It was the FILM that I was referring to way above. I never saw a copyright notice in the film at all, but one did appear on the video format of it around 1981 or 82. When it did many discussions arose. It was a long time ago, so don't hold me to accuracy.
I agree with most all of what you say here, and all my answers to your questions (I think) will be the ones you'd like to see.
We can go into my answers in detail over on my thread, and when I have more time.
I will add to your post, though, that some of us still feel called to do all the things that Jesus did, and hence the search for the power of "all nine" to serve others with. This is why I persue more than your post urges.
I went back to your post. The windows can wait another half hour.
You asked me: [Where do you get your impression that the laws of the world, the letter and intent of the laws, are to be disregarded by Christians. "Submit yourself to every ordnance of man for man's sake.." ]
I see from two verses in Acts (4:19 and 5:29) that there CAN be times where God's higher court overrules man's lower courts.
Acts 4:18-19 "And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye."
Acts 5:27-29 "And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."
When juggling the two scripturally demanded loyalties, to ordinances of God and men, I remember "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." If it's not possible, I obey God above men.
You wrote: "copyright law goes back to the 1790's in the U.S."
Yes, it was a hot idea with all the intelligencia back then and a little earlier who, for the first time, were able to be routinely rewarded with common people's cash for their writing. (This my personal opinion.)
The idea was so hot it was written into the U.S. Constitution. (This is according my feeble memory and precious little time to Google right now.)
I agree with most all of what you say here, and all my answers to your questions (I think) will be the ones you'd like to see.
We can go into my answers in detail over on my thread, and when I have more time.
I will add to your post, though, that some of us still feel called to do all the things that Jesus did, and hence the search for the power of "all nine" to serve others with. This is why I persue more than your post urges.
But you don't need the power of nine, Just the One.
I went back to your post. The windows can wait another half hour.
You asked me: [Where do you get your impression that the laws of the world, the letter and intent of the laws, are to be disregarded by Christians. "Submit yourself to every ordnance of man for man's sake.." ]
I see from two verses in Acts (4:19 and 5:29) that there CAN be times where God's higher court overrules man's lower courts.
Acts 4:18-19 "And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye."
Acts 5:27-29 "And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."
When juggling the two scripturally demanded loyalties, to ordinances of God and men, I remember "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." If it's not possible, I obey God above men.
But we are to be honest, so no one can make false accusations against us.
Telling others about Christ supercedes human law.
Telling people you wrote stuff that was actually done by others is lying.
Yeah, check it out Mike. In my work I deal with copyrights, trademarks, brands and the assortment of legalese that addresses them on a regular basis. I can easily say "I'm not a lawyer" as I need clarification on these kinds of matters all the time. There's a lot to them, now and historically. But there's a "reasonable man" kind of logic to their application that can be figured out by just about anyone who wants to. It's not that hard to do the right thing if a person wanted to.
As to "IMO" you can add that or not. If you want to maintain some semblance of coherency just don't tell me or anyone what we would have or not have done. That kind of rhetoric may be gobbled up by some circles, but not mine.
Not to appear too manipulative, but you're always going in the direction I send you. :D--> This has become so predictable. It's true, you're not being held to accuracy, I gave up on that a long time ago. It's revealing though to see how you grapple and fall back to your "old grad" myths and legends when you're trying to get your footing. I just wanted to hear you voice that as we delve into some of these topic, it's honest. You're guessing. Honesty is refreshing.
Seriously, whatever gave you the idea that I'm doing that? I expect you to say what you say when you say it or when you're moved in that direction.
Face it - you came on this board panting like a wide eyed out of breath adolescent who'd just stumbled on his older brother's stash of Playboy's and was now heaven-bent on telling all his friends 'look! women are different down there!' as if you'd discovered something new. For the most part everyone who's put any thought in to has given you a noogie and said "Awwww, yer a moigatroid!"
You wrote: "But you don't need the power of nine, Just the One."
Yes, I agree.
This One does supply us with the power to operate the "all nine" (plural).
This One True God wants us to use what He has made available.... and so does His Son, who mastered the "all seven" that were available to him at that time.
Those two worked hard to make all nine available to us to use in helping others.
***
You wrote: " But we are to be honest, so no one can make false accusations against us."
Yes. I agree.
Have you ever wondered about Joshua and the other spies Moses sent behind enemy lines? I always wondered if they lied about their identities. How about our dads and grandfathers who fought in WWII? Do you suppose that in addition to their killing other Christian Germans, they might have lied to them too in undercover situations? Which would have been worse shooting a bullet at them or shooting a lie at them?
I don't want to get bogged down in ethics discussions, so let's not go there, another waste of precious PFAL mastery time. OK? I just wanted to mention these things for pondering, or other thread ideas for other people.
***
You wrote: "Telling others about Christ supercedes human law."
Yes it does, but it doesn't violate human legislated law in the same way that Peter and John did in Acts 4&5 as I quoted earlier for WW. Ditto for Brother Andrew as he smuggled Bible (versions) behind the Iron Curtain.
***
You wrote: "Telling people you wrote stuff that was actually done by others is lying."
Have you YET read my post to Oakspear where I quoted the film class where Dr indicated that God's teaching was deeper than mere dictation?
Can you find a single place (besides untrustworthy memory) where Dr said he originated the words that he wrote? He taught that there WAS no original thought in the AC. Did you read THAT recent post of mine?
If Dr was lying, then tell me why he felt so free to OFTEN cite his sources.
Can you answer that?
Did you not followup on all Dr's citations just like you seem to failing to follow up on what has been posted here?
I don't know if either was right, or both were wrong. <<<<<Derailment warning>>>>>
The error is that Wierwille used the argument that Joseph having older sons would invalidate Jesus' claim to the throne of David when he taught that the royal geneology was through Mary.
He was inconsistant, Bullinger, while I don't know if he was right, was consistant in this case.
Have you ever wondered about Joshua and the other spies Moses sent behind enemy lines? I always wondered if they lied about their identities. How about our dads and grandfathers who fought in WWII? Do you suppose that in addition to their killing other Christian Germans, they might have lied to them too in undercover situations? Which would have been worse shooting a bullet at them or shooting a lie at them?
Gee Mike, who was going to die if Wierwille told the truth about his plagiarism?
quote:If Dr was lying, then tell me why he felt so free to OFTEN cite his sources.
He didn't cite his sources. Raf has covered that pretty well in his definitions. He referred to people that he learned from or who taught him, but never is it documented that he admitted that parts of his work were virtually identical to other men's works. Your link does not indicate that he made any such admission.
What would have suffered, by the way, if Wierwille had footnoted, if he had indicated in some way that what he had printed was word-for-word someone else's work? If he had been up front and honest about it, there probably would have been no harm. If he had said "J.E. Stiles said the following about this subject, and I can't improve upon it", or "This class started out as B.G. Leonard's Gifts of the Spirit class, but I have made changes in it where I felt it was more biblically accurate" or "I learned this in The Companion Bible by Bullinger and believe that it is accurate - what or who would have been harmed? Only Wierwille's ego. We who were so hungry for spiritual knowledge would have eaten it up whether we thought it was 100% Wierwille, or if we thought he was a clever editor, but there wouldn't have been the "Wierwille as the great MOG and biblical reseracher" facade. There couldn't have been any "God taught me the Word like it hasn't been taught since the first century".
I went back to your post. The windows can wait another half hour.
