If everything Jesus said was doctrine that was doctrine addressed to us then we should never witness to Gentiles.
This is how Bullinger introduces the subject of "to whom is it addressed" in his book "How to Enjoy the Bible." It's in the introduction on page viii in my edition.
Do you fellas want to take exception to Bullinger?
Getting better at that dodging and distracting bit aren't you.
The point: YOU said, citing a well known Wierwillism, that the gospels are for our learning. But the problem with that is that the word for "learning" in the verse Wierwille quoted is the same word as "doctrine," so the gospels, according to the Bible (the same authority Wierwille was relying upon to make his statement in the first place), are for our doctrine.
Naturally, anything in any book of the Bible that's not specifically addressed to us is not to be carried out by us (unless you've made a habit of accepting sister Phoebe into your church lately). (And Urbanus).
"For our learning" creates the false impression that the teachings of Christ are not for the Church, when many are specifically to the church: this is a truth you will NEVER understand or accept because your idolatrous devotion to PFAL and your inability to go beyond it. A shame, really.
Of course, Wierwille failed to note that the word "learning" in "for our learning" is the same word as "doctrine" in II Timothy 3:16.
Thank you Raf. So your saying that after all that "stuff" about the accuracy and integrity of the word, it was comprimised to make it fit like a hand in a glove? Why couldn't it have just been God's (hand) in his glove (the bible)? UFFDA
And why even make a division with the church over the trinity? All it does is Honor God, Honor Jesus and Honor the Holy Spirit. Don't you think the only purpose was division?
quote: I'm not saying that I personally agree with the doctrine of the trinity...but I am curious as to how and why so many of you still cleave to what wierwille taught on this subject. Besides giving credibility to wierwille, what other reasons do you non-trinitarians base your belief?
I (for one), do not give credibility to vpw by my belief in the non-existance of the trinity. To me -- it makes sense, and if the Dali Lama were the teacher of such, and provided scriptural back-up for his declarations, I would be inclined to believe (because of the scripture), reguardless of the teacher.
I go to the "think tank" fairly often to look at their articles, and I also go to the CES site, about the trinity also.
Both offer credible arguements. CES offers more scripturally accurate observations (imho) than the think tank does -- and my visiting these sites is more of an indication of my curiosity, rather than a "validaton" of one teacher over another.
So -- my belief (or lack therof) on any subject, does not validate vpw -- even if he happened to teach it. There are others here who will disagree with my "conclusions" on the trinity, but I for one, do not see how it fits into scripture -- logically.
I was never taught by Dr to disregard anything in the gospels.
I was taught that they were written for our learning, so I read them and learned from them.
I say, congratulations. I am very happy for you that you have learned from them, unlike Wierwille and his corrupt priests.
Is it possible that in the beginning, Wierwille did not anticipate the destructive outcome of
his dividing the gospels from the epistles "addressed to us" through what he taught in his class and wrote in his book?
Had he realized it before the end of his life, it was evidently and tragically too late.
But it's not too late for us.
The negative effect and outcome of placing the gospels in a position subordinante - not at the very least, equal - to the Pauline material -was as a flash of revelation to me personally upon leaving the Way back in '87.
When all the reports emerged as to the actual deeds and abuses of Wierwille and his priests- the problem is really not difficult to see.
Wierwille and his foot washers had not treated others in the manner of exercising respect for one's neighbor as prescribed by Jesus. They had obviously not "learned" from the gospels. (Had they done so, this forum would most likely not be here today, its existence having been unnecessary.)
Yes, they put together an impressive looking thesis of Jesus' last days, expressing appreciation for such a one going through that pain and torture and dying and all -but as to the actual sayings of Christ pertaining to his new laws for the heart - they ultimately carried little weight and because they were the "Old Testament" and had to little "practical" relevance for "us".
This is not at all how Christians handled the sayings of Jesus alongside the epistles at the open of the second century. The sayings of Christ were regarded the very "New Commandments"! - the new law which replaces/fulfils/abolishes(take-your-pick) "the Old".
And speaking of teachings by vpw, I am more prone to disavow what he says, than I am of others. Consider his teaching on "My God, My God, Why have You forsaken me?"
CES is by no means a Messianic group, yet I have heard the same explanation at a Messianic church about these very verses.
Docvic didn't have it right. I don't think agreeing with some of what he taught "validates" his teaching over all. :)-->
Sadie...thanks for responding to my question. It was a sincere question. My experience is similar to yours...I was always taught Jesus the son and didn't even know what the trinity was until I got into twi...I am not a trinitarian. I was just curious how others dealt with that particular doctrine when "sorting" through Veepee old teachings in their minds. :)-->
I am not thrown at all by the similarity of doctrine and material that is learned. It’s almost a tautology, because contextually if something is right and proper to be learned then it’s right and proper to be believed. But it is also the case that nearly every word in the English dictionary has several differing definitions, depending on how it’s used.
