If you didn't have a fixation with NOT seeing this, you'd have understood it
long ago.
Actually Wordwolf, I was beginning to have some sort of fixation on your concept of plagiarism (or your understanding of it) as you purport that most, or the vast majority of VP's writings were plagiarized, because he STOLE all his ideas from others.
He didn't just believe what he heard/read and teach it;... no, he STOLE these ideas.
Because he didn't leave footnotes where he initially learned the information or where he read it from another source.
Then Raf (and Oakspear) comes along and puts a fly in your ointment.
They disagree that VP stole the 7 administrations teaching.
Yet you say he stole it.
Come on, either he stole it or he didn't.
So what I see here is what you call VP stealing, others call believing and teaching.
And so I just wonder how much more information you say VP stole, that he really didn't STEAL, if it's nothing more than him believing a concept and teaching it without giving written acknowledgement to who else wrote it before he did.
Cool, did God say he would teach him the word Himself, with no other human contact?
I trow not. :D-->
I also believe VP had holy spirit, which made it possible for God to work with him to move the Word he learned from others, along with his own private study and reasoning ability.
I also believe God was working in VP to establish certain truths he then taught others, just like he works with us to establish certain truths we can teach others.
And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. HE SAID HE WOULD TEACH ME THE WORD as it had not been known since the first century if I would
teach it to others.
And he claimed what he taught as much, at least out of one side of the mouth.. along with "by the way, I went to BG's class" out of the other.
Settles the question to my satisfaction.
Funny how this did not quite pan out..
So off we go, to Rosiland Rinker, BG, Stiles, Bullinger.. Kenyon, Arthur Ford (he WAS a GUEST in the v.p. household more than once! Vic said as much at my advanced class) Glenn Clark, Star Dailey, Rufus Mosley, etc. etc. etc.
Some really strange folk are among the list..
The only "improvement" in the "holy spurt field" was listing nine manifestations instead of nine "gifts"..
Still didn't stop folks from speaking in tongues if they wanted to. Look at Stiles ministry..
Other authors that Wierwille seemed to borrow were Albert Benjamin Simpson, who was a lay Presbyterian who proceeded the Pentecostal movement by writing Power From On High : The Holy Spirit back in the 1880's and founded the Christian Missionary Alliance Church. Ruben Archer Torrey, an associate of Dwight Moody, whose book is titled Power Filled Living and includes a section on difficulties of the Bible, especially on Wednesday
crucifixation and Saturday ressurrection, long before Bullinger. Dale Carnegie, Norman Vincent Peale, and Robert Schuller(see previous thread on
Faith movement), Watchman Nee, Smith Wigglesworth, Lester Sumrall, Howard Carter, Derek Prince, etc. just to name a few .Plus exceprts from Jehovah(or is it Yahweh's) Witnesses and Herbert and Garner Ted Armstrong.
Thanks, Dove. I've been in a few Christian book stores in my time, rarely saw Lamsa there. In your opinion, do his works make the catalogue because there is a consensus that his stuff is good, or affordable, or just plain marketable? (Or perhaps the people with his copyright are just vocal?)
Lamsa's is the only Bible I know of to say "for this purpose was I spared," and his commentaries are not particularly scholarly, just long tomes that say "this means that." Reminded me of TWI -- I'm not gonna explain the verse to you, just scratch it out and write in what I tell ya!
Regards,
Shaz
I dont know the answer to your questions Shaz, the Bible supply and book store here used to carry the Lamsa Bible not sure if they still do.. I think it is in the academic catalogs because it is one of the few translations from the Aramaic of the Pe****ta. I wonder if the sales in the new age market is because it is sold as an ancient eastern text.
If you didn't have a fixation with NOT seeing this, you'd have understood it
long ago.
Actually Wordwolf, I was beginning to have some sort of fixation on your concept of plagiarism (or your understanding of it) as you purport that most, or the vast majority of VP's writings were plagiarized, because he STOLE all his ideas from others.