You asked me: [Where do you get your impression that the laws of the world, the letter and intent of the laws, are to be disregarded by Christians. "Submit yourself to every ordnance of man for man's sake.." ]
I see from two verses in Acts (4:19 and 5:29) that there CAN be times where God's higher court overrules man's lower courts.
Acts 4:18-19 "And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye."
Acts 5:27-29 "And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."
When juggling the two scripturally demanded loyalties, to ordinances of God and men, I remember "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." If it's not possible, I obey God above men.
Same old Mike,
isolating statements out of context and attributing new meanings to them that suit him.
Acts:4:18a "And they called them...."
Who are "they", and who are "them"?
The "them" includes Peter and John in the next verse, so we know "them" are disciples
of Jesus. Who's "they"?
According to Mike, this is a meeting of the local courts under Caesar, this being a
Roman province. I get that from Mike saying that this citation refers to "man's lower
courts" as opposed to God, and in using this to attempt to refute the idea that Christians
are supposed to obey the laws of local government.
HOWEVER,
since this verse doesn't tell us who "they" are in the verse right where it is written,
we must read the context.
According to Acts 4:1, we're seeing "the people, the priests, and the captain of the
temple, and the Sadduccees".
According to Acts 4:5, we're seeing "their rulers, and elders and scribes".
That's not an appelate court.
What was the "crime"? Acts 4:2 says they "preached thru Jesus the resurrection from the
dead." Preaching was NOT a crime under Roman Law, unless you preached sedition.
The disciples NEVER preached sedition.
So, who ran this meeting?
Acts 4:6 says it was the high priest and his family (nothing like a little nepotism to
stack the deck in your favour.)
"Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John and Alexander, and as many as were of
the kindred of the high priest..."
What was the charge?
Acts 4:7 says it was: how did you do this miracle?
When the council concluded, they told the disciples to stop preaching in Christ's name,
and let them go.
No fine, no lashes, no jurisdictional investigation into sedition. Why?
This wasn't a legal trial.
This was an ecclesiastical "trial" that had no force of law.
The disciples obeyed every law of man. Jesus set the example-he paid his taxes and
said everyone was supposed to.
What about Acts 5?
I'm not going to go over the entire chapter when any grad of pfal should be able to make
sense of it without me.
I will, however, point out that the context of chapter 5 is, of course, chapter 4.
Acts 5:27 shows who's running this meeting: the high priest again.
Here's a guy who's not afraid to disregard the law and use his connections to have
the captain of the temple (Acts 5:24) act as his trained monkey-boy.
Even this illegal meeting, you notice, wasn't fought against by the disciples.
They COULD have said "it's illegal for them to beat us" (Acts 5:40.)
Instead, they rejoiced they were counted worthy to suffer in Jesus' name.
Paul spent a lot of time in jail for serving Christ.
Where does it say in your accepted canon, the text that you might like to try and get onto the Table of Challenge worthily, that God has to say anything according to yor specifications?
Actually I have found 90 places, all hidden in one way of another, where Dr says "Thus saith the Lord" in my Table of Challenge stack.
[Actually, we saw one example of this a while back. Goey spanked you like a wicked stepchild on this, since it's obvious in the accounts of "thus saith the Lord" that vpw refers to a quote from the BIBLE, and "I didn't write the book" means "I didn't write the BIBLE", not "I typed the Orange Book, but its writer was actually God Almighty". ]
Why hidden? So that this debate would occur AFTER the books were printed and distributed around the globe.
[so, God left this as a secret message all this time, never mentioned by vpw to any group of people, all so that, many years later, Mike would be able to decode one word here, another word there, and whammo! Secret message decrypted. Reminds me of an inferior copy of Dan Brown's so called "Da Vinci Code".]
Neither you, NOR I, nor any grad I know of, would have helped print and distribute those books had Dr said it for God the way you specify.
[if it was TRUE, we would have. If it was pure hubris, we wouldn't have. ]
We weren't ready spiritually to hear it that way,
[Here's another "you have to be spiritually advanced to understand this" one. lcm's "Eve's sin was to have lesbian sex" was another example of these sorts of statements. A third example involved adultery for the higher-ups. ]
and it's still a challenge for you to accept it now.
[ir's a challenge because there's no reason to accept this wild claim other than Mike's statements of divine fiat. pfal's internal testimony of itself does NOT bear this out when the principles in pfal are applied to pfal to increase understanding. It would be difficult for me to "accept" a flat earth or a moon made of green cheese also. ]
Simple obedience to Dr's final instrctions yielded the 90 references for me. It will for you too.
[ A little time can easily find places vpw referenced the Bible and said "thus saith the Lord". That requires nothing except careful reading. A smart 5-year old can do that. Ability to memorize and spit back the entire contents would also do that. Neither would show pfal claiming pfal was the new Bible. THAT's the rub. ]
I don't want to get bogged down in ethics discussions, so let's not go there, another waste of precious PFAL mastery time. OK? I just wanted to mention these things for pondering, or other thread ideas for other people.
(snip)
You wrote: "Telling people you wrote stuff that was actually done by others is lying."
Have you YET read my post to Oakspear where I quoted the film class where Dr indicated that God's teaching was deeper than mere dictation?
Can you find a single place (besides untrustworthy memory) where Dr said he originated the words that he wrote? He taught that there WAS no original thought in the AC. Did you read THAT recent post of mine?
If Dr was lying, then tell me why he felt so free to OFTEN cite his sources.
Can you answer that?
Did you not followup on all Dr's citations just like you seem to failing to follow up on what has been posted here?
A) The "ethics discussions" will keep coming up because GOD ALMIGHTY
declared how His people should act and deal with each other.
When someone is supposedly put forth as a paragon of Godliness, a
virtual avatar of God, a titan of believing, who shook the earth where
he walked,
Then, it behooves us as Christians, to examine this person and see if
they are at LEAST demonstrating principles designated by God to be
exercised by people claiming to represent Him.
Disregarding the laws of the land entirely, and deceiving the brethren
do NOT exist on such a list of Godly behaviour.
Since your erstwhile prophet was woefully deficient in them as he
broke laws and defied commonsense moral codes (don't rape, don't lie,
don't pretend it's your work when it wasn't), morality will KEEP coming
up.
B) It's obvious, Mike, that even when we bring up that you have NO
UNDERSTANDING of what it means to "CITE SOURCES", you STILL make no
effort to understand what it means to "CITE SOURCES".
I've even made it VERY EASY to understand what it means to
"CITE SOURCES".
Look at the first page of this thread.
Under the heading "citing sources", there's a whole thing of links.
Take as many as you want.
Hint: When vpw mentioned in pfal that he read some old book on Jewish
customs about age 12 and bar mitzvahs, but never mentions the name,
that's not a CITATION.
C) I'll post an example of vpw claiming he originated the words he
Yes sir, I most certainly_ GET_ my "ideas by assuming wierwille was correct." I'd call it a postulate, my assumption that PFAL is correct.
(snip)
I said that if PFAL is NOT God-breathed then I'm in a pickle. Actually, if it is not God-breathed then said pickle is nothing compared to the dire dilemma we ALL face, because in this scenario NOTHING is God-breathed in this world.
(snip)
My Table of Challenge is still lacking a serious contender for that hard copy of the Word of God. My study table is stocked.
A) This may surprise you, Mike,
but starting from the position that anything vpw did was AUTOMATICALLY
right produces a GREAT many problems. (As it would assuming ANYONE was
automatically right, except Jesus Christ.)