In my bold fonting (in my predeeding post) I made a distinction between doctrine that is directly applicable because it’s addressed to us, and doctrine that’s NOT directly applicable because it’s addressed to someone else. This is a great and essential key if ever we are to apply the words that Paul wrote and that were equally authoritative as all the red lettered verses in the gospels.
Jesus had a ministry after Pentecost too, and he taught Paul what to write. There’s no way to understand Paul if the Gospels are given first place. There’s no way to understand the Gospels if they are first.
In the early church the gospels were first transmitted by word of mouth, but isn’t it the epistles that God first had put into writing?”
Dates are tricky with these things, but my impression is that God’s first century curriculum was in this order: gospels spoken, then epistles spoken, then epistles written, and last gospels written. We got it in that same order: gospels spoken in our culture and all the churches (non-christians may have been at a slight disadvantage here), then epistles spoken (PFAL film), then epistles written (1971 books) , and lastly the gospels written (JCNG, JCOP, JCPS).
Dr didn’t screw up, and neither did Bullinger screw up in giving us all this great key. The only ones who screwed up on this point were the ones who were in the ministry for social reasons and who looked at something that was for our learning as expendable. The screw-ups were those who didn’t want to learn.
I can’t imagine getting all excited about “Christ in you the hope of glory” and then not looking up who this Christ was. There’s no excuse for those who didn’t study the Gospels too. We did get plenty of teaching on them, like we got plenty of teaching on forming our relationship with Christ. I may start a thread and document some of these many teachings, and talked a bit about it with UncleHairy just the other day. It looks like others could benefit besides him.
I have often posted here how many times Dr taught on forming Christ within, and hardly anyone remembered those teachings. These teachings were so new to Steve Lortz he hounded me for months about introducing some new spirit.
We were taught much about Jesus, and we paid little attention because it wasn’t novel to us. We screwed up, not Dr, not Bullinger. I think many didn’t bother to read the Gospels because they though they could wing it on cultural background, church background, and from what they saw of “Jesus” in the movies. Every way I look at it we were winging it on many things and we fell out of the sky like a lead Maltese Falcon.
Invisible Dan...You made some really excellant points. When you think about it, the 1st century Christians didn't have the written gospels or church epistles to "rightly divide". Gosh, no classes or seminars? No concordances? Plenty of signs miracles and wonders though...
The moral teachings of Jesus were not only ignored...but actually belittled! I can still hear wierwille saying how we cannot pray the way Jesus told us to pray...explaining how that prayer was wrong for us because it was in the "old testament"...I can still hear his sarcastic tone as he read Jesus's prayer from the gospels...
I don’t know how you can post something like this when I am around: “I was just curious how others dealt with that particular doctrine when "sorting" through Veepee old teachings in their minds.”
Maybe you haven’t seen the many exposures of corrupted, faded, incomplete, and mixed up old teachings in minds of non mastering students that I've done here. Maybe we need to do that thread on the teachings Dr did on our relatiohship with Christ that seem to have never made it to your mind. Maybe then you 'd see how untrustworthy our memories truely are.
Of those remarks you just recalled of Dr's on Jesus' prayer, do you remember exactly what it was he said we shouldn't pray? Quick, without looking it up?
Sorting though something in the mind, and not going back to the original to refresh fading memories, is one of the best ways to add to the confusion.
Mike...I can't imagine anything that you could possibly say to "benefit" me. Twi NEVER taught about having a relationship with Christ...he was the "absent one".
Mike...certainly you don't think that you are the only one here with an accurate knowledge of what wierwille actually taught and wrote, do you? I have most everything wierwille wrote...in book form. You seem to have this delusion that you have a monopoly on understanding this material better than the rest of us...Cannot you understand that someone can understand wierwille's doctrine as well as you or even better and STILL reject it as being wrong? How arrogant and pompous of you to assume that anyone who rejects the works of wierwille, simply doesn't understand it as well as Mike does!
TWI may have neglected that (in the TVTs), but it IS in the taped teachings and in the writings. It is there and I can prove it.
I posted a chalenge to your memory above, but it was a post-post edit, so you may have not seen it. (I've got to stop doing that!)
Here it is again: Of those remarks you just recalled of Dr's on Jesus' prayer, do you remember exactly what it was he said we shouldn't pray? Quick, without looking it up?
