions, and not because he's an apostle (="sent one") but because he knows Greek like I know Eminem.
Rafael, you've created a monster, cuz nobody wantsta see short lists no more, we want long lists and lots of 'em.
Here's one idea. Divide your final paper into three chapters. "Actual Errors in PFAL." You're good at that. "Probable Errors in Way Doctrine." Where most reasonable people would conclude that it's probably an error, of interpretation or fact. This could take in most of the offerings on this list.
And finally, "Strange Doctrines," unprovable points like masturbation as the original sin or human "seed boys" ruling devil spirits in Satan's kingdom. Here I would include 4 crucified, 6 denials of Peter, 4 temptations of Christ, 2 sermons on the mount, 4 blind men healed in Jericho in a single day. They aren't provably untrue, but the represent a very small minority position in the Christian community.
I bet far less than 1 percent of all humankind has ever heard that more than two men were crucified with Jesus, and most of them are PFAL grads. That doesn't make it wrong, but it's still a "strange doctrine." It's a bit esoteric, a bit "new and different," but it smells suspiciously like something that wouldn't pass peer review in any accredited university by people with doctorates.
So Rafe, while I admire your high standards, I think you should consider at least a second category, if not a third, of Way teachings that are widely open to question. This could include JC is not God, the dead are not alive now, the law of believing and a host of other minority positions invented by V.P. Wierwille or plagiarized from somebody who wasn't very smart (Lamsa) or was but invented elaborate explanations for Bible problems (Bullinger).
It doesn't mean they're wrong. But they're worth questioning.
It's been fun. Hopefully I'll stop soon. Thank you troubledwine and Oakspear for your enlightenment, and Zixar for your wisdom. (Four crucified, to me, is an error in the Bible, not in PFAL, but I realize we'll get nowhere if we start talking about errors in the Bible.)
Tell you what, Rafael, if you don't have the patience or low standards to collect all the "questionable beliefs," I'll make my own list. First you have to hone the "actual errors" list, though. You publish that list and I'll collate all the leftovers!
OK, I'll add one of my favorites - Replenishing the earth.
According to Vic, from page 242 of PFAL (1986 edition):
quote:The possibility of there being a different kind of life is indicated by the word "replenish" in Genesis 1:28.
And God blessed them [man], and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth ...
How can the earth be replenished if it had previously had no beings? Genesis 1:28 will corroborate and substantiate science because of "replenish."
Only problem here is that replenish is old english meaning "to fill." It does not imply to fill up again. The hebrew word is male and only means "to fill."
quote:The truth of the matter, however, is that defenders of the Gap Theory could have saved themselves much time, effort, and endlessly wild speculation if they simply had examined more carefully the correct meaning of “replenish” in Genesis 1:28. I readily admit that our English word “replenish” derives from the Latin re (again) and plenus (full), and thus can mean “to fill again.” I also readily admit that even Webster’s Dictionary quotes this verse under its definition of “replenish” as to “repeople.” But theological issues are not determined by appeals to Webster’s Dictionary or modern-day usage. Such issues are determined by appeals to the original languages, however. And in this case, such an appeal immediately clears up any questions on the topic. The Hebrew word, which unfortunately is translated “replenish” in the King James Version of 1611, does not mean to “replenish.” That word is male’, and means simply “to fill” (Davidson, 1863, p. 488; cf., Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 1962, p. 22; see also, Harris, Archer, and Waltke, 1980, 1:505-506). Interesting is the fact that this very same word is used in Genesis 1:22 where the command is given by God to “fill the waters of the seas.” Later versions of the Bible (ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, et al.) have rendered the verb properly as merely “fill.”
This error carried over into the WAP class. Another example of the Research Department just accepting Victorism as solid truth.
Oooh, a waytoogoodone from The End. Well done. Well done.
Karl,
You need to bear in mind the purpose of this thread:
There's someone going around promoting hte belief that PFAL is "God-breathed," on par with scripture, no contradictions, etc. In fact, all of Wierwille's writings that we have fall under that category, in this person's eyes.
Then there's another person who FOOLISHLY stated that, to paraphrase, "people who say there are documentable errors in PFAL are like deaf people proving that music doesn't exist."
So the purpose of this thread is to point to errors that cannot be chalked up to differences in interpretation. Errors so fundamental and blatant that there's no room for argument, as long as both sides are being honest.
2+2=5 is an error, and unless you are burying your head in the sand (or elsewhere), you have to be able to see the mistake.
Four crucified? I think Bullinger built a fairly good case, but to be honest, I stopped CARING about that issue about five or six years ago.
Notice that I stayed away from the meaning of "sabachthani." I thought Vic did a good job of showing the root word there, and I can't simply dismiss it as an actual error (my rules, I make 'em up).
So I heartily encourage you to come up with a list of likely errors, a list of strange doctrines (like when Judas hanged himself. I ripped on that one way back when I was reviewing the Blue Book. Hooooo-weeee that was fun).
Anyway, I would think that such threads would be more at home in the Doctrinal section of the Greasespot Cafe. I think this is a borderline doctrinal thread, but it really is more at home in this "About the Way" forum.