Actually, it seems that almost every one of "his" teachings, stylings,
naming conventions, etc. came from someone else-usually someone he
never credited with actually being the source of it. Ever hear about
tea and chocolate chip cookies? Leonard said it first...
quote:
He didn't just believe what he heard/read and teach it;... no, he STOLE these ideas.
Frankly, if he'd taught ALL the same material, but gave all the credit
where it was all due. I suspect I teach MORE original stuff than him,
but I provide my sources.
quote:
Because he didn't leave footnotes where he initially learned the information or where he read it from another source.
No, that's not it. Amazing you could read even SOME of the discussions
and STILL not get it.
Then Raf (and Oakspear) comes along and puts a fly in your ointment.
Actually, we AGREE. You missed that.
quote:
They disagree that VP stole the 7 administrations teaching.
That's not exactly what they said.
quote:
Yet you say he stole it.
And not exactly what I said, either. This black-white thinking is not
healthy. It also makes False Dilemmas.
quote:
Come on, either he stole it or he didn't.
False Dilemma. A radio can be stolen or not.
Intellectual property, that can be trickier to prove.
We've discussed this.
quote:
So what I see here is what you call VP stealing, others call believing and teaching.
That is how you've SEEN it, and it's incorrect.
quote:
And so I just wonder how much more information you say VP stole, that he really didn't STEAL, if it's nothing more than him believing a concept and teaching it without giving written acknowledgement to who else wrote it before he did.
I don't wonder.
It's very simple.
vpw claimed in his books that the material in them was a collaboration
between him and God.
Virtually all their contents were a rearrangement of material from a
handful of other writers.
All of them are uncredited in the books.
That's illegal, and immoral, and lying.
I claim he's unoriginal, and a deceiver for it.
Often, he's a criminal as well, JUST for that.
I consider SOME of it plagiarism, and most of it presented deceptively.
You claim NONE of it's criminal or plagiaristic, regardless.
...And, if you will recall, during PFAL, he talkec about all the scholarly books he had read and said that they didn't help him because he was reading "around the Word." Then he carted them all off to the gehenna and burned them, and began to read nothing but the Word day and night, year after year. He regretted that he didn't keep all those books because people would see them and be impressed.
So you see Oldiesman, although VP admitted to having read the works of Bullinger, Stiles, Kenyon et al, he presented his class as if all of those men were WRONG and that only by discarding their work did he arrive at the rightly divided word of truth. GLOW-RY!
So you can "see it" any way you want. The fact is, Weirwille presented PFAL as the fruit of HIS relentless dedicated personal research.
Which is of course, a crock; a double deception. Not only is it not the fruit of his diligent research, it's not even rightly divided.
I didn't start this topic. Nandon did. Something must have gotten scrambled in the transition. Oh well. Welcome to the new improved Greasespot Cafe!!!!! Weehoo!!
Shaz, a little known fact is that Lamsa when he was 11 years old, his family converted to Islam. A fact he failed to tell his teachers at Canterbury School in Istanbul, Turkey or various colleges, much less other Christians. His translation into English was never accepted by the Church of the East(Nestorian). His successor Rocco Ericco from his Nodrha Foundation in Smyna,GA, along with Lamsa tend to believe in the teachings of Unity School of Christianity. Of course, Lamsa died in the 1970's. Pillai originally was Hindu and understood "Christian" expressions from Far Eastern Asian religions which sometimes parralled Lamsa and at other times was radically different.
We seemed to have covered the origins of most of PFAL except the trinity. Has anyone ever found verbatum copies of VPW's trinity teachings from other authors?
It seems to me that Wierwille might not have been looking for answers to Biblical questions when he met with so many of these men. Rather, he was looking for the secret to how to be a powerful leader like they all were.
I think that worrying about how much was plagiarized is beside the point. The point is, Wierwille did plagiarize, word for word, more than once in his writings. It was unethical, unbecoming a minister. It was stealing, and sold to his followers as his own words.