You wrote: “Mike...certainly you don't think that you are the only one here with an accurate knowledge of what wierwille actually taught and wrote, do you? I have most everything wierwille wrote...in book form. You seem to have this delusion that you have a monopoly on understanding this material better than the rest of us...Cannot you understand that someone can understand wierwille's doctrine as well as you or even better and STILL reject it as being wrong? How arrogant and pompous of you to assume that anyone who rejects the works of wierwille, simply doesn't understand it as well as Mike does!”
I think I can see why you feel I'm acting pompus and arrogant.
In many of my earlier posts I was totally up front with my admission that I include myself in the band of screw-ups. My memory is faulty too.
The only reason I actually do have a better command of the material is because I went back to the books and started correcting what had corrupted in my mind (I’m not done either). I was shocked at what I had screwed up, forgotten, added to, and what slipped by me altogether.
In a more recent post I admitted that if other sharper minds than mine (like JAL) had not drifted from the original teachings, or had come back to them earlier than me, then I’d be far behind in the holding it forth like this, with other smarter men way ahead of me.
I am not special, I just hit bottom earlier than most, and was desperate enough to try the almost unthinkable: return to PFAL.
I’m sorry that you probably did not see the many earlier postings I did on this that would have more softened the details you see in only my recent posts. The attitude you have perceived in me is very incomplete, and if there is any way I can help that out I will.
I’ve been toying with the idea of re-organizing my posts, maybe on another website, or somewhere here if more hard drive space is available to Paw. More than once a proPFAL forum has been proposed.
The more I post with you the more I get this impression that you did not see the many (thousands) of postings I did in the past 18 months. I hope you can get the time to search out a few. Try a search word like “formed” and you may see a lot, assuming the search engine is up to speed now. I haven’t tested it lately.
So, did you recall what Dr told us was obsolete in the “Our Father”?
Mike says "The only reason I actually do have a better command of the material is because..."
So you admit it? Scheesh, what a humble guy! I guess that does make you kinda special...I mean, the guy with the "better command" should be addressed as...hmmm, let's see...how about Mogjr? The fact that you have NO IDEA of how much of the material I have "command" of, let alone, dozens of other posters here, doesn't seem to stand in the way of your determining your superiority in this regard...yes, I can see that you are indeed a true disciple of your "father in the word". Mike, you don't just come across as arrogant...you ARE arrogant.
Be that as it may, I have read more of your posts than you think...enough to realize that you may be mentally ill. At best you're a source of amusement and at worst, you're a prime example of why wierwille's doctrines were wrong.
TWI may have neglected that (in the TVTs), but it IS in the taped teachings and in the writings. It is there and I can prove it.
I posted a chalenge to your memory above, but it was a post-post edit, so you may have not seen it. (I've got to stop doing that!)
Here it is again: Of those remarks you just recalled of Dr's on Jesus' prayer, do you remember exactly what it was he said we shouldn't pray? Quick, without looking it up?
Yes, you posted this question different earlier.
Anyways, my reply.
quote:Originally posted by Mike:
So, did you recall what Dr told us was obsolete in the “Our Father”?
Reminds me of an old Twilight Zone episode (lol), the one starring Burgess Meredith, a librarian being persecuted by the state and judged "Oooob-So-LETE".
"Give us this day our daily bread"?
Yes, I'm well aware of the numerous passages in Paul's letters that would suggest that we've been given all things in Christ, both present and future. Beyond what one may ask or even think, and so on.
But how does this render "Ob-so-LETE!" sending up a "cosmic order" every so often to our Deity in heaven? Just because I request something (even if assumed I already own it) doesn't mean I'll get it 2nd day delivery.
And if it happened to be "daily bread", well, I might really become disappointed, though it probably wouldn't hurt me to lose a few pounds.
Anyways, I don't see such a wide chasm between the Lord's Prayer and the ideas in Paul. Certainly nothing that would render points of the Lord's prayer irrevelant or inapplicable to us, as suggested by VPW.
VPW was apparently also quite ignorant about the form of parables, an almost unimaginable place to be for one who prided himself in "figures of speech". It's very good that he at least did offer an introduction of the topic, but when it came to handling the most profound form of the "parables", he seems to have either overlooked them, or he didn't appreciate the value of a past century of "research" on this topic of which various scholars have devoted much their lives and energy, and have broken much new ground.