This is why you got static when you started toying with the idea that
rape and molestation might have been, in some way, related to the
"toughening up" process vpw supposedly directed at the corps.
(Yes, you left that position fairly early.) Few others reacted in anything
BUT horror when you tossed the idea out, because it's horrific.
It's like saying God might suggest boiling a newborn infant for some
Godly purpose.
Your automatic assumption that PFAL is correct runs into similar problems
when facing even SOME of the ACTUAL ERRORS IN PFAL.
Since you refuse to consider their existance, they can be quite pesky
for you. (See "the Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen.)
B) I'm sure you missed the obvious flaw in your statement.
You said "if pfal is not God-breathed, then NOTHING is God-breathed."
pfal's status or NONstatus has ANY affect on the status of any OTHER
document. A Mormon might say "if the Book of Mormon is not God-breathed,
then NOTHING is God-breathed." A 'Christian Scientist' might say
"if Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures is not God-breathed,
then NOTHING is God-breathed." A Muslim may say "if the Koran is not
God-breathed, then NOTHING is God-breathed." A Hindu may say "if the
Bhagavad-Gita is not God-breathed, then NOTHING is God-breathed."
Does ANY of their statements change the status of their book or anyone
else's? No-they stand or fall on their OWN merits.
C) Finally,
Mike,
the ORIGINAL Table of Challenge predates yours, and you've refused
to address it.
That's the one with a partial list of ACTUAL ERRORS in PFAL.
(Not even counting the Amazing Morphin' Man.)
I offered to accept YOUR challenge over a year ago IF you dealt at
least with a FEW of the most obvious items that show your Table of
Challenge itself is an inferior product.
You seem to have forgotten I was ready and willing to offer an
exchange, one on your turf, on on ours. That's when you asked for
more in return for what you need to address anyway.
Wordwolf, I'm going to digress into another topic and bring it back, I think it applies. One of the assertions in the God Breathed Reissued Call to PFAL is that grads need to come back to the collaterals, study and read the collateral books of PFAL.
The collaterals went through changes over the years, eventually getting put into collections, in the various books, "green", "blue", etc. So for most grads if they have that series of books they have what's considered to be "the collateral" readings of PFAL in their REWORKED versions (caps deliberate).
One of the original pamphlets was titled "The First Century Church in the Twentieth", later reworked and put into one of the books. It was a short study (as they all were) on how the early church grew and prospered in the abundant life of Christ and looked at Acts records specifically.
One of the major points taught was the sharing amongst the church with each other and that as the believers gave of their abundance to the apostles, the apostles distributed out of what they received from them, back to those amongst the church who had need. The example used was of a young couple, starting out, needing help to get going in business, starting a farm say. (Ohio, farms, okay) He says "That is a need. The church helps that couple to get started".
This was part of a greater picture being presented - not a giveaway program as he says in the pamphlet, but rather an extension and application of the society of Christians who shared abundantly of their prosperity with each other and with the apostles. So you have people helping each other and the church leadership actively helping the church. Distribution and sharing happens at all levels and the leadership sets the example because as VPW states those doing the giving are giving it to people they feel represent God and are doing "His" work. No one's left out, no need goes "unmet", the church helps it's own people.
Short point - this portion was left out of the later revised versions that went in to the books.
Short point - in fact, the Way Ministry never got there. It's people did to a great extent on their own (personal assistance, Corps sponsorship, various kinds of support for the ministry's projects and activities) but the corporate organization never did.
Big Point - VPW didn't follow his original vision to do what the Word says and his writings changed to reflect it. Regardless of why, who, where or when, this basic concept was abandoned early in the Way's development. Future development never reflected it in the teaching, never addressed the ways and means that The Way was following through on this basic vision. It was simply dropped and removed. I feel it's easy to see that while the other elements of the early church were reflected in parts of the Way, when it got to the "apostles' feet", there was a disconnect from the example of the early church in the Word.
If I was looking for reasons why the Way Inc. has struggled so over the years, this would be one I'd consider in the mix. Basic PFAL teaching promised a broad range of possibilities that, over time, would produce a truly "New Dynamic Church" in all facets.
When you look at the years of the Way's "big" growth period, from say 1968 through 1980 one thing is prominent - that the attitude of the Way people was to share readily from what they had with each other and with the Way International.
The history speaks for itself - the Way took in money, and got other money (through short term loans) and used it to pursue lots of projects, The Way Corps program, the properties, building projects. But from a leadership standpoint this kind of basic, personal, grass roots interaction with the Way members was never pursued or explained as to why we weren't. It was simply dropped as if it wasn't in the bible. But we know it was and that it had at one time been taught as a basic principle of how the Chrisian church should function.
This point doesn't negate everything in every collateral, that's not my point. My point is that VPW pursued some things and not others. The explanation that was given for this change here was simply "the government won't let us do it".
If I go by the logic that sometimes laws don't best represent God's will and they have to be broken sometimes, then this qualifies. If it's in the Word, it's needs to be done and the Way taught many things from the bible that it knew were heresy by some standards but doggonit, it's in the Word! so we're going to do it regardless of what people say.
I wouldn't have expected VPW to have brought the Way down over illegal practices, but I did expect him to pursue solutions that would allow The Way Inc. to do what the Word teaches.
By moving in the direction he did, the Way Inc. had to route it's resources in to supportinng itself. If you went in the Way Corps for instance, you benefitted from the resources the Way collected because the Way underwrote the program's expenses. But if you didn't you likely never saw an organized consistent use of the "prosperity" that was laid "at the apostle's feet". You got the classes, but you paid something for them. The Way decided what it was going to do, pay for, build, buy, plan, and if you particpated in those things you had a degree of "sharing" to your "need" for teaching but not in the way Acts depicts or the way VPW initially taught was necessary.
Come to think of it, this might be an "Actual Error", by virtue of ommission. At the least it's been something I've learned a great deal from.
To a degree, the books are undependable, not in every book and all the material in them, but it's difficult to know exactly what VPW and his people moved, dropped, deleted or simply ignored. He had the podium for many years. What he said and taught in 1,000's of situations has to figure in to the mix of understanding, because as we see these changes going on there was rarely a clear and loud explanation as to what was going on. We knew PFAL, the basic class, was never changed from the film and tape. Two of the 3rd corps personally handled the transferral of the original to beta video in the Weirwille basement under VPW's supervision. But the vast amount of material that went forth in teachings, meetings, the Way Woods, private converations, was how a lot of the information came out when people asked about it or VPW decided to deal with it. That's why I believe the content of those events is so vital to understanding VPW's mind and intent. He didn't publish everything in the Way Magazine or a book or a SNS teaching. He was very careful about what he personally memorialized in any kind of media.
Mike has stated that: PFAL is 'God's Word reissued'. Mike has stated that this means we don't need any versions of the Bible anymore, only PFAL. Mike has stated that PFAL is the word of God, that the Holy Spirit has provided us with His Word in written form in PFAL, and it (PFAL) carries all the authority of God Almighty. Mike has offered a 'Table of Challenge' (which he claims exposes things which some would prefer to keep hidden away) so that we may have access to his advanced abilities and approval. Mike has stated that Christ is currently learning from PFAL and will be teaching from PFAL materials when he returns.
Mike has stated that betraying Dr's revelations is betraying God. You just need to feed that Christ inside with the pure Word of PFAL. Mike has stated that studying PFAL will defeat death.
Now we return you to our regularly scheduled program...