Don't try to obscure the point by trying to prove that he only did it a little bit. He shouldn't have done it at all. Most of us knew better than that in high school.
We seemed to have covered the origins of most of PFAL except the trinity. Has anyone ever found verbatum copies of VPW's trinity teachings from other authors?
I'd look into what info there is about a connection between Lamsa and the Unity
school of Christianity that Thomas mentioned above.
Those with Leonard's books have quoted him and it appears that Leonard didn't
teach the Trinity in the classical sense, nor Jesus' pre-existence in a discrete identity
as Trinitarians do. However, he also didn't pick fights about it.
The only things we haven't seen were the usages of the terms
"administrations" and "manifestations".
They're incredibly minor points, but everything ELSE seems to have been traced
I think that worrying about how much was plagiarized is beside the point...
Shaz
Shaz,
Those sentences that he really did plagiarize, are where he plagiarized.
Yes, let's call it for what it is, where he did it.
But saying he "stole" a teaching or a concept when he actually taught a concept that he believed from another source, like the 7 administrations teaching he supposedly "stole", is a false accusation, unethical, and unbecoming a Christian or anyone else.
I wonder how many more of his teachings fall in this category and how many more false accusations are out there.
And so I think for some people to be fully satisfied, he may well have had to footnote every paragraph he wrote, noting where he got this and that idea from. :wacko:
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
16
15
7
Popular Days
Sep 20
33
Sep 22
18
Dec 19
13
Sep 21
10
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 12 posts
WordWolf 16 posts
Ham 15 posts
waysider 7 posts
Popular Days
Sep 20 2005
33 posts
Sep 22 2005
18 posts
Dec 19 2006
13 posts
Sep 21 2005
10 posts
oldiesman
He didn't just believe what he heard/read and teach it;... no, he STOLE these ideas.
Because he didn't leave footnotes where he initially learned the information or where he read it from another source.
Then Raf (and Oakspear) comes along and puts a fly in your ointment.
They disagree that VP stole the 7 administrations teaching.
Yet you say he stole it.
Come on, either he stole it or he didn't.
So what I see here is what you call VP stealing, others call believing and teaching.
And so I just wonder how much more information you say VP stole, that he really didn't STEAL, if it's nothing more than him believing a concept and teaching it without giving written acknowledgement to who else wrote it before he did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
oldies
i thought ole vic was told by God that He {God}
would teach him the word.
not all these other guys
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Cool, did God say he would teach him the word Himself, with no other human contact?
I trow not.
:D-->
I also believe VP had holy spirit, which made it possible for God to work with him to move the Word he learned from others, along with his own private study and reasoning ability.
I also believe God was working in VP to establish certain truths he then taught others, just like he works with us to establish certain truths we can teach others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
And he claimed what he taught as much, at least out of one side of the mouth.. along with "by the way, I went to BG's class" out of the other.
Settles the question to my satisfaction.
Funny how this did not quite pan out..
So off we go, to Rosiland Rinker, BG, Stiles, Bullinger.. Kenyon, Arthur Ford (he WAS a GUEST in the v.p. household more than once! Vic said as much at my advanced class) Glenn Clark, Star Dailey, Rufus Mosley, etc. etc. etc.
Some really strange folk are among the list..
The only "improvement" in the "holy spurt field" was listing nine manifestations instead of nine "gifts"..
Still didn't stop folks from speaking in tongues if they wanted to. Look at Stiles ministry..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
Evan,
thanks, You are the 2nd person to tell me that today (that the HS teaches).
I think we in and some out of the Way,
worship the BIBLE
instead of GOD.
The Word the word and nothing but the Word!!!
Taken so far as to leave the author Out!
So into "I, me, Us, We"
instead of let the "Lord direct your steps".
I am for once in my life am allowing this process and I have done a 180 in the last 6 months.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
And yet VP made no secret of the fact of copied beliefs in promoting Bullingers Companion Bible which many of us still have !