The form of the parables of Jesus is pure genius - but poor Wierwille, as he demonstrated through his class, both written and filmed (as well as lacking in later classes and works) remained CLUELESS. It occurred in session 4 (if I recall correctly) through his comedic skit of Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jumpup being asked for their opinions on the meaning of parables, with the ultimate conclusion that "no scripture is of private interpretation". But in using the parables in this example, VP missed their functional significance, namely, that a parable is designed to cause in each individual a unique, personal reaction and interpretation - to jar or shock their minds into active thought, and to think anew (with often one element in a number of parables which go against the grain of its cultural and social context).
Nor was VPW evidently aware that the allegorical interpretions appended to a metaphorical form of a parable were later interpolations - somewhat watering down the parables of Christ of their full potency.
The Parables of Christ were intended to spark people into thinking for themselves.
If you find any of this of interest, I heartily recommend C.H. Dodd's "The Parables of the Kingdom", or J. Jeremias' "The Parables of Jesus"- two very basic and fine works in the area of parable studies. Incredible work.
No I’m not arrogant; I just don’t have to take junk from you or anyone else.
Yes I admit that I had a terrible grasp on the material until I started taking a refresher course. Since I’m the only one here that studies the material in the present, it’s no big deal that I’d have a better command of the material. When others start coming back I’ll fall in on the bell curve somewhere; I don’t know where, but I don’t think it’s important.
Would you think I was arrogant if I happened to be the tallest person posting and “admitted” it? If, as a tall person I wanted to be worshiped and served for my tallness then THAT would be arrogance. But if with my tallness I served others who couldn’t reach the top kitchen shelf, then it wouldn’t be arrogance.
Now imagine some short person hear me say “Here, I’m taller than you. Please let me reach that for you.” If that short person had a chip on their shoulder about their height, they might be inclined to think my offer was arrogance.
There are no spiritual rewards I know of for being tall, or being smart, or being early in returning to the original material for a refresher course. Offering accurate and important information to others, and in the face of great opposition, may land some rewards if it’s done in love. Sometimes love needs to be a little tough.
If you want to keep that chip on your short stack of accurate facts about what really happened and what really was taught to us, then it’s YOU that’s arrogant for refusing my help. Want to grow up to the stature of Christ? Take the refresher course and you too can reach for things that are out of others reach, and you to can serve with love.
***
The reason I can remain humble is because I screwed up so bad, and because someone else taught me all this. I’m just passing on the accuracy. I didn’t invent it, I just read it.
You wrote: “The fact that you have NO IDEA of how much of the material I have "command" of,…”
I most certainly DO have an idea of what you do NOT have a command of. You don’t know that we were taught a lot on forming a relationship with Christ. I know you don’t know what we were taught that became obsolete in the “Our Father” after Pentecost, even though you reported a supposedly vivid memory of the attitude you THINK Dr had when he taught it. Plus, I have seen some other arrogant displays of your inclination to join the mob and parade inaccuracies here. Most important Iknow what God says about all falling short.
I think it’s YOU who have no idea how much (or little) command you have on the facts. I challenged you to a debate and you backed of real fast. I asked you to bring up more of your vivid regurgitation of the “Our Father” teaching and you attack me as arrogant. It’s probably been many years since you even talked to anyone who has positive and accurate memories of our teaching history. You probably have run into zero opposition on these matters and have no skill in dealing with someone like me. I suggest you crack those books and get smart… again.
Mike...I'm not sure that any skill is required in dealing with you. I see no purpose in a debate because you start off with the assumption that pfal was "revelation from God". I do not share this same assumption and therefore am at a loss in understanding any purpose for a debate between us to occur...your mind is made up. You begin with the belief that wierwille was right, and then "work from there"...I mean, you're entitled to believe wierwille if you so choose, this is America. Since I became more objective, the errors in pfal are as glaring as they are plentiful. Your mind, however is not objective. You insist that wierwille was "connected" to the Almighty when he wrote his pfal books. I'm not sure if you are even able to see the errors, even when pointed out to you.
Mike...I'm not sure that any skill is required in dealing with you. I see no purpose in a debate because you start off with the assumption that pfal was "revelation from God". I do not share this same assumption and therefore am at a loss in understanding any purpose for a debate between us to occur...your mind is made up. You begin with the belief that wierwille was right, and then "work from there"...I mean, you're entitled to believe wierwille if you so choose, this is America. Since I became more objective, the errors in pfal are as glaring as they are plentiful. Your mind, however is not objective. You insist that wierwille was "connected" to the Almighty when he wrote his pfal books. I'm not sure if you are even able to see the errors, even when pointed out to you.
Since some have been pointed out before, and Mike didn't see them,
I suspect the answer is "No".