You seem have very little willingness to debate these issues with me so you resort to vain repetitions. Allow me to engage you in a deeper way here. I will comment on every line of your paste job.
***
... ...Mike has stated that: PFAL is 'God's Word reissued'.
Yes. That's my way of putting it, with the qualifier that it's the written form of PFAL, the book and magazine form, and that it is addressed to us grads.
***
... ...Mike has stated that this means we don't need any versions of the Bible anymore, only PFAL.
Yes, but the "we" here is Older Leader Grads (OLGs) of PFAL who have already spend a lot of time with our KJVs, many other teachings, and field experience, and not enough time with PFAL. For OLGs without that background, this statement of yours, Tom, is false.
Actually, we OLGs do most certainly need, not only the assumed background mentioned above, but we also need the many, many, many KJV verses quoted in the pages of PFAL. Without those those verses, and the knowledge of where they came from, then Tom, your statement is wrong.
I might add here that an occasional reach for our KJVs for review, or context, or to follow up on a suggested reference in PFAL is certainly in order.
For instance, in GMWD pages 91-92 contain a reference to Jeremiah 36: 23 and a summary paragraph of many KJV verses surrounding it. This is not a direct order to read those many verses, but I would take it as an essential suggestion. Once I've done that a few times, THEN I don't need to go there any more for a long while.
In other words, my "Yes" to the above is so qualified, that I'd say, Tom, your line here is an extreme over-abbreviation. You do not do my message justice.
TOM, YOU MISREPRESENT ME GREATLY.
***
... ...Mike has stated that PFAL is the word of God,
Yes, but that's "Word" with a capital "W."
***
... ...that the Holy Spirit has provided us with His Word in written form in PFAL, and it (PFAL) carries all the authority of God Almighty.
Again, that "us" is OLGs with tons of exposure to KJV and other learning as mentioned above.
***
... ...Mike has offered a 'Table of Challenge' (which he claims exposes things which some would prefer to keep hidden away)... ...
So far so good. However this doesn't explain what that 'Table of Challenge' is, so it's poor writing on your part, Tom. Again, it's an over-abbreviation. TOM, YOU MISREPRESENT ME GREATLY.
***
... ... so that we may have access to his advanced abilities and approval.
This line is complete hogwash!
This either demonstrates a complete ignorance of what you write, Tom, or a deliberate attempt to smear me. I've written hundreds of lines on the 'Table of Challenge' and I dare you to produce the source of this, or I'll call it slander.
Tom, I could challenge you to a debate, you and you alone, in real time to face my Table of Challenge. We could do it on a telephone with a tape recorder running. Or we could do it in any other way that would assure that you receive no outside help. You have not read anything at all about this topic and are ignorant of what it means. Before I do make this challenge, though, you must demonstrate to me that you did this out of ignorance, and not in a deliberate attempt to smear me, AND that you have gone back and educated yourself by re-reading at least some of what I have actually written on this topic.
TOM, YOU MISREPRESENT ME GREATLY.
***
... ...Mike has stated that Christ is currently learning from PFAL and will be teaching from PFAL materials when he returns.
This discounts the reality of Christ in me and Christ in any grad who comes back to PFAL and learns more deeply from it. TOM, YOU MISREPRESENT ME GREATLY.
***
... ...Mike has stated that betraying Dr's revelations is betraying God.
Yes. But only for those revelations that are from the True God, i.e. the written forms of PFAL. Those revelations are of God and not of Dr.
This would be true of betraying any true revelation to any human being. If I betray a revelation from the True God to Tom Strange, then I betray the True God.
***
... ...You just need to feed that Christ inside with the pure Word of PFAL.
Yes, with the understanding that "You" is an OLG.
***
... ...Mike has stated that studying PFAL will defeat death.
No. Study with the intent to MASTER the written PFAL will bring a student closer to that victory, though. That victory will soon be complete, because the master is at hand.
You seem have very little willingness to debate these issues with me
[Actually, Mike, most of these don't need debating. You said you've seen Jesus studying from PFAL "many times". (You've seen it many times, not said it many times.) How much can we debate this vision of yours? ]
[ Doesn't it strike you as mildly ironic that you, the master of refusing honest discussion and debate, should claim you now WANT debate?]
so you resort to vain repetitions.
[ Not every "repetition" is vain. New people arrive who missed the last 2-3 years of your sermons. Tom Strange gives them a snippet of some of the highlights they missed.]
Allow me to engage you in a deeper way here. I will comment on every line of your paste job.
[At least you admit it's a cut-and-paste of what you've said, in essence.]
***
... ...Mike has stated that: PFAL is 'God's Word reissued'.
Yes. That's my way of putting it, with the qualifier that it's the written form of PFAL, the book and magazine form, and that it is addressed to us grads.
[There is no need to attempt to qualify this-this is what you've said. Besides, none of the qualifiers change the implications for the rest of us.]
***
... ...Mike has stated that this means we don't need any versions of the Bible anymore, only PFAL.
Yes, but the "we" here is Older Leader Grads (OLGs) of PFAL who have already spend a lot of time with our KJVs, many other teachings, and field experience, and not enough time with PFAL. For OLGs without that background, this statement of yours, Tom, is false.
Actually, we OLGs do most certainly need, not only the assumed background mentioned above, but we also need the many, many, many KJV verses quoted in the pages of PFAL. Without those those verses, and the knowledge of where they came from, then Tom, your statement is wrong.
I might add here that an occasional reach for our KJVs for review, or context, or to follow up on a suggested reference in PFAL is certainly in order.
For instance, in GMWD pages 91-92 contain a reference to Jeremiah 36: 23 and a summary paragraph of many KJV verses surrounding it. This is not a direct order to read those many verses, but I would take it as an essential suggestion. Once I've done that a few times, THEN I don't need to go there any more for a long while.
[since the verses cited in the body of pfal are part of pfal by definition, this qualifier adds words but not meaning. You say that if one has the PFAL books in their entirety and studies THOSE, owning a KJV or other Bible is superfluous and unnecessary. That's the same thing Tom quoted from you.]
In other words, my "Yes" to the above is so qualified, that I'd say, Tom, your line here is an extreme over-abbreviation. You do not do my message justice.
[it's not an over-abbreviation-the answer you followed it with was an over-inflation, in that it carried the same meaning in 2 paragraphs that Tom's one sentence did. That IS your message, even though you would not like it phrased as such. It is factually correct, and representative of the thoughts you've presented-as you JUST illustrated.]
TOM, YOU MISREPRESENT ME GREATLY.
[That's patently untrue, and saying it a lot wont change that.]
***
... ...Mike has stated that PFAL is the word of God,
Yes, but that's "Word" with a capital "W."
[Tom, please capitalize "The Word of God" as I've written it in your next summary. Mike believes it's the one and only Word of God extant today.]
***
... ...that the Holy Spirit has provided us with His Word in written form in PFAL, and it (PFAL) carries all the authority of God Almighty.
Again, that "us" is OLGs with tons of exposure to KJV and other learning as mentioned above.
[Actually, either a book is Truth or it isn't. If it needs to be given only to OLGs, then it's NOT. Tom's being more fair to your doctrine than you are, there. ]
***
... ...Mike has offered a 'Table of Challenge' (which he claims exposes things which some would prefer to keep hidden away)... ...
So far so good. However this doesn't explain what that 'Table of Challenge' is, so it's poor writing on your part, Tom. Again, it's an over-abbreviation. TOM, YOU MISREPRESENT ME GREATLY.