Page 238 of PFAL, in reference to Genesis 1:1, ole Vic writes:
quote:To "create" (bara) literally means "to get something out of nothing" or "to bring into existence something which never existed in any form before."
Oh really?
Vic did get the hebrew word right, but totaly blew the definition. Although I'm currently lacking a few research materials (a long story,) my Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible defines bara as "to prepare, form, fashion, create."
If we are to accept Vic's definition, perhaps he could explain the use of bara in the following verses:
Joshua 17:14-18
14 ¶ And the children of Joseph spake unto Joshua, saying, Why hast thou given me but one lot and one portion to inherit, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as the LORD hath blessed me hitherto?
15 And Joshua answered them, If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, and cut down (bara) for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee.
16 And the children of Joseph said, The hill is not enough for us: and all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both they who are of Bethshean and her towns, and they who are of the valley of Jezreel.
17 And Joshua spake unto the house of Joseph, even to Ephraim and to Manasseh, saying, Thou art a great people, and hast great power: thou shalt not have one lot only:
18 But the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down (bara): and the outgoings of it shall be thine: for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong.
This is a good one:
Ezekiel 23:47 And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch (bara) them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire.
I remember giving Vic's definition of bara to a professor of Old Testament history I had once, who knew Hebrew pretty well. He gave me a dumb look and said that word does not imply any such thing.
Talking about faith in the old testament brings up this whole 5 different types of faith from PFAL. The faith of Jesus Christ was never adequately explained to me. Donald Dicks thesis continues on about faith and covers that topic.
Here is the link - thanks to whoever posted this earlier in the thread - you can save this file on your computer or print it out it is quite interesting. I wanted to type this out and get it on here so we can get it in discussion:
The second horn of Wierwille's argument is that the faith needed for salvation is not our faith but, instead, the "faith of Jesus Christ." He says, "When the man of body and sould hears the Word of God and believes what he hears, Romans 10:9 and 10, he receives the "faith of Jesus Christ" and righteousness." He then argues from four verses, Galatians 3:22, Romans 3:22, Galatians 2:16 and Galatians 2:20 all of which read, in the King James Version, "by the faith of Jesus Christ." He argues that it is the faith OF Jesus Christ.
The question that must be asked at this point is whether this is an accurate understanding of Koine Greek language. The answer is no. Wierwille seems to have a very superficial knowledge of the Biblical languages. what he is noting is the genitive case of the words "faith" (pisteos) and "Jesus Christ". Generally, the genitive case is understood to show definition and description, including possesion, this the translation " of Jesus Christ." However, a deeper knowledge and study of the Koine Greek used by the New Testament writers reveals that there are at least eight types of genitives. This particular portion of scripture is an "objective genitive" in which case "the noun in the genitive RECEIVES the action, being thus related as OBJECT to the verbal idea contained in the noun modified. Jesus Christ is the "noun in the genitive" and He is the object of the "verbal idea" which is "having faith." Thus, the passage should be understood as "having faith in Jesus Christ." Dr A. T. Robertson concurs with this translation and acknowledges that each of the four above mentioned passages contain the objective genitive.
These phrases are not to be understood as a subjective genitive which is "when the noun in the genitive PRODUCES the action being therefore related AS SUBJECT to the verbal idea of the noun modified." It would make no sense to interpret these passages as subjective genitives since throughout the new testament we are told to put our trust (belief or faith) in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. A perfect example of this command is Galatians 3:26 which says "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." We are children of God by faith in (en) Christ Jesus. Of course, Wierwille doesn't mention this verse even though it is only four verses away from one of his proof texts.
The idea that these passages are not subjective genitive is also supported by Greek scholar Dr W Robertson Nicoll. concerning Romans 3:22 he says,
"It is the constant teaching of Paul thatt we are justified (not by sharing Jesus' faith in God, as some interpreters would take it here, but) by believing in that manifestation and offer of God's righteousness which are made in the propitiatory death of Jesus"
Three other passages which support the objective genitive rendering and which use wording of specific interest are Col 1:4, 2:5 and I Thess 1:8. Collosians 1:4 reads "...you faith in Christ Jesus ..." (pistis humon en Christo Iesou) Col 1:25 reads "... your faith in Christ" (eis Christon pisteos humon). I thess 1:8 reads "... your faith to God-ward (he pistis humon he pros ton theon). Each passage indicates daith "in" or "toward" or in the direction of Christ of God, thus showing that Christ of GOd is the object of the faith and not the subject or producer of the faith. These passages, in addition to the ones Wierwille uses, state that is is our faith IN Jesus Christ that saves us and not the "faith OF Jesus Christ."
Let's review how Wierwille builds his case. It is importnat to ntoe how he builds his arguments because each point of his argument is always contingent on the other points. Concerning soteriology, Wierwille's case is built around three major points, 1) faith is a spiritual element, 2) at one time in history there was no faith, and 3) salvation is based on the faith of Jesus Christ. If one of these premises fail, then they all fail and the entire case or argument becomes invalid
VP did not say, "a group of people who have gathered for a specific purpose." He used "the called-out."