He hasn't even thanked me for helping him with the chapter from one of
the collaterals featuring "the Amazing Morphin' Man"...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
12
26
12
Popular Days
Aug 29
31
Aug 30
29
Aug 26
22
Aug 27
17
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 22 posts
oldiesman 12 posts
Mike 26 posts
dmiller 12 posts
Popular Days
Aug 29 2004
31 posts
Aug 30 2004
29 posts
Aug 26 2004
22 posts
Aug 27 2004
17 posts
Raf
Of course, Wierwille failed to note that the word "learning" in "for our learning" is the same word as "doctrine" in II Timothy 3:16.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Raf,
Details, details. ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
If everything Jesus said was doctrine that was doctrine addressed to us then we should never witness to Gentiles.
This is how Bullinger introduces the subject of "to whom is it addressed" in his book "How to Enjoy the Bible." It's in the introduction on page viii in my edition.
Do you fellas want to take exception to Bullinger?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Getting better at that dodging and distracting bit aren't you.
The point: YOU said, citing a well known Wierwillism, that the gospels are for our learning. But the problem with that is that the word for "learning" in the verse Wierwille quoted is the same word as "doctrine," so the gospels, according to the Bible (the same authority Wierwille was relying upon to make his statement in the first place), are for our doctrine.
Naturally, anything in any book of the Bible that's not specifically addressed to us is not to be carried out by us (unless you've made a habit of accepting sister Phoebe into your church lately). (And Urbanus).
"For our learning" creates the false impression that the teachings of Christ are not for the Church, when many are specifically to the church: this is a truth you will NEVER understand or accept because your idolatrous devotion to PFAL and your inability to go beyond it. A shame, really.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Raf:
Your comment:
Of course, Wierwille failed to note that the word "learning" in "for our learning" is the same word as "doctrine" in II Timothy 3:16.
Thank you Raf. So your saying that after all that "stuff" about the accuracy and integrity of the word, it was comprimised to make it fit like a hand in a glove? Why couldn't it have just been God's (hand) in his glove (the bible)? UFFDA
And why even make a division with the church over the trinity? All it does is Honor God, Honor Jesus and Honor the Holy Spirit. Don't you think the only purpose was division?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I (for one), do not give credibility to vpw by my belief in the non-existance of the trinity. To me -- it makes sense, and if the Dali Lama were the teacher of such, and provided scriptural back-up for his declarations, I would be inclined to believe (because of the scripture), reguardless of the teacher.
I go to the "think tank" fairly often to look at their articles, and I also go to the CES site, about the trinity also.
Both offer credible arguements. CES offers more scripturally accurate observations (imho) than the think tank does -- and my visiting these sites is more of an indication of my curiosity, rather than a "validaton" of one teacher over another.
So -- my belief (or lack therof) on any subject, does not validate vpw -- even if he happened to teach it. There are others here who will disagree with my "conclusions" on the trinity, but I for one, do not see how it fits into scripture -- logically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I say, congratulations. I am very happy for you that you have learned from them, unlike Wierwille and his corrupt priests.
Is it possible that in the beginning, Wierwille did not anticipate the destructive outcome of
his dividing the gospels from the epistles "addressed to us" through what he taught in his class and wrote in his book?
Had he realized it before the end of his life, it was evidently and tragically too late.
But it's not too late for us.
The negative effect and outcome of placing the gospels in a position subordinante - not at the very least, equal - to the Pauline material -was as a flash of revelation to me personally upon leaving the Way back in '87.
When all the reports emerged as to the actual deeds and abuses of Wierwille and his priests- the problem is really not difficult to see.
Wierwille and his foot washers had not treated others in the manner of exercising respect for one's neighbor as prescribed by Jesus. They had obviously not "learned" from the gospels. (Had they done so, this forum would most likely not be here today, its existence having been unnecessary.)
Yes, they put together an impressive looking thesis of Jesus' last days, expressing appreciation for such a one going through that pain and torture and dying and all -but as to the actual sayings of Christ pertaining to his new laws for the heart - they ultimately carried little weight and because they were the "Old Testament" and had to little "practical" relevance for "us".
This is not at all how Christians handled the sayings of Jesus alongside the epistles at the open of the second century. The sayings of Christ were regarded the very "New Commandments"! - the new law which replaces/fulfils/abolishes(take-your-pick) "the Old".
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
And speaking of teachings by vpw, I am more prone to disavow what he says, than I am of others. Consider his teaching on "My God, My God, Why have You forsaken me?"
CES is by no means a Messianic group, yet I have heard the same explanation at a Messianic church about these very verses.