[Actually, you spent months refusing to give a clear meaning to the title you assigned, "Table of Challenge". Don't blame him for quoting your lack of definition and explanation. He's STILL representing the content of your posts.]
***
... ... so that we may have access to his advanced abilities and approval.
This line is complete hogwash!
This either demonstrates a complete ignorance of what you write, Tom, or a deliberate attempt to smear me. I've written hundreds of lines on the 'Table of Challenge' and I dare you to produce the source of this, or I'll call it slander.
Tom, I could challenge you to a debate, you and you alone, in real time to face my Table of Challenge. We could do it on a telephone with a tape recorder running. Or we could do it in any other way that would assure that you receive no outside help. You have not read anything at all about this topic and are ignorant of what it means. Before I do make this challenge, though, you must demonstrate to me that you did this out of ignorance, and not in a deliberate attempt to smear me, AND that you have gone back and educated yourself by re-reading at least some of what I have actually written on this topic.
[Ok, let's cut thru this ad hominem attack on Tom and see if what Tom said is
"complete hogwash".
Mike, you spent months pushing for someone, anyone, to accept your "Table of
Challenge". You insisted this was necessary and that your doctrine was superior to
anything we could place on it. You DID make it "necessary for your approval."
I'm unclear whether you specifically promised someone access to your secret inner circle
advanced teachings, so I'm unsure about the "advanced abilities."
To me, if he deletes those 2 words, he's back to exactly what you said.
That's HARDLY HOGWASH,
and this temper-tantrum doesn't make it so.]
TOM, YOU MISREPRESENT ME GREATLY.
[No, he's represented you fairly. He's almost entirely stuck to quotations, and
faithfully retained their meanings.]
***
... ...Mike has stated that Christ is currently learning from PFAL and will be teaching from PFAL materials when he returns.
This discounts the reality of Christ in me and Christ in any grad who comes back to PFAL and learns more deeply from it. TOM, YOU MISREPRESENT ME GREATLY.
[ Now, this is an absolute lie. You, yourself, said, and CLARIFIED, that you'd seen Jesus Christ himself studying the PFAL materials. You'd seen him "this way" MANY TIMES. You said that when he returned, he'd have a copy of the book IN HIS HAND. By claiming Tom is doing other than saying exactly what you said, and claiming his quote "misrepresents" you, you misrepresent TOM, and thus you owe him an APOLOGY. Why are you now ashamed of claims you've made previously? I thought you were proud of your doctrine! ]
***
... ...Mike has stated that betraying Dr's revelations is betraying God.
Yes. But only for those revelations that are from the True God, i.e. the written forms of PFAL. Those revelations are of God and not of Dr.
This would be true of betraying any true revelation to any human being. If I betray a revelation from the True God to Tom Strange, then I betray the True God.
[i'd say outright this statement needs a qualifier, but you HAVE been rather silent on the subject of "when does vpw speak ex cathedra, and when does he just speak for himself?" Until you make that crystal clear, and stick to your own rule, Tom's entitled to keep the current phrasing as "representative".]
***
... ...You just need to feed that Christ inside with the pure Word of PFAL.
Yes, with the understanding that "You" is an OLG.
[if it is truth, ALL CHRISTIANS would grow with exposure to it, not just OLGs. This "understanding" you're now making is new and DIFFERENT from what you've said before. Are you SURE you want to stick with your new position-that PFAL is a truth that selectively only prospers OLGs? ]
***
... ...Mike has stated that studying PFAL will defeat death.
No. Study with the intent to MASTER the written PFAL will bring a student closer to that victory, though. That victory will soon be complete, because the master is at hand.
[A lengthier quote from you on this very subject is above, on this thread. You're saying "no", that what he said is different from what you said, but then you said the same thing. Written PFAL brings a student closer to victory over death, thus, partial victories and partial successes. That's what Tom was saying in the first place. ]
All in all, Tom, you misrepresent me greatly.
.
[All in all, Tom represented your statements fairly faithfully, and you got upset by it and said he didn't over and over, which was incorrect, over and over. ]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
23
55
Popular Days
Jan 22
41
Jan 24
17
Feb 1
16
Jan 31
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 22 posts
def59 22 posts
WordWolf 23 posts
Mike 55 posts
Popular Days
Jan 22 2005
41 posts
Jan 24 2005
17 posts
Feb 1 2005
16 posts
Jan 31 2005
14 posts
Mike
socks,
It was the FILM that I was referring to way above. I never saw a copyright notice in the film at all, but one did appear on the video format of it around 1981 or 82. When it did many discussions arose. It was a long time ago, so don't hold me to accuracy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The only piece of advice from Mike you can take to the bank.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I like throwing you a bone from time to time.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Appreciate the assist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Mike
Who is your lord and saviour. Who do you put your trust in?
Is it vpw? Did he live a perfect sinless life?
Did he die for you? Did he rise for you?
How about going back to Jesus. Simply Jesus.
Find your original manuscripts if you must, but go back to Jesus and listen to what he said.
He never sinned, ripped anyone off, charged for his message, copied another's idea.
He came in love and power. He loves you. Look for him, not some class or a book written by flawed men.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
I agree with most all of what you say here, and all my answers to your questions (I think) will be the ones you'd like to see.
We can go into my answers in detail over on my thread, and when I have more time.
I will add to your post, though, that some of us still feel called to do all the things that Jesus did, and hence the search for the power of "all nine" to serve others with. This is why I persue more than your post urges.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
I went back to your post. The windows can wait another half hour.
You asked me: [Where do you get your impression that the laws of the world, the letter and intent of the laws, are to be disregarded by Christians. "Submit yourself to every ordnance of man for man's sake.." ]
I see from two verses in Acts (4:19 and 5:29) that there CAN be times where God's higher court overrules man's lower courts.
Acts 4:18-19 "And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye."
Acts 5:27-29 "And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."
When juggling the two scripturally demanded loyalties, to ordinances of God and men, I remember "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." If it's not possible, I obey God above men.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
socks,
You wrote: "copyright law goes back to the 1790's in the U.S."
Yes, it was a hot idea with all the intelligencia back then and a little earlier who, for the first time, were able to be routinely rewarded with common people's cash for their writing. (This my personal opinion.)
The idea was so hot it was written into the U.S. Constitution. (This is according my feeble memory and precious little time to Google right now.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
But you don't need the power of nine, Just the One.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
But we are to be honest, so no one can make false accusations against us.
Telling others about Christ supercedes human law.
Telling people you wrote stuff that was actually done by others is lying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Yeah, check it out Mike. In my work I deal with copyrights, trademarks, brands and the assortment of legalese that addresses them on a regular basis. I can easily say "I'm not a lawyer" as I need clarification on these kinds of matters all the time. There's a lot to them, now and historically. But there's a "reasonable man" kind of logic to their application that can be figured out by just about anyone who wants to. It's not that hard to do the right thing if a person wanted to.
As to "IMO" you can add that or not. If you want to maintain some semblance of coherency just don't tell me or anyone what we would have or not have done. That kind of rhetoric may be gobbled up by some circles, but not mine.
Not to appear too manipulative, but you're always going in the direction I send you.
:D--> This has become so predictable. It's true, you're not being held to accuracy, I gave up on that a long time ago. It's revealing though to see how you grapple and fall back to your "old grad" myths and legends when you're trying to get your footing. I just wanted to hear you voice that as we delve into some of these topic, it's honest. You're guessing. Honesty is refreshing.