According to The New Dynamic Church, page 4 (which I believe is a transcription of a PFAL session):
quote:The Greek word for our English word "church" is ekklesia, meaning "the called-out." People may be called out for various reasons; for example, if a group of people decided they were going bowling and then gathered at the bosling alley, they would be an ekklesia because they are called out to bowl. In Acts 19 a mob is called a church, an ekklesia. Why? Because a mob is composed of a group of people who have gathered for a specific purpose.
The people refered to in Acts were called an ekklesia because they were citizens of the city gathered in one place. The fact that they were rioting has nothing to do with it.
From my various readings (which I can't document at the moment), ekklesia was a political word. It was the gathering of the citizens to discuss and decide issues. Any citizen had the right to speak at these meetings and to propose matters for discussion (contrary to how TWI operates).
Vic goes on to talk about the ekklesia, or called out, of Israel. He even has a chart on page 7 showing three ekklesia's, Israel, Body of Christ, then Isreal again (held in obeyance). Only problem is, Israel is never called an ekklesia, as far as the New Testament is concerned (haven't checked the septuagent). The two greek words are never in the same verse together.
I don't think Israel could be called an ekklesia because they did not function in that manner.
Dr. Wierwille taught that the OT was only "for our learning" and that the NT was for "doctrine", distinguishing between the two.
He used Romans 15:4 for his proof text.
Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
However what VPW failed to tell us was that "learning" in Romans 15: 4 is the Greek - didaskalia. This same Greek word is translated "doctrine" 19 times elsewhere in the Bible. This is the only verse where it is translated "learning".
Why pay to go to school? Why pay for a class of any kind? Because people are entitled to receive the fruit of their labor, no matter what they do, whether teaching a bible class or selling soap. This is a biblical principle.
It takes money to do things. Time is money. Buying equipment, paying salaries for work, employing folks to generate books and tapes, etc. etc.
I recently purchased a tape set from CES. Quite good. Were they wrong for charging me a fee to hear biblical teachings?
If you want to debate whether PFAL was too much money at certain times, then I'd be more inclined to agree with you.
Oldie's I disagree heartedly. There is a difference between taking a course or a class that you want and sharing the Word of God.
These people forced this PFAL class down people's throats and profited off of it. The excuse was then, as it is now, that PFAL was free and nobody was doing anything with it.(what the hell were they supposed to DO with it?) So they started charging money so people would appreciate it.
That line of thinking not only has a big enough hole to drive a van through it but it is arrogant as hell.
I was doing fine going to fellowhip..for free. I was totally taken advantage of by being pressured into taking a class I didn't want or need, with money that I had worked and saved for a long time.
SHARING the Word, should ALWAYS be free. If people want a class, want to purchase tapes or go to bible college, that's different. Believe me I could have lived without the fruits of their labor and the great research being shoved down my throat, for a price.
Would Jesus have approved of this? NO! Did God approve of this? I think it made Him madder than hell.
This was morally and ethically WRONG. And UnGodly and unbibical and I still run into people who defend what they did.
To me, either they are in total denial, or they have a very skewered perspective on things to where it's perverted there logic.
Or they just plain lack any integrity and morals.
Sorry for getting OT. But this still bugs me when I hear people make excuses for what they did 20 years later.
PS. Let me just add. That if these guys want to be paid for the fruits of there labor, maybe they should consider getting a real job. Like a REAL man. And take care of own families instead of expecting handouts from people by making a living off a dead man's doctrine.
Jesus had a job. All the apostles did.
grrrr Lazy preacher boy sods.
Sorry, sorry, I'm really sorry for getting OT. But this makes me madder than hell.
[This message was edited by RottieGrrrl on January 06, 2003 at 13:17.]
quote: These people forced this PFAL class down people's throats...
Rottiegirl, unless someone was mentally retarded or a child, nobody forced PFAL down anyone's throats. It was a freewill decision. Folks need to accept responsibility for their actions.
quote: I was doing fine going to fellowhip..for free. I was totally taken advantage of by being pressured into taking a class I didn't want or need, with money that I had worked and saved for a long time.
If you didn't want to take the class, you didn't have to. Lots of folks didn't.
quote: SHARING the Word, should ALWAYS be free.
If this is true then anytime anyone buys a bible book or tape, they are fools for spending the money.
quote: Would Jesus have approved of this? NO! Did God approve of this? I think it made Him madder than hell.
Thousands of folks were blessed from taking PFAL. Just the material on being saved by grace alone, was worth the little amount of money we spent on the class.
These are my feelings on it; it was money WELL spent.
The only point I would agree with you on, is if you were one of the unfortunate ones who had to pay $200 for the class. That was too much, IMO.
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
Hope R.
What about the greatest sin a man can commit? What about all the X's - the degrees of sin?
I don't believe any of that was right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Sorry, I missed this bit at the bottom of Page 1, too.
Remember that bit about "the truth needs no defense"? I'd suggest that it should be "the truth can withstand all assaults" instead.
I have been less than patient with a lot of the passionate anti-Wierwillites because the truth about the man speaks clearly. Any vengeful emotional embellishments actually detract from that damning truth.