Docvic didn't have it right. I don't think agreeing with some of what he taught "validates" his teaching over all.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Sadie...thanks for responding to my question. It was a sincere question. My experience is similar to yours...I was always taught Jesus the son and didn't even know what the trinity was until I got into twi...I am not a trinitarian. I was just curious how others dealt with that particular doctrine when "sorting" through Veepee old teachings in their minds.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I am not thrown at all by the similarity of doctrine and material that is learned. It’s almost a tautology, because contextually if something is right and proper to be learned then it’s right and proper to be believed. But it is also the case that nearly every word in the English dictionary has several differing definitions, depending on how it’s used.
In my bold fonting (in my predeeding post) I made a distinction between doctrine that is directly applicable because it’s addressed to us, and doctrine that’s NOT directly applicable because it’s addressed to someone else. This is a great and essential key if ever we are to apply the words that Paul wrote and that were equally authoritative as all the red lettered verses in the gospels.
Jesus had a ministry after Pentecost too, and he taught Paul what to write. There’s no way to understand Paul if the Gospels are given first place. There’s no way to understand the Gospels if they are first.
In the early church the gospels were first transmitted by word of mouth, but isn’t it the epistles that God first had put into writing?”
Dates are tricky with these things, but my impression is that God’s first century curriculum was in this order: gospels spoken, then epistles spoken, then epistles written, and last gospels written. We got it in that same order: gospels spoken in our culture and all the churches (non-christians may have been at a slight disadvantage here), then epistles spoken (PFAL film), then epistles written (1971 books) , and lastly the gospels written (JCNG, JCOP, JCPS).
Dr didn’t screw up, and neither did Bullinger screw up in giving us all this great key. The only ones who screwed up on this point were the ones who were in the ministry for social reasons and who looked at something that was for our learning as expendable. The screw-ups were those who didn’t want to learn.
I can’t imagine getting all excited about “Christ in you the hope of glory” and then not looking up who this Christ was. There’s no excuse for those who didn’t study the Gospels too. We did get plenty of teaching on them, like we got plenty of teaching on forming our relationship with Christ. I may start a thread and document some of these many teachings, and talked a bit about it with UncleHairy just the other day. It looks like others could benefit besides him.
I have often posted here how many times Dr taught on forming Christ within, and hardly anyone remembered those teachings. These teachings were so new to Steve Lortz he hounded me for months about introducing some new spirit.
We were taught much about Jesus, and we paid little attention because it wasn’t novel to us. We screwed up, not Dr, not Bullinger. I think many didn’t bother to read the Gospels because they though they could wing it on cultural background, church background, and from what they saw of “Jesus” in the movies. Every way I look at it we were winging it on many things and we fell out of the sky like a lead Maltese Falcon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Invisible Dan...You made some really excellant points. When you think about it, the 1st century Christians didn't have the written gospels or church epistles to "rightly divide". Gosh, no classes or seminars? No concordances? Plenty of signs miracles and wonders though...
The moral teachings of Jesus were not only ignored...but actually belittled! I can still hear wierwille saying how we cannot pray the way Jesus told us to pray...explaining how that prayer was wrong for us because it was in the "old testament"...I can still hear his sarcastic tone as he read Jesus's prayer from the gospels...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
UncleHairy,
I don’t know how you can post something like this when I am around: “I was just curious how others dealt with that particular doctrine when "sorting" through Veepee old teachings in their minds.”
Maybe you haven’t seen the many exposures of corrupted, faded, incomplete, and mixed up old teachings in minds of non mastering students that I've done here. Maybe we need to do that thread on the teachings Dr did on our relatiohship with Christ that seem to have never made it to your mind. Maybe then you 'd see how untrustworthy our memories truely are.
Of those remarks you just recalled of Dr's on Jesus' prayer, do you remember exactly what it was he said we shouldn't pray? Quick, without looking it up?
Sorting though something in the mind, and not going back to the original to refresh fading memories, is one of the best ways to add to the confusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Mike...I can't imagine anything that you could possibly say to "benefit" me. Twi NEVER taught about having a relationship with Christ...he was the "absent one".
Mike...certainly you don't think that you are the only one here with an accurate knowledge of what wierwille actually taught and wrote, do you? I have most everything wierwille wrote...in book form. You seem to have this delusion that you have a monopoly on understanding this material better than the rest of us...Cannot you understand that someone can understand wierwille's doctrine as well as you or even better and STILL reject it as being wrong? How arrogant and pompous of you to assume that anyone who rejects the works of wierwille, simply doesn't understand it as well as Mike does!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
TWI may have neglected that (in the TVTs), but it IS in the taped teachings and in the writings. It is there and I can prove it.
I posted a chalenge to your memory above, but it was a post-post edit, so you may have not seen it. (I've got to stop doing that!)