Seriously, whatever gave you the idea that I'm doing that? I expect you to say what you say when you say it or when you're moved in that direction.
Face it - you came on this board panting like a wide eyed out of breath adolescent who'd just stumbled on his older brother's stash of Playboy's and was now heaven-bent on telling all his friends 'look! women are different down there!' as if you'd discovered something new. For the most part everyone who's put any thought in to has given you a noogie and said "Awwww, yer a moigatroid!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
You wrote: "But you don't need the power of nine, Just the One."
Yes, I agree.
This One does supply us with the power to operate the "all nine" (plural).
This One True God wants us to use what He has made available.... and so does His Son, who mastered the "all seven" that were available to him at that time.
Those two worked hard to make all nine available to us to use in helping others.
***
You wrote: " But we are to be honest, so no one can make false accusations against us."
Yes. I agree.
Have you ever wondered about Joshua and the other spies Moses sent behind enemy lines? I always wondered if they lied about their identities. How about our dads and grandfathers who fought in WWII? Do you suppose that in addition to their killing other Christian Germans, they might have lied to them too in undercover situations? Which would have been worse shooting a bullet at them or shooting a lie at them?
I don't want to get bogged down in ethics discussions, so let's not go there, another waste of precious PFAL mastery time. OK? I just wanted to mention these things for pondering, or other thread ideas for other people.
***
You wrote: "Telling others about Christ supercedes human law."
Yes it does, but it doesn't violate human legislated law in the same way that Peter and John did in Acts 4&5 as I quoted earlier for WW. Ditto for Brother Andrew as he smuggled Bible (versions) behind the Iron Curtain.
***
You wrote: "Telling people you wrote stuff that was actually done by others is lying."
Have you YET read my post to Oakspear where I quoted the film class where Dr indicated that God's teaching was deeper than mere dictation?
Can you find a single place (besides untrustworthy memory) where Dr said he originated the words that he wrote? He taught that there WAS no original thought in the AC. Did you read THAT recent post of mine?
If Dr was lying, then tell me why he felt so free to OFTEN cite his sources.
Can you answer that?
Did you not followup on all Dr's citations just like you seem to failing to follow up on what has been posted here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The error is that Wierwille used the argument that Joseph having older sons would invalidate Jesus' claim to the throne of David when he taught that the royal geneology was through Mary.
He was inconsistant, Bullinger, while I don't know if he was right, was consistant in this case.
Carry on
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
What would have suffered, by the way, if Wierwille had footnoted, if he had indicated in some way that what he had printed was word-for-word someone else's work? If he had been up front and honest about it, there probably would have been no harm. If he had said "J.E. Stiles said the following about this subject, and I can't improve upon it", or "This class started out as B.G. Leonard's Gifts of the Spirit class, but I have made changes in it where I felt it was more biblically accurate" or "I learned this in The Companion Bible by Bullinger and believe that it is accurate - what or who would have been harmed? Only Wierwille's ego. We who were so hungry for spiritual knowledge would have eaten it up whether we thought it was 100% Wierwille, or if we thought he was a clever editor, but there wouldn't have been the "Wierwille as the great MOG and biblical reseracher" facade. There couldn't have been any "God taught me the Word like it hasn't been taught since the first century".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Same old Mike,
isolating statements out of context and attributing new meanings to them that suit him.
Acts:4:18a "And they called them...."
Who are "they", and who are "them"?
The "them" includes Peter and John in the next verse, so we know "them" are disciples
of Jesus. Who's "they"?
According to Mike, this is a meeting of the local courts under Caesar, this being a
Roman province. I get that from Mike saying that this citation refers to "man's lower
courts" as opposed to God, and in using this to attempt to refute the idea that Christians
are supposed to obey the laws of local government.
HOWEVER,
since this verse doesn't tell us who "they" are in the verse right where it is written,
we must read the context.
According to Acts 4:1, we're seeing "the people, the priests, and the captain of the
temple, and the Sadduccees".
According to Acts 4:5, we're seeing "their rulers, and elders and scribes".
That's not an appelate court.
What was the "crime"? Acts 4:2 says they "preached thru Jesus the resurrection from the
dead." Preaching was NOT a crime under Roman Law, unless you preached sedition.
The disciples NEVER preached sedition.
So, who ran this meeting?
Acts 4:6 says it was the high priest and his family (nothing like a little nepotism to
stack the deck in your favour.)
"Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John and Alexander, and as many as were of
the kindred of the high priest..."
What was the charge?
Acts 4:7 says it was: how did you do this miracle?
When the council concluded, they told the disciples to stop preaching in Christ's name,
and let them go.
No fine, no lashes, no jurisdictional investigation into sedition. Why?
This wasn't a legal trial.
This was an ecclesiastical "trial" that had no force of law.
The disciples obeyed every law of man. Jesus set the example-he paid his taxes and
said everyone was supposed to.
What about Acts 5?
I'm not going to go over the entire chapter when any grad of pfal should be able to make
sense of it without me.
I will, however, point out that the context of chapter 5 is, of course, chapter 4.
Acts 5:27 shows who's running this meeting: the high priest again.
Here's a guy who's not afraid to disregard the law and use his connections to have
the captain of the temple (Acts 5:24) act as his trained monkey-boy.
Even this illegal meeting, you notice, wasn't fought against by the disciples.
They COULD have said "it's illegal for them to beat us" (Acts 5:40.)
Instead, they rejoiced they were counted worthy to suffer in Jesus' name.
Paul spent a lot of time in jail for serving Christ.
Paul didn't ignore the law, either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike posted the original.
[WordWolf in boldface as normal.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
A) The "ethics discussions" will keep coming up because GOD ALMIGHTY
declared how His people should act and deal with each other.
When someone is supposedly put forth as a paragon of Godliness, a
virtual avatar of God, a titan of believing, who shook the earth where
he walked,
Then, it behooves us as Christians, to examine this person and see if
they are at LEAST demonstrating principles designated by God to be
exercised by people claiming to represent Him.
Disregarding the laws of the land entirely, and deceiving the brethren
do NOT exist on such a list of Godly behaviour.
Since your erstwhile prophet was woefully deficient in them as he
broke laws and defied commonsense moral codes (don't rape, don't lie,
don't pretend it's your work when it wasn't), morality will KEEP coming
up.
B) It's obvious, Mike, that even when we bring up that you have NO
UNDERSTANDING of what it means to "CITE SOURCES", you STILL make no
effort to understand what it means to "CITE SOURCES".
I've even made it VERY EASY to understand what it means to
"CITE SOURCES".
Look at the first page of this thread.
Under the heading "citing sources", there's a whole thing of links.
Take as many as you want.
Hint: When vpw mentioned in pfal that he read some old book on Jewish
customs about age 12 and bar mitzvahs, but never mentions the name,
that's not a CITATION.
C) I'll post an example of vpw claiming he originated the words he
wrote-AGAIN.
Amazing how you can keep forgetting them....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Oh, this was too good to lose...
Mike, the pro-pfal thread, pg-6, 1/23/05, 2:36am eastern.
=========
"Abigail,
You wrote: 'How does studying PFAL defeat death, Mike? We will all
face death one day, unless the return comes first, no?'
PFAL stands for (and I'm sure you know, but it's worth spelling it
out) Power For Abundant Living. Death is the opposite of living, it
stops life. The power God wants us to have is the power to stop that
which limits abundance of life.
With all nine manifestations in operation in the Body of Christ
death can be avoided, because it's always against God's will,
and God will always supply the information and the power to defeat
death.