No matter how good it may feel to some to imagine VPW as some Machiavellian Snidely Whiplash who took secret commands from his penis to create a ministry to provide him with unlimited women, it isn't objectively convincing. Like this thread stresses, it's the actual, demonstrable, indisputable errors that demolish any ideas of Wierwillian infallibility, rather than a bunch of sophomoric d1ck jokes.
So, to the passionate Wierwille-despisers, I'd just say that you have more than enough actual reasons to hate the man, without having to create imaginary, implausible, exaggerated evils to hang on him. The emotion muddies the message, which needs to be as clear as glass to those still inside.
To that end, the honest thing to do is not blanket-condemn everything VPW said, but rather be able to demonstrate each singular place where he was wrong (or right, even) such that no one can dispute your logic. If you can't conclusively disprove something, just "leave it" until you can. "It's wrong just because HE said it" is not the argument of a learned person, just as "it's RIGHT just because he was the MOG" is an idiot's argument.
I relinquish the soapbox...
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
I have been looking over VPW messing with the verses on pentecost and also the whole Jesus breathed on them and said receive holy spirit.
I found some interesting research on this at
http://www.caic.org.au/biblebase/way/inhaling.htm
he is a brief excerpt: 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."
This would seem to indicate this might be a pfal error as well
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
During PFAL itself,
vpw says that "Peter denied Jesus 3 TIMES 3
times"-a total of 9.
In Jesus Christ Our Passover, vpw wrote that
Peter denied Jesus 6 times.
(This bugged me.)
I'm unsure if the book has it as 6 or 9.
---------------------
Here's one Rafael used to wince at in PFAL...
vpw said that "atheists" contradicted themselves
because it means they don't believe...but in
doing so, they believe that they don't believe."
As anyone who sat thru SESSION ONE OF THE SAME
CLASS should have been able to tell,
"atheist" does not refer to "believing".
That class (& this thread) talked about 2 words:
"apisistia" & "apeithia". With the prefix "a",
or "not", these words could loosely translate
into 'no belief' and 'no pathos'.
As in "is it apistia, or apeithia'? I don't
know & I don't care."
Atheist can be loosely translated "no god."
"Theos" means "god". All students should have
been able to tell that, since they learned that
"theoponeustos" meant "God-breathed".
------------------------
Here's my personal, all-time favourite.
We've NEVER discussed it, AFAIK.
Get your pencils ready.
Ready?
Here we go.
Every person who sat thru pfal should be able
to remember vpw talking about how different
people told vpw how God told them to tell him
to go to different places, telling him to do
stuff. Eventually, he figured out the problem.
The next time someone told him something like
that, vpw told him that God had told them
nothing of the kind-that God didn't tell them
to tell him to go-God told THEM to go. God
tells you what YOU need to do, and if you are
supposed to tell someone about it, God will
tell you that, also.
------
In fact, this lesson is a very hard lesson
Joseph learned in Genesis 37:5-19.
God gives Joseph 2 dreams, but does NOT tell
Joseph to tell anyone. He tells his brothers,
and they hate him enough to kill him or sell
him into slavery, either one.
It's a very, very important lesson to learn.
-------------
Supposedly, however, God gave vpw revelation
that he was "some great one".
Why, then, did vpw go around telling EVERYONE
that, when the rule was that if God wants you
to tell someone, He'll tell you to tell them?
In all the accounts of that happening, never
was it mentioned that God said to pass it
around. In fact, if He did, that's especially
peculiar, since it would not have been
profitable all thru the years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
BTW, I was wondering...
for the purposes of this thread, are we
counting things like vpw's mistaken use of
the word 'anabolepto' in the class & the
correct usage of "eidon" in the later editions,
when talking about Enoch not 'seeing' death?
What about Paul imprisoned in Jerusalem,
where the closest anyone ever comes to getting
born again was one man-"I don't remember if it
was Felix or Festus"-who said "almost you
persuade me to be a Christian." Well, doc, the
reason you can't remember if it was Felix or
Festus is because it was Agrippa.
:)-->
Of course, the entire statement that "the
closest anyone came to getting born again"
during the time Paul spent in jail completely
ignores Onesimus (Pilemon 1:1-10), and whoever
else is not named like Onesimus is. I find it
hardly credible to think that Onesimus was the
only one. However, the fact that one can be
named specifically discredits this statement
directly taken from pfal.
Hey, this is fun!
Rafael, you going to make one concise list of
these when we're done?
It would look great as a hanging from the
bookshelf I keep my old collaterals on.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
this may have been posted sorry
i forget something about christians should be prosperous. my first little red pamphlet said tithe out of net income. it may have been changed to gross income later.
i remember asking el meano craigo about a teaching he did and i showed him the quote in the one i got when i took pfal. he yelled at me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Wow. You folks have given me much to answer.
Okay, Word Wolf (if anyone hasn't figured it out yet, Word Wolf and I are old friends)...
I was debating the anablepto - eidon inconsistency. In the class, he says Enoch did not see (anablepto) death. In the book, he says Enoch did not see (eidon) death. For both, he provides the same meaning. Remarkably enough, Vine's bears this out. The two words are synonymous.