Bullingers Companion Bible with all of Bullingers notes in the margins and appendix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Other authors that Wierwille seemed to borrow were Albert Benjamin Simpson, who was a lay Presbyterian who proceeded the Pentecostal movement by writing Power From On High : The Holy Spirit back in the 1880's and founded the Christian Missionary Alliance Church. Ruben Archer Torrey, an associate of Dwight Moody, whose book is titled Power Filled Living and includes a section on difficulties of the Bible, especially on Wednesday
crucifixation and Saturday ressurrection, long before Bullinger. Dale Carnegie, Norman Vincent Peale, and Robert Schuller(see previous thread on
Faith movement), Watchman Nee, Smith Wigglesworth, Lester Sumrall, Howard Carter, Derek Prince, etc. just to name a few .Plus exceprts from Jehovah(or is it Yahweh's) Witnesses and Herbert and Garner Ted Armstrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
say what you will but i used bullinges bible all the time
i taught many a twig with it in my hand and used the side notes
did i know what i was doing? i don't know!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I dont know the answer to your questions Shaz, the Bible supply and book store here used to carry the Lamsa Bible not sure if they still do.. I think it is in the academic catalogs because it is one of the few translations from the Aramaic of the Pe****ta. I wonder if the sales in the new age market is because it is sold as an ancient eastern text.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Guess the filter did not like P e s h i t t a
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually, it seems that almost every one of "his" teachings, stylings,
naming conventions, etc. came from someone else-usually someone he
never credited with actually being the source of it. Ever hear about
tea and chocolate chip cookies? Leonard said it first...
Frankly, if he'd taught ALL the same material, but gave all the credit
where it was all due. I suspect I teach MORE original stuff than him,
but I provide my sources.
No, that's not it. Amazing you could read even SOME of the discussions
and STILL not get it.
Then Raf (and Oakspear) comes along and puts a fly in your ointment.
Actually, we AGREE. You missed that.
That's not exactly what they said.And not exactly what I said, either. This black-white thinking is not
healthy. It also makes False Dilemmas.
False Dilemma. A radio can be stolen or not.
Intellectual property, that can be trickier to prove.
We've discussed this.
That is how you've SEEN it, and it's incorrect.
I don't wonder.
It's very simple.
vpw claimed in his books that the material in them was a collaboration
between him and God.
Virtually all their contents were a rearrangement of material from a
handful of other writers.
All of them are uncredited in the books.
That's illegal, and immoral, and lying.
I claim he's unoriginal, and a deceiver for it.
Often, he's a criminal as well, JUST for that.
I consider SOME of it plagiarism, and most of it presented deceptively.
You claim NONE of it's criminal or plagiaristic, regardless.
That's simple enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
But he never mentioned he took one of Bullingers'
books and dropped its contents into RTHST,
and that 2 of Bullinger's books became ADAN,
which was a book he sometimes claimed was the most important
book "he wrote"....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
...And, if you will recall, during PFAL, he talkec about all the scholarly books he had read and said that they didn't help him because he was reading "around the Word." Then he carted them all off to the gehenna and burned them, and began to read nothing but the Word day and night, year after year. He regretted that he didn't keep all those books because people would see them and be impressed.
So you see Oldiesman, although VP admitted to having read the works of Bullinger, Stiles, Kenyon et al, he presented his class as if all of those men were WRONG and that only by discarding their work did he arrive at the rightly divided word of truth. GLOW-RY!
So you can "see it" any way you want. The fact is, Weirwille presented PFAL as the fruit of HIS relentless dedicated personal research.
Which is of course, a crock; a double deception. Not only is it not the fruit of his diligent research, it's not even rightly divided.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I didn't start this topic. Nandon did. Something must have gotten scrambled in the transition. Oh well. Welcome to the new improved Greasespot Cafe!!!!! Weehoo!!
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
The answer to the Lamsa thingie is on John Juedes' website...