The reason we say we face death is because no one has tapped into this
power God supplies in Christ to its fullest. It's been available in
one sense, yet elusive for 2000 years. PFAL is God's move to remove
that elusiveness through the most up-front, all inclusive, yet
simple teaching of how that power can be finally put into operation.
(snip)
We have it all in place except for one thing: we have been
temporarily talked out of using what we have. But that's changing.
The time of our return to God's revelation is at hand. It's time to
see Jesus Christ NOW, by becoming like him through this Word we've
been given.
When we return to PFAL we learn how to see him and his perfect example
of perfect believing. The time for waiting passively for Christ's
return is over. We can return to God and see NOW. The time to see
death defeated has arrived. Who wants to be among the first to
believe (act) and see?
THAT's how studying PFAL will defeat death."
============
Well,
if that's true,
then the degree to which you are in harmony with PFAL is the
degree to which you defeat death.
If you are MORE in harmony with PFAL, you defeat death more.
If you are REALLY in harmony with PFAL, you really defeat death.
Add a level of believing where you're gifted, or even OVERgifted,
where the earth shakes where you walk because of your titanic
believing, then you should easily reach towards the 120 years that
some of the men of God of old reached,
where your eye is not dim, nor your natural force abated.
This, of course, sounds good on paper.
However, when given the "acid" test, the performance test,
when it's tried out in real life,
we get this:
Death:1, PFAL:0.
So,
this concept has been disproven by the person who was most likely to
have PROVEN it since Jesus ascended into heaven.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
This thread, pg-2, 1/22/05, 12:14am, eastern.
A) This may surprise you, Mike,
but starting from the position that anything vpw did was AUTOMATICALLY
right produces a GREAT many problems. (As it would assuming ANYONE was
automatically right, except Jesus Christ.)
This is why you got static when you started toying with the idea that
rape and molestation might have been, in some way, related to the
"toughening up" process vpw supposedly directed at the corps.
(Yes, you left that position fairly early.) Few others reacted in anything
BUT horror when you tossed the idea out, because it's horrific.
It's like saying God might suggest boiling a newborn infant for some
Godly purpose.
Your automatic assumption that PFAL is correct runs into similar problems
when facing even SOME of the ACTUAL ERRORS IN PFAL.
Since you refuse to consider their existance, they can be quite pesky
for you. (See "the Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen.)
B) I'm sure you missed the obvious flaw in your statement.
You said "if pfal is not God-breathed, then NOTHING is God-breathed."
pfal's status or NONstatus has ANY affect on the status of any OTHER
document. A Mormon might say "if the Book of Mormon is not God-breathed,
then NOTHING is God-breathed." A 'Christian Scientist' might say
"if Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures is not God-breathed,
then NOTHING is God-breathed." A Muslim may say "if the Koran is not
God-breathed, then NOTHING is God-breathed." A Hindu may say "if the
Bhagavad-Gita is not God-breathed, then NOTHING is God-breathed."
Does ANY of their statements change the status of their book or anyone
else's? No-they stand or fall on their OWN merits.
C) Finally,
Mike,
the ORIGINAL Table of Challenge predates yours, and you've refused
to address it.
That's the one with a partial list of ACTUAL ERRORS in PFAL.
(Not even counting the Amazing Morphin' Man.)
I offered to accept YOUR challenge over a year ago IF you dealt at
least with a FEW of the most obvious items that show your Table of
Challenge itself is an inferior product.
You seem to have forgotten I was ready and willing to offer an
exchange, one on your turf, on on ours. That's when you asked for
more in return for what you need to address anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Wordwolf, I'm going to digress into another topic and bring it back, I think it applies. One of the assertions in the God Breathed Reissued Call to PFAL is that grads need to come back to the collaterals, study and read the collateral books of PFAL.
The collaterals went through changes over the years, eventually getting put into collections, in the various books, "green", "blue", etc. So for most grads if they have that series of books they have what's considered to be "the collateral" readings of PFAL in their REWORKED versions (caps deliberate).
One of the original pamphlets was titled "The First Century Church in the Twentieth", later reworked and put into one of the books. It was a short study (as they all were) on how the early church grew and prospered in the abundant life of Christ and looked at Acts records specifically.
One of the major points taught was the sharing amongst the church with each other and that as the believers gave of their abundance to the apostles, the apostles distributed out of what they received from them, back to those amongst the church who had need. The example used was of a young couple, starting out, needing help to get going in business, starting a farm say. (Ohio, farms, okay) He says "That is a need. The church helps that couple to get started".
This was part of a greater picture being presented - not a giveaway program as he says in the pamphlet, but rather an extension and application of the society of Christians who shared abundantly of their prosperity with each other and with the apostles. So you have people helping each other and the church leadership actively helping the church. Distribution and sharing happens at all levels and the leadership sets the example because as VPW states those doing the giving are giving it to people they feel represent God and are doing "His" work. No one's left out, no need goes "unmet", the church helps it's own people.
Short point - this portion was left out of the later revised versions that went in to the books.
Short point - in fact, the Way Ministry never got there. It's people did to a great extent on their own (personal assistance, Corps sponsorship, various kinds of support for the ministry's projects and activities) but the corporate organization never did.
Big Point - VPW didn't follow his original vision to do what the Word says and his writings changed to reflect it. Regardless of why, who, where or when, this basic concept was abandoned early in the Way's development. Future development never reflected it in the teaching, never addressed the ways and means that The Way was following through on this basic vision. It was simply dropped and removed. I feel it's easy to see that while the other elements of the early church were reflected in parts of the Way, when it got to the "apostles' feet", there was a disconnect from the example of the early church in the Word.
If I was looking for reasons why the Way Inc. has struggled so over the years, this would be one I'd consider in the mix. Basic PFAL teaching promised a broad range of possibilities that, over time, would produce a truly "New Dynamic Church" in all facets.
When you look at the years of the Way's "big" growth period, from say 1968 through 1980 one thing is prominent - that the attitude of the Way people was to share readily from what they had with each other and with the Way International.
The history speaks for itself - the Way took in money, and got other money (through short term loans) and used it to pursue lots of projects, The Way Corps program, the properties, building projects. But from a leadership standpoint this kind of basic, personal, grass roots interaction with the Way members was never pursued or explained as to why we weren't. It was simply dropped as if it wasn't in the bible. But we know it was and that it had at one time been taught as a basic principle of how the Chrisian church should function.
This point doesn't negate everything in every collateral, that's not my point. My point is that VPW pursued some things and not others. The explanation that was given for this change here was simply "the government won't let us do it".
If I go by the logic that sometimes laws don't best represent God's will and they have to be broken sometimes, then this qualifies. If it's in the Word, it's needs to be done and the Way taught many things from the bible that it knew were heresy by some standards but doggonit, it's in the Word! so we're going to do it regardless of what people say.
I wouldn't have expected VPW to have brought the Way down over illegal practices, but I did expect him to pursue solutions that would allow The Way Inc. to do what the Word teaches.
By moving in the direction he did, the Way Inc. had to route it's resources in to supportinng itself. If you went in the Way Corps for instance, you benefitted from the resources the Way collected because the Way underwrote the program's expenses. But if you didn't you likely never saw an organized consistent use of the "prosperity" that was laid "at the apostle's feet". You got the classes, but you paid something for them. The Way decided what it was going to do, pay for, build, buy, plan, and if you particpated in those things you had a degree of "sharing" to your "need" for teaching but not in the way Acts depicts or the way VPW initially taught was necessary.