Here it is again: Of those remarks you just recalled of Dr's on Jesus' prayer, do you remember exactly what it was he said we shouldn't pray? Quick, without looking it up?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I did a little editing of my own...see above post
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
UncleHairy,
You wrote: “Mike...certainly you don't think that you are the only one here with an accurate knowledge of what wierwille actually taught and wrote, do you? I have most everything wierwille wrote...in book form. You seem to have this delusion that you have a monopoly on understanding this material better than the rest of us...Cannot you understand that someone can understand wierwille's doctrine as well as you or even better and STILL reject it as being wrong? How arrogant and pompous of you to assume that anyone who rejects the works of wierwille, simply doesn't understand it as well as Mike does!”
I think I can see why you feel I'm acting pompus and arrogant.
In many of my earlier posts I was totally up front with my admission that I include myself in the band of screw-ups. My memory is faulty too.
The only reason I actually do have a better command of the material is because I went back to the books and started correcting what had corrupted in my mind (I’m not done either). I was shocked at what I had screwed up, forgotten, added to, and what slipped by me altogether.
In a more recent post I admitted that if other sharper minds than mine (like JAL) had not drifted from the original teachings, or had come back to them earlier than me, then I’d be far behind in the holding it forth like this, with other smarter men way ahead of me.
I am not special, I just hit bottom earlier than most, and was desperate enough to try the almost unthinkable: return to PFAL.
I’m sorry that you probably did not see the many earlier postings I did on this that would have more softened the details you see in only my recent posts. The attitude you have perceived in me is very incomplete, and if there is any way I can help that out I will.
I’ve been toying with the idea of re-organizing my posts, maybe on another website, or somewhere here if more hard drive space is available to Paw. More than once a proPFAL forum has been proposed.
The more I post with you the more I get this impression that you did not see the many (thousands) of postings I did in the past 18 months. I hope you can get the time to search out a few. Try a search word like “formed” and you may see a lot, assuming the search engine is up to speed now. I haven’t tested it lately.
So, did you recall what Dr told us was obsolete in the “Our Father”?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Mike says "The only reason I actually do have a better command of the material is because..."
So you admit it? Scheesh, what a humble guy! I guess that does make you kinda special...I mean, the guy with the "better command" should be addressed as...hmmm, let's see...how about Mogjr? The fact that you have NO IDEA of how much of the material I have "command" of, let alone, dozens of other posters here, doesn't seem to stand in the way of your determining your superiority in this regard...yes, I can see that you are indeed a true disciple of your "father in the word". Mike, you don't just come across as arrogant...you ARE arrogant.
Be that as it may, I have read more of your posts than you think...enough to realize that you may be mentally ill. At best you're a source of amusement and at worst, you're a prime example of why wierwille's doctrines were wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Yes, you posted this question different earlier.
Anyways, my reply.
Reminds me of an old Twilight Zone episode (lol), the one starring Burgess Meredith, a librarian being persecuted by the state and judged "Oooob-So-LETE".
"Give us this day our daily bread"?
Yes, I'm well aware of the numerous passages in Paul's letters that would suggest that we've been given all things in Christ, both present and future. Beyond what one may ask or even think, and so on.
But how does this render "Ob-so-LETE!" sending up a "cosmic order" every so often to our Deity in heaven? Just because I request something (even if assumed I already own it) doesn't mean I'll get it 2nd day delivery.
And if it happened to be "daily bread", well, I might really become disappointed, though it probably wouldn't hurt me to lose a few pounds.
Anyways, I don't see such a wide chasm between the Lord's Prayer and the ideas in Paul. Certainly nothing that would render points of the Lord's prayer irrevelant or inapplicable to us, as suggested by VPW.
VPW was apparently also quite ignorant about the form of parables, an almost unimaginable place to be for one who prided himself in "figures of speech". It's very good that he at least did offer an introduction of the topic, but when it came to handling the most profound form of the "parables", he seems to have either overlooked them, or he didn't appreciate the value of a past century of "research" on this topic of which various scholars have devoted much their lives and energy, and have broken much new ground.
The form of the parables of Jesus is pure genius - but poor Wierwille, as he demonstrated through his class, both written and filmed (as well as lacking in later classes and works) remained CLUELESS. It occurred in session 4 (if I recall correctly) through his comedic skit of Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jumpup being asked for their opinions on the meaning of parables, with the ultimate conclusion that "no scripture is of private interpretation". But in using the parables in this example, VP missed their functional significance, namely, that a parable is designed to cause in each individual a unique, personal reaction and interpretation - to jar or shock their minds into active thought, and to think anew (with often one element in a number of parables which go against the grain of its cultural and social context).