Does this count as an "actual error?" Yes and no. In my original post, I wrote that I'm talking about errors mostly from the book, but from the class too. So it is an actual error by that definition.
But from the definitions of those who worship PFAL (the book) as God-breathed, the answer would be no. He got it right in the book, and that's what matters.
I do recall the "atheist" statement, and yes, it did get under my skin. Wierwille said its impossible to be an atheist because that means you don't believe, and not believing IS a belief.
Well, that's just stupid, poor grammar. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe... IN GOD. Of course it's possible to not believe in God. The Bible ADDRESSES it. How could it be impossible?
I can't find that reference in the written edition, so it's an actual error in the spoken class, at the least.
By the way, earlier reference was made to the account of Nathan and David, and I thought I'd clear it up once and for all: Wierwille discusses the conversation between God and Nathan without indicating that he's embellishing on the Biblical record. I'm troubled at this as an actual error. AS WRITTEN, it is an actual error. Wierwille says it happened. There's no evidence that it happened. None at all. Wierwille made it up. For those of us who are logical, this is a dismissable offense. But for those who have abandoned logic in favor of worshipping a document its own author told us not to worship, it would appear that God is revealing to Wierwille, for the first time in history, the details of what led to Nathan's confrontation with David.
Absurd? Absolutely. But remember, we're dealing with an opposing viewpoint that is marked by absurdity. So I'll leave the Nathan-God conversation off the list of actual errors.
The statement that every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king, on the other hand, counts as an actual error. Wierwille is making a statement of historical and cultural reality. His statement is false on every level: historically, culturally, and ESPECIALLY Biblically. It is indefensible.
Okay, back to current events. ABRAHAM!
Word Wolf, didn't you once find an example of Abraham FOREtelling? I can't find it now, but didn't you? I'm going BATS trying to find it.
With all due respect to George, I don't think "God will provide" is an example of Abraham foretelling. I think it's an example of Abraham lying.
Regarding Faith and Believing:
I'm finding it hard to tell if this is an interpretation error or an actual error. I'm torn. I think it's on the line, one foot on either side. I have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER IN MY MIND that this is an error. Wierwille's distinction between faith and believing is foolish and arbitrary. The question is where it fits in MY foolish and arbitrary distinction between interpretation errors and actual errors.
So, since there IS a definite article in the "before (THE) faith came" text, and the presence of the definite article is indisputable; and since the presence of the definite article DOES alter and clarify the meaning of the sentence, I am going to say this is an actual error.
The "closest anyone came to being born again is... almost" also counts as an actual error.
The Felix or Festus comment is a spoken error in the class.
I honestly don't recall the 3x3 denials statement. I remember "twice thou shalt deny me thrice," but that could be from any number of sources.
My jury is still out on "breathed in." Again, I believe it's an error, but one of interpretation.
I do believe the greatest error one can commit is breaking the first and great commandment. All sins are derivatives of it.
The statement that there are no degrees of sin is likewise an interpretation error, if it's an error at all. God meted out different punishments for different sins. Some punishments were more severe than others. We may conclude, therefore, that some sins are more severe than others.
However, when it comes to the statement "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," the degree of sin doesn't matter. The tiniest little sin, and you fall short.
The four crucified and the six denials are obviously errors of interpretation (assuming they are errors at all). As strongly as you feel, Karl, I'm sure you'd agree.
George: Regarding the order of the church epistles never changing: I'll call that an actual error, on the condition that someone can name or number the manuscript in which they are in a different order. I'll get to work on that too.
Mortify=blow to smithereens (someone mentioned this earlier). Good catch. Definitely a spoken error. Is it in the book? (Mortify, in Biblical usage, simply means "kill.")
Thanks for playing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Rafael,
Re:"With all due respect to George, I don't think 'God will provide' is an example of Abraham foretelling. I think it's an example of Abraham lying."
I'm not going to give up that easy on this one.
Sure, maybe Abraham THOUGHT he was lying, but he was a MOG, afterall, so why couldn't he unknowingly be prophesying? You know what great weight the words of a MOG have, afterall.
And Wierwille was so adamant about it. "Abraham never foretold anything!" "I'll eat the book!" "If you can't find anything, then YOU eat it, fair enough?"
Abraham said something - it came to pass just as he said it would . Why is that not foretelling? Whether he meant it or not seems irrelevent to me.
geo.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Rafael:
Just because something was in the film but not in the book, does not mean he was correcting a mistake.
Quite a few things, like even "It's CHRIST in you...", are not in the book. It definitely edited for clarity!
As far as that bogus definition of "atheist", I scratched my head on that one too.
What bothered me more than the fact that he made the statement (I chalked it up to him sometimes aying things off the top of his head without thinking it through) was when people would quote it as if it were true. People were always referring back to these Wierwille slips of the tongue as if they were gospel.
Hey...I just thought of something...why did they call non-wayfers "unbelievers"? They believe something don't they? Even if the believe that they don't believe!
:D-->
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I never meant to imply otherwise. In the case of anablepto/eidon, it was a correction. But that was not intended to be a blanket statement.