Come to think of it, this might be an "Actual Error", by virtue of ommission. At the least it's been something I've learned a great deal from.
To a degree, the books are undependable, not in every book and all the material in them, but it's difficult to know exactly what VPW and his people moved, dropped, deleted or simply ignored. He had the podium for many years. What he said and taught in 1,000's of situations has to figure in to the mix of understanding, because as we see these changes going on there was rarely a clear and loud explanation as to what was going on. We knew PFAL, the basic class, was never changed from the film and tape. Two of the 3rd corps personally handled the transferral of the original to beta video in the Weirwille basement under VPW's supervision. But the vast amount of material that went forth in teachings, meetings, the Way Woods, private converations, was how a lot of the information came out when people asked about it or VPW decided to deal with it. That's why I believe the content of those events is so vital to understanding VPW's mind and intent. He didn't publish everything in the Way Magazine or a book or a SNS teaching. He was very careful about what he personally memorialized in any kind of media.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
And now a word from our sponsors...
Mike has stated that: PFAL is 'God's Word reissued'. Mike has stated that this means we don't need any versions of the Bible anymore, only PFAL. Mike has stated that PFAL is the word of God, that the Holy Spirit has provided us with His Word in written form in PFAL, and it (PFAL) carries all the authority of God Almighty. Mike has offered a 'Table of Challenge' (which he claims exposes things which some would prefer to keep hidden away) so that we may have access to his advanced abilities and approval. Mike has stated that Christ is currently learning from PFAL and will be teaching from PFAL materials when he returns.
Mike has stated that betraying Dr's revelations is betraying God. You just need to feed that Christ inside with the pure Word of PFAL. Mike has stated that studying PFAL will defeat death.
Now we return you to our regularly scheduled program...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
You seem have very little willingness to debate these issues with me so you resort to vain repetitions. Allow me to engage you in a deeper way here. I will comment on every line of your paste job.
***
... ...Mike has stated that: PFAL is 'God's Word reissued'.
Yes. That's my way of putting it, with the qualifier that it's the written form of PFAL, the book and magazine form, and that it is addressed to us grads.
***
... ...Mike has stated that this means we don't need any versions of the Bible anymore, only PFAL.
Yes, but the "we" here is Older Leader Grads (OLGs) of PFAL who have already spend a lot of time with our KJVs, many other teachings, and field experience, and not enough time with PFAL. For OLGs without that background, this statement of yours, Tom, is false.
Actually, we OLGs do most certainly need, not only the assumed background mentioned above, but we also need the many, many, many KJV verses quoted in the pages of PFAL. Without those those verses, and the knowledge of where they came from, then Tom, your statement is wrong.
I might add here that an occasional reach for our KJVs for review, or context, or to follow up on a suggested reference in PFAL is certainly in order.
For instance, in GMWD pages 91-92 contain a reference to Jeremiah 36: 23 and a summary paragraph of many KJV verses surrounding it. This is not a direct order to read those many verses, but I would take it as an essential suggestion. Once I've done that a few times, THEN I don't need to go there any more for a long while.
In other words, my "Yes" to the above is so qualified, that I'd say, Tom, your line here is an extreme over-abbreviation. You do not do my message justice.
TOM, YOU MISREPRESENT ME GREATLY.
***
... ...Mike has stated that PFAL is the word of God,
Yes, but that's "Word" with a capital "W."
***
... ...that the Holy Spirit has provided us with His Word in written form in PFAL, and it (PFAL) carries all the authority of God Almighty.
Again, that "us" is OLGs with tons of exposure to KJV and other learning as mentioned above.
***
... ...Mike has offered a 'Table of Challenge' (which he claims exposes things which some would prefer to keep hidden away)... ...
So far so good. However this doesn't explain what that 'Table of Challenge' is, so it's poor writing on your part, Tom. Again, it's an over-abbreviation. TOM, YOU MISREPRESENT ME GREATLY.
***
... ... so that we may have access to his advanced abilities and approval.
This line is complete hogwash!
This either demonstrates a complete ignorance of what you write, Tom, or a deliberate attempt to smear me. I've written hundreds of lines on the 'Table of Challenge' and I dare you to produce the source of this, or I'll call it slander.
Tom, I could challenge you to a debate, you and you alone, in real time to face my Table of Challenge. We could do it on a telephone with a tape recorder running. Or we could do it in any other way that would assure that you receive no outside help. You have not read anything at all about this topic and are ignorant of what it means. Before I do make this challenge, though, you must demonstrate to me that you did this out of ignorance, and not in a deliberate attempt to smear me, AND that you have gone back and educated yourself by re-reading at least some of what I have actually written on this topic.
TOM, YOU MISREPRESENT ME GREATLY.
***
... ...Mike has stated that Christ is currently learning from PFAL and will be teaching from PFAL materials when he returns.
This discounts the reality of Christ in me and Christ in any grad who comes back to PFAL and learns more deeply from it. TOM, YOU MISREPRESENT ME GREATLY.
***
... ...Mike has stated that betraying Dr's revelations is betraying God.
Yes. But only for those revelations that are from the True God, i.e. the written forms of PFAL. Those revelations are of God and not of Dr.
This would be true of betraying any true revelation to any human being. If I betray a revelation from the True God to Tom Strange, then I betray the True God.
***
... ...You just need to feed that Christ inside with the pure Word of PFAL.
Yes, with the understanding that "You" is an OLG.
***
... ...Mike has stated that studying PFAL will defeat death.
No. Study with the intent to MASTER the written PFAL will bring a student closer to that victory, though. That victory will soon be complete, because the master is at hand.
All in all, Tom, you misrepresent me greatly.
.
.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike replies to Tom Strange.
[WordWolf replies in boldface as usual.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
BTW,
on another thread,
Mike commented abotu the two words he never previously
commented on in Tom's
summary. They only became an issue because, although Mike keeps
complaining of the entire summary, WordWolf said he personally
was not aware of those 2 words being a direct quote, as opposed
to everything else in Tom's summary.
In response, Mike has decided-without checking with Tom-
that Tom HAS no direct source, and now is banging his drum that
he caught Tom lying about him.
"I deliberately let that line go for many, many months to give
Tom enough rope to...tie himself up!"
Personally, I think Mike is not intentionally lying here.
I think Mike has deluded himself to the point that he's
rewritten his previous posts in his own mind.
As such, the posts on the GSC that he and others have made do
not conform to the posts as he remembers them.
So, he actually believes he did that, and for that reason.
It also explains
"I disagree that those other disputed sections are direct
quotes. They are over-abbreviations, and context-wrenched."
Actually, they're NOT.
At least a few of those were stand-alone comments Mike posted,
so they HAD no "context", and were the posts in their ENTIRETY.
However, Mike's hardly going to let a little thing like
objective reality get in the way of him remembering things the
way he wants them to have been.
After all, he also remembers himself having acquitted himself
well in debate, when all he ever did was obfuscate issues and
avoid certain issues he had no answer to, then months later,
declare victory. Therefore, the reality he sees is not the
reality the rest of us see.
The posts Mike and others have posted here are NOT recalled or
understood in any "fair" way by Mike....who then expects us to
trust his account of vpw and God Almighty hiding secret messages
in the pfal books, which Mike has uncovered.
That's ok-
it's the same approach he's used when facing DIRECT QUOTES FROM
THE PFAL BOOKS THAT REFUTE HIM. So, they're in semi-decent
company.
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.