I'm not as crazy as I think I am.:D Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Shaz, a little known fact is that Lamsa when he was 11 years old, his family converted to Islam. A fact he failed to tell his teachers at Canterbury School in Istanbul, Turkey or various colleges, much less other Christians. His translation into English was never accepted by the Church of the East(Nestorian). His successor Rocco Ericco from his Nodrha Foundation in Smyna,GA, along with Lamsa tend to believe in the teachings of Unity School of Christianity. Of course, Lamsa died in the 1970's. Pillai originally was Hindu and understood "Christian" expressions from Far Eastern Asian religions which sometimes parralled Lamsa and at other times was radically different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
We seemed to have covered the origins of most of PFAL except the trinity. Has anyone ever found verbatum copies of VPW's trinity teachings from other authors?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
So Lamsa was just another cult leader, HAH!
It seems to me that Wierwille might not have been looking for answers to Biblical questions when he met with so many of these men. Rather, he was looking for the secret to how to be a powerful leader like they all were.
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Note to Oldies,
I think that worrying about how much was plagiarized is beside the point. The point is, Wierwille did plagiarize, word for word, more than once in his writings. It was unethical, unbecoming a minister. It was stealing, and sold to his followers as his own words.
Don't try to obscure the point by trying to prove that he only did it a little bit. He shouldn't have done it at all. Most of us knew better than that in high school.
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'd look into what info there is about a connection between Lamsa and the Unity
school of Christianity that Thomas mentioned above.
Those with Leonard's books have quoted him and it appears that Leonard didn't
teach the Trinity in the classical sense, nor Jesus' pre-existence in a discrete identity
as Trinitarians do. However, he also didn't pick fights about it.
The only things we haven't seen were the usages of the terms
"administrations" and "manifestations".
They're incredibly minor points, but everything ELSE seems to have been traced
elsewhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Minor points???? Hmmmmmmmm. :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Yes,
USING THOSE TERMS
is a minor point at best.
The doctrines were ripped off from other people.
Slapping a new name on the doctrine didn't make the doctrines "original".
Only the NAMES were "original".
FWIW, I think "manifestation" (singular) is the best way I've heard the term in
I Corinthians 12:6 mentioned. This, of course, means I'm curious who taught
him this. I'm fairly confident SOMEONE did, but I haven't found out WHO yet.
The TERM "administration" was his usage. The concept was straight out of
Bullinger, who called them "dispensations". vpw said it was better translated
"administration" or "stewardship", then called it "administration" from then on.
Me, I used the term "stewardship" because I thought it more accurately
represented the concept, with less ambiguity.
Further, Bullinger numbered 7 dispensations. vpw numbered 7 administrations.
They weren't QUITE the same 7. I agree with Bullinger's 7 rather than vpw's 7.
Bullinger numbers the Law as #3, then Grace as #4, followed by the
Revealing (#5) and the MILLENIAL REIGN (#6). vpw does not count the
Millenial Reign. vpw counts the Christ administration, or Gospel administration,
as #4, making Grace #5. The only advantage to this is allowing Grace to
be #5. I find that Scripture supports Jesus' earthly ministry as that which
CLOSED OUT the Law rather than just superceding it "just because".
Bullinger wrote the book (literally) on Number in Scripture, but he wasnt
so obsessed with it that he rewrote things to fit his theology.
There, I expect his own personal spin produced the renumbering,
but I suspect he didn't understand things as well as he thought he did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Neither does merely adopting said doctrines, even if they are public domain, make them any more "original" either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Those sentences that he really did plagiarize, are where he plagiarized.
Yes, let's call it for what it is, where he did it.
But saying he "stole" a teaching or a concept when he actually taught a concept that he believed from another source, like the 7 administrations teaching he supposedly "stole", is a false accusation, unethical, and unbecoming a Christian or anyone else.
I wonder how many more of his teachings fall in this category and how many more false accusations are out there.
And so I think for some people to be fully satisfied, he may well have had to footnote every paragraph he wrote, noting where he got this and that idea from. :wacko:
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.