As for Abraham, I'm still not with you, George. I think Wierwille was referring to foretelling or forthtelling information from God. I'm sure there were times when Abraham looked up at the sky and said, "looks like rain," and sure enough, it rained. That's not prophecy, not by Wierwille's definition.
HOWEVER! Abraham DID relay God's promise to his servant. In Genesis 24:7, he says that God told him "Unto thy seed will I give this land."
That's foretelling, even by Wierwille's definition. God told Abraham, Abraham told someone else. And it was concerning a future event. So Abraham did foretell.
Wierwille's statement regarding Abraham does not appear to be in the book, as far as I can see. If anyone can correct me, feel free.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Hey, Plots, thanks.
I read that earlier, but I have to admit, I fail to see the distinction. Wierwille taught that ekklesia meant "a group of people who have gathered for a specific purpose." I don't see how that's different from what Nida writes above. Please elaborate, if you can.
Meanwhile, here’s two more actual errors from the same page of PFAL (p. 119).
In PFAL, Wierwille writes:
In truth, the word is orthotomeo. The word orthotomounta does not occur in the New Testament.
In PFAL, Wierwille writes:
In truth, the word “study” in II Timothy 2:15 would more accurately be translated “endeavor.” It does not mean “study” in the way Wierwille uses it. The NIV translates it “do your best.” So does the Contemporary English Version. The New Living Translation renders it, “Work hard.” It does not mean “study.” Wierwille deliberately uses a mistranslated word to prove his point. The point was valid, but the error remains.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Rafael,
O.K., one last try and then I'll leave it lay.
I think it could be argued that Abraham WAS receiving revelation, he just wasn't aware of it. Similar to Samuel when he was having his spell of hearing voices (holy ones that is) and assuming that someone in the room was talking to him. Aren't there several incidents like that in the Bible?
I dunno myself anymore. To me it's kinda like musing about what Uncle Remus REALLY said. It's all fiction anyway, at least IMNSHO.
geo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Karl Kahler
Where's that guy on the Oddlist who knows Steve Keil? I went through the 14th Corps with Steve, and he used to bring a Greek Bible to Sunday night service and everything else. I don't mean a Greek interlinear with an English translation, I mean a New Testament with nothing but Greek. He could "shed some light" on a great many of these discussions, and not because he's an apostle (="sent one") but because he knows Greek like I know Eminem.
Rafael, you've created a monster, cuz nobody wantsta see short lists no more, we want long lists and lots of 'em.
Here's one idea. Divide your final paper into three chapters. "Actual Errors in PFAL." You're good at that. "Probable Errors in Way Doctrine." Where most reasonable people would conclude that it's probably an error, of interpretation or fact. This could take in most of the offerings on this list.
And finally, "Strange Doctrines," unprovable points like masturbation as the original sin or human "seed boys" ruling devil spirits in Satan's kingdom. Here I would include 4 crucified, 6 denials of Peter, 4 temptations of Christ, 2 sermons on the mount, 4 blind men healed in Jericho in a single day. They aren't provably untrue, but the represent a very small minority position in the Christian community.
I bet far less than 1 percent of all humankind has ever heard that more than two men were crucified with Jesus, and most of them are PFAL grads. That doesn't make it wrong, but it's still a "strange doctrine." It's a bit esoteric, a bit "new and different," but it smells suspiciously like something that wouldn't pass peer review in any accredited university by people with doctorates.
So Rafe, while I admire your high standards, I think you should consider at least a second category, if not a third, of Way teachings that are widely open to question. This could include JC is not God, the dead are not alive now, the law of believing and a host of other minority positions invented by V.P. Wierwille or plagiarized from somebody who wasn't very smart (Lamsa) or was but invented elaborate explanations for Bible problems (Bullinger).
It doesn't mean they're wrong. But they're worth questioning.
It's been fun. Hopefully I'll stop soon. Thank you troubledwine and Oakspear for your enlightenment, and Zixar for your wisdom. (Four crucified, to me, is an error in the Bible, not in PFAL, but I realize we'll get nowhere if we start talking about errors in the Bible.)
Tell you what, Rafael, if you don't have the patience or low standards to collect all the "questionable beliefs," I'll make my own list. First you have to hone the "actual errors" list, though. You publish that list and I'll collate all the leftovers!
Happy, helpful, windy
Karl
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEnd
OK, I'll add one of my favorites - Replenishing the earth.
According to Vic, from page 242 of PFAL (1986 edition):
Only problem here is that replenish is old english meaning "to fill." It does not imply to fill up again. The hebrew word is male and only means "to fill."
Also, from God's Command to Replenish the Earth:
This error carried over into the WAP class. Another example of the Research Department just accepting Victorism as solid truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oooh, a waytoogoodone from The End. Well done. Well done.
Karl,
You need to bear in mind the purpose of this thread:
There's someone going around promoting hte belief that PFAL is "God-breathed," on par with scripture, no contradictions, etc. In fact, all of Wierwille's writings that we have fall under that category, in this person's eyes.
Then there's another person who FOOLISHLY stated that, to paraphrase, "people who say there are documentable errors in PFAL are like deaf people proving that music doesn't exist."