Nor was VPW evidently aware that the allegorical interpretions appended to a metaphorical form of a parable were later interpolations - somewhat watering down the parables of Christ of their full potency.
The Parables of Christ were intended to spark people into thinking for themselves.
If you find any of this of interest, I heartily recommend C.H. Dodd's "The Parables of the Kingdom", or J. Jeremias' "The Parables of Jesus"- two very basic and fine works in the area of parable studies. Incredible work.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
UncleHairy,
No I’m not arrogant; I just don’t have to take junk from you or anyone else.
Yes I admit that I had a terrible grasp on the material until I started taking a refresher course. Since I’m the only one here that studies the material in the present, it’s no big deal that I’d have a better command of the material. When others start coming back I’ll fall in on the bell curve somewhere; I don’t know where, but I don’t think it’s important.
Would you think I was arrogant if I happened to be the tallest person posting and “admitted” it? If, as a tall person I wanted to be worshiped and served for my tallness then THAT would be arrogance. But if with my tallness I served others who couldn’t reach the top kitchen shelf, then it wouldn’t be arrogance.
Now imagine some short person hear me say “Here, I’m taller than you. Please let me reach that for you.” If that short person had a chip on their shoulder about their height, they might be inclined to think my offer was arrogance.
There are no spiritual rewards I know of for being tall, or being smart, or being early in returning to the original material for a refresher course. Offering accurate and important information to others, and in the face of great opposition, may land some rewards if it’s done in love. Sometimes love needs to be a little tough.
If you want to keep that chip on your short stack of accurate facts about what really happened and what really was taught to us, then it’s YOU that’s arrogant for refusing my help. Want to grow up to the stature of Christ? Take the refresher course and you too can reach for things that are out of others reach, and you to can serve with love.
***
The reason I can remain humble is because I screwed up so bad, and because someone else taught me all this. I’m just passing on the accuracy. I didn’t invent it, I just read it.
You wrote: “The fact that you have NO IDEA of how much of the material I have "command" of,…”
I most certainly DO have an idea of what you do NOT have a command of. You don’t know that we were taught a lot on forming a relationship with Christ. I know you don’t know what we were taught that became obsolete in the “Our Father” after Pentecost, even though you reported a supposedly vivid memory of the attitude you THINK Dr had when he taught it. Plus, I have seen some other arrogant displays of your inclination to join the mob and parade inaccuracies here. Most important Iknow what God says about all falling short.
I think it’s YOU who have no idea how much (or little) command you have on the facts. I challenged you to a debate and you backed of real fast. I asked you to bring up more of your vivid regurgitation of the “Our Father” teaching and you attack me as arrogant. It’s probably been many years since you even talked to anyone who has positive and accurate memories of our teaching history. You probably have run into zero opposition on these matters and have no skill in dealing with someone like me. I suggest you crack those books and get smart… again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Mike said:
Mike, you just made our point about JAL--he's just serving up warmed up PFAL.
Since you consider JAL to have a sharper mind than yourself, are you also part of CES?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
waterbuffalo,
No, CES is not serving warmed up PFAL, it’s more like stripped down and adulterated PFAL. Same with TWI, and same with CFF, and same with GRR.
No I’m not a part of CES, although I’ve talked by phone with JS for several hours and I attended all of JALs visits to San Diego from 1988 to 1998.
Why would you equate my thinking JAL is smart with following him?
He’s got a brilliant mind, but he saturated it with revenge lust and used grads as ammunition in his grudges with the TWI Board of Trustees.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Invisible Dan:
YOur comment:
The Parables of Christ were intended to spark people into thinking for themselves.
Amen and amen. Preach it brother. Dems good words.
refeshing isnt it Dan, to see how individually tailored his words are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Mike...I'm not sure that any skill is required in dealing with you. I see no purpose in a debate because you start off with the assumption that pfal was "revelation from God". I do not share this same assumption and therefore am at a loss in understanding any purpose for a debate between us to occur...your mind is made up. You begin with the belief that wierwille was right, and then "work from there"...I mean, you're entitled to believe wierwille if you so choose, this is America. Since I became more objective, the errors in pfal are as glaring as they are plentiful. Your mind, however is not objective. You insist that wierwille was "connected" to the Almighty when he wrote his pfal books. I'm not sure if you are even able to see the errors, even when pointed out to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Since some have been pointed out before, and Mike didn't see them,
I suspect the answer is "No".
He hasn't even thanked me for helping him with the chapter from one of
the collaterals featuring "the Amazing Morphin' Man"...
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.