So the purpose of this thread is to point to errors that cannot be chalked up to differences in interpretation. Errors so fundamental and blatant that there's no room for argument, as long as both sides are being honest.
2+2=5 is an error, and unless you are burying your head in the sand (or elsewhere), you have to be able to see the mistake.
Four crucified? I think Bullinger built a fairly good case, but to be honest, I stopped CARING about that issue about five or six years ago.
Notice that I stayed away from the meaning of "sabachthani." I thought Vic did a good job of showing the root word there, and I can't simply dismiss it as an actual error (my rules, I make 'em up).
So I heartily encourage you to come up with a list of likely errors, a list of strange doctrines (like when Judas hanged himself. I ripped on that one way back when I was reviewing the Blue Book. Hooooo-weeee that was fun).
Anyway, I would think that such threads would be more at home in the Doctrinal section of the Greasespot Cafe. I think this is a borderline doctrinal thread, but it really is more at home in this "About the Way" forum.
Maybe I'm just being anal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEnd
Here's another one from Genesis.
Page 238 of PFAL, in reference to Genesis 1:1, ole Vic writes:
Oh really?
Vic did get the hebrew word right, but totaly blew the definition. Although I'm currently lacking a few research materials (a long story,) my Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible defines bara as "to prepare, form, fashion, create."
If we are to accept Vic's definition, perhaps he could explain the use of bara in the following verses:
Joshua 17:14-18
14 ¶ And the children of Joseph spake unto Joshua, saying, Why hast thou given me but one lot and one portion to inherit, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as the LORD hath blessed me hitherto?
15 And Joshua answered them, If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, and cut down (bara) for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee.
16 And the children of Joseph said, The hill is not enough for us: and all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both they who are of Bethshean and her towns, and they who are of the valley of Jezreel.
17 And Joshua spake unto the house of Joseph, even to Ephraim and to Manasseh, saying, Thou art a great people, and hast great power: thou shalt not have one lot only:
18 But the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down (bara): and the outgoings of it shall be thine: for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong.
This is a good one:
Ezekiel 23:47 And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch (bara) them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire.
I remember giving Vic's definition of bara to a professor of Old Testament history I had once, who knew Hebrew pretty well. He gave me a dumb look and said that word does not imply any such thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
Talking about faith in the old testament brings up this whole 5 different types of faith from PFAL. The faith of Jesus Christ was never adequately explained to me. Donald Dicks thesis continues on about faith and covers that topic.
Here is the link - thanks to whoever posted this earlier in the thread - you can save this file on your computer or print it out it is quite interesting. I wanted to type this out and get it on here so we can get it in discussion:
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/w17.html
Thesis cont...
The second horn of Wierwille's argument is that the faith needed for salvation is not our faith but, instead, the "faith of Jesus Christ." He says, "When the man of body and sould hears the Word of God and believes what he hears, Romans 10:9 and 10, he receives the "faith of Jesus Christ" and righteousness." He then argues from four verses, Galatians 3:22, Romans 3:22, Galatians 2:16 and Galatians 2:20 all of which read, in the King James Version, "by the faith of Jesus Christ." He argues that it is the faith OF Jesus Christ.
The question that must be asked at this point is whether this is an accurate understanding of Koine Greek language. The answer is no. Wierwille seems to have a very superficial knowledge of the Biblical languages. what he is noting is the genitive case of the words "faith" (pisteos) and "Jesus Christ". Generally, the genitive case is understood to show definition and description, including possesion, this the translation " of Jesus Christ." However, a deeper knowledge and study of the Koine Greek used by the New Testament writers reveals that there are at least eight types of genitives. This particular portion of scripture is an "objective genitive" in which case "the noun in the genitive RECEIVES the action, being thus related as OBJECT to the verbal idea contained in the noun modified. Jesus Christ is the "noun in the genitive" and He is the object of the "verbal idea" which is "having faith." Thus, the passage should be understood as "having faith in Jesus Christ." Dr A. T. Robertson concurs with this translation and acknowledges that each of the four above mentioned passages contain the objective genitive.
These phrases are not to be understood as a subjective genitive which is "when the noun in the genitive PRODUCES the action being therefore related AS SUBJECT to the verbal idea of the noun modified." It would make no sense to interpret these passages as subjective genitives since throughout the new testament we are told to put our trust (belief or faith) in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. A perfect example of this command is Galatians 3:26 which says "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." We are children of God by faith in (en) Christ Jesus. Of course, Wierwille doesn't mention this verse even though it is only four verses away from one of his proof texts.
The idea that these passages are not subjective genitive is also supported by Greek scholar Dr W Robertson Nicoll. concerning Romans 3:22 he says,
"It is the constant teaching of Paul thatt we are justified (not by sharing Jesus' faith in God, as some interpreters would take it here, but) by believing in that manifestation and offer of God's righteousness which are made in the propitiatory death of Jesus"
Three other passages which support the objective genitive rendering and which use wording of specific interest are Col 1:4, 2:5 and I Thess 1:8. Collosians 1:4 reads "...you faith in Christ Jesus ..." (pistis humon en Christo Iesou) Col 1:25 reads "... your faith in Christ" (eis Christon pisteos humon). I thess 1:8 reads "... your faith to God-ward (he pistis humon he pros ton theon). Each passage indicates daith "in" or "toward" or in the direction of Christ of God, thus showing that Christ of GOd is the object of the faith and not the subject or producer of the faith. These passages, in addition to the ones Wierwille uses, state that is is our faith IN Jesus Christ that saves us and not the "faith OF Jesus Christ."
Let's review how Wierwille builds his case. It is importnat to ntoe how he builds his arguments because each point of his argument is always contingent on the other points. Concerning soteriology, Wierwille's case is built around three major points, 1) faith is a spiritual element, 2) at one time in history there was no faith, and 3) salvation is based on the faith of Jesus Christ. If one of these premises fail, then they all fail and the entire case or argument becomes invalid
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEnd
I have to agree with Plotinus on ekklesia.
VP did not say, "a group of people who have gathered for a specific purpose." He used "the called-out."
According to The New Dynamic Church, page 4 (which I believe is a transcription of a PFAL session):
The people refered to in Acts were called an ekklesia because they were citizens of the city gathered in one place. The fact that they were rioting has nothing to do with it.
From my various readings (which I can't document at the moment), ekklesia was a political word. It was the gathering of the citizens to discuss and decide issues. Any citizen had the right to speak at these meetings and to propose matters for discussion (contrary to how TWI operates).
Vic goes on to talk about the ekklesia, or called out, of Israel. He even has a chart on page 7 showing three ekklesia's, Israel, Body of Christ, then Isreal again (held in obeyance). Only problem is, Israel is never called an ekklesia, as far as the New Testament is concerned (haven't checked the septuagent). The two greek words are never in the same verse together.
I don't think Israel could be called an ekklesia because they did not function in that manner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEnd
OK, Israel is called an ekklesia in the septuagent. Go figure.
This is getting to the point that it violates Rafael's rules for this thread, so I'll stop here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Dr. Wierwille taught that the OT was only "for our learning" and that the NT was for "doctrine", distinguishing between the two.
He used Romans 15:4 for his proof text.
Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
However what VPW failed to tell us was that "learning" in Romans 15: 4 is the Greek - didaskalia. This same Greek word is translated "doctrine" 19 times elsewhere in the Bible. This is the only verse where it is translated "learning".
Goey
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No it's not. Carry on.
Goey, you are correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Why pay to go to school? Why pay for a class of any kind? Because people are entitled to receive the fruit of their labor, no matter what they do, whether teaching a bible class or selling soap. This is a biblical principle.
It takes money to do things. Time is money. Buying equipment, paying salaries for work, employing folks to generate books and tapes, etc. etc.
I recently purchased a tape set from CES. Quite good. Were they wrong for charging me a fee to hear biblical teachings?
If you want to debate whether PFAL was too much money at certain times, then I'd be more inclined to agree with you.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Oldie's I disagree heartedly. There is a difference between taking a course or a class that you want and sharing the Word of God.
These people forced this PFAL class down people's throats and profited off of it. The excuse was then, as it is now, that PFAL was free and nobody was doing anything with it.(what the hell were they supposed to DO with it?) So they started charging money so people would appreciate it.
That line of thinking not only has a big enough hole to drive a van through it but it is arrogant as hell.
I was doing fine going to fellowhip..for free. I was totally taken advantage of by being pressured into taking a class I didn't want or need, with money that I had worked and saved for a long time.
SHARING the Word, should ALWAYS be free. If people want a class, want to purchase tapes or go to bible college, that's different. Believe me I could have lived without the fruits of their labor and the great research being shoved down my throat, for a price.
Would Jesus have approved of this? NO! Did God approve of this? I think it made Him madder than hell.
This was morally and ethically WRONG. And UnGodly and unbibical and I still run into people who defend what they did.
To me, either they are in total denial, or they have a very skewered perspective on things to where it's perverted there logic.
Or they just plain lack any integrity and morals.
Sorry for getting OT. But this still bugs me when I hear people make excuses for what they did 20 years later.
PS. Let me just add. That if these guys want to be paid for the fruits of there labor, maybe they should consider getting a real job. Like a REAL man. And take care of own families instead of expecting handouts from people by making a living off a dead man's doctrine.
Jesus had a job. All the apostles did.
grrrr Lazy preacher boy sods.
Sorry, sorry, I'm really sorry for getting OT. But this makes me madder than hell.
[This message was edited by RottieGrrrl on January 06, 2003 at 13:17.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Rottiegirl, unless someone was mentally retarded or a child, nobody forced PFAL down anyone's throats. It was a freewill decision. Folks need to accept responsibility for their actions.
If you didn't want to take the class, you didn't have to. Lots of folks didn't.
If this is true then anytime anyone buys a bible book or tape, they are fools for spending the money.
Thousands of folks were blessed from taking PFAL. Just the material on being saved by grace alone, was worth the little amount of money we spent on the class.
These are my feelings on it; it was money WELL spent.
The only point I would agree with you on, is if you were one of the unfortunate ones who had to pay $200 for the class. That was too much, IMO.
Edited by GuestLink 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.