JBarrax and his study and reviews along with Raf and those who contributed to the re-evaluation of all things TWI taught were very, very, very instrumental in the removal of my TWI blinders and the healing of my brain. :) (well, that part's debatable)
I'm really thankful for them and the time they took to document this and to save it. That will be added to my most important bookmarks. Thanks, David!
What I received from John 10:10 and what I believe VPW was trying to convey was that Jesus came so that believers could have an abundant life; life in all of its manifestations. And as VPW prodded along, he taught us keys in the bible on how that abundant life is attained.
At the end of the class, the student wasn't given pep talks on how to acquire more material possessions and how to make more money. Rather, the student was taught from the Word how to manifest the gift of holy spirit...
This is priceless stuff to some of us who are walking in darkness...
The correct and proper reading of John10:10 literally according to usage in light of present truth is...
The Adversary comes to play havoc with your schedule but I have come that they may be micromanaged by their corps overseers and that more than abundantly.
He was trying to tell use something. The books that had his name on it, well, "Hey folks! I didn't write the book!"
He was admitting to plagiarizing, right there in PFAL.
Go figure.
I knew I never paid close enough attention in that class.
It's common knowledge in the marketing world that our brains tend to tune out "negative" words like "not", "don't", "no"......
That's why so many men forget to stop at the grocery store on the way home. The wife says, "Don't forget to pick up milk on the way home" but he hears "Forget to pick up the milk on the way home." What she should say is "REMEMBER to pick up the milk on the way home". :)
So when vee pee was saying, "I didn't write the book" what many of us heard was "I DID write the book!" and he was trying to convince us of that very thing!
Oldies, do you believe VP's books are God Breathed?
No, but I do believe that to the extent VP rightly divided the Word, that that Word was the true Word.
So I suppose there isn't too much difference. Maybe semantics.
"When and where we rightly divide the Word, we have the true word." That's what VP taught.
Where Mike and I part company, I think, is Mike believes that VP must have rightly divided the Word in every instance. Every book of VP's is the rightly divided truth.
Whereas I leave open the possibility that he could have missed the mark on things, and he did.
Even if VP thought, and said that he wrote the truth, it's still open to checking and rechecking and rightly dividing and examination to see if it's really rightly divided.
No, but I do believe that to the extent VP rightly divided the Word, that that Word was the true Word.
So I suppose there isn't too much difference. Maybe semantics.
"When and where we rightly divide the Word, we have the true word." That's what VP taught.
Where Mike and I part company, I think, is Mike believes that VP must have rightly divided the Word in every instance. Every book of VP's is the rightly divided truth.
Whereas I leave open the possibility that he could have missed the mark on things, and he did.
Even if VP thought, and said that he wrote the truth, it's still open to checking and rechecking and rightly dividing and examination to see if it's really rightly divided.
There's a significant difference.
Here's a quick example.
Oldiesman considers "Christians Should Be Prosperous" to be error.
Oldiesman believes that if CSBP was God-Breathed, it would not have errors.
Therefore, Oldiesman does not believe CSBP was God-Breathed.
If it is "open to checking and rechecking" then it is not "inerrant",
I don't agree with you very often, but I believe you sincerly speak what you believe to be truth, and it makes for some lively discussion.
Greaspostcafe would be a pretty dull place if we all agreed with each other all the time.
Wierwille copied variuos men's biblical research claiming it as his own, but some of those men were right on biblically, imo. So in parts of some of his books and classes, there is some truth.
PFAL is no exception, it had some truth and some error, I'd guestimate 50% of both.
Allan, once again, you refuse to read what's written and, once again, show your ignorance and ridiculous agenda. :huh:
Read what Mo said - what she REALLY said and not what you WISH she had said just so you could pick a fight:
When it became obvious that what was beoing said didn't match what was on the page I had two choices
1) believe that Men of old were inspitred by GOd to write inaccuracies :wacko:
or
2) Believe that the person doing the talking was spouting inaccuracies :)
never have been sorry that I picked door number two
CLEARLY, Mo is saying that she believes that the inaccuracies being taught came from the teachings in TWI and NOT from the Bible.
Geeze, Man, just because you disagree with some people's decisions in life doesn't mean you need to go twisting and attacking every post they make. You're just opening your mouth and removing all doubt regarding how stupid and UN-Christian you are.
Mo, did you see my "Knocking on My Door" thread? I started it just for you! :D
And I actually did post the original post for the innies. Did not mean to start up old disagreements, though I guess that is inevitable, and comes with the territory.
Why not let Mo (rmon) lady answer her own questions 'Belle', are you an 'overprotective person' ??
I guess the real question is "why lambast Dr.Wierwilles teachings when you sit in a pew on Sundays listening to easily proven absolute crap and dribble from the book of Mormon..??!!
Your comments are tantamount to 'sheer hypocisy'
Sorry Belle but I will not let some Mormon (whether they are your 'best buddy' or not) belittle what I believe to be true.
Why not let Mo (rmon) lady answer her own questions 'Belle', are you an 'overprotective person' ??
I guess the real question is "why lambast Dr.Wierwilles teachings when you sit in a pew on Sundays listening to easily proven absolute crap and dribble from the book of Mormon..??!!
Your comments are tantamount to 'sheer hypocisy'
Sorry Belle but I will not let some Mormon (whether they are your 'best buddy' or not) belittle what I believe to be true.
Hey Allen,
Why don't you just chill out. Or .... off. Either way is just fine by me.
Recommended Posts
Belle
JBarrax and his study and reviews along with Raf and those who contributed to the re-evaluation of all things TWI taught were very, very, very instrumental in the removal of my TWI blinders and the healing of my brain. :) (well, that part's debatable)
I'm really thankful for them and the time they took to document this and to save it. That will be added to my most important bookmarks. Thanks, David!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
I think Orange Cat put it best:
The correct and proper reading of John10:10 literally according to usage in light of present truth is...
The Adversary comes to play havoc with your schedule but I have come that they may be micromanaged by their corps overseers and that more than abundantly.
Orange Cat
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brother Speed
How many times in 33 hours of piffle can VPW be quoted as saying, "Hey folks! I didn't write the book!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
He was trying to tell use something. The books that had his name on it, well, "Hey folks! I didn't write the book!"
He was admitting to plagiarizing, write there in PFAL.
Go figure.
I knew I never paid close enough attention in that class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
And that was TWI's undoing in my world.
When it became obvious that what was beoing said didn't match what was on the page I had two choices
1) believe that Men of old were inspitred by GOd to write inaccuracies :wacko:
or
2) Believe that the person doing the talking was spouting inaccuracies :)
never have been sorry that I picked door number two
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
I'll agree it can seem priceless to those that are in the dark
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
It's common knowledge in the marketing world that our brains tend to tune out "negative" words like "not", "don't", "no"......
That's why so many men forget to stop at the grocery store on the way home. The wife says, "Don't forget to pick up milk on the way home" but he hears "Forget to pick up the milk on the way home." What she should say is "REMEMBER to pick up the milk on the way home". :)
So when vee pee was saying, "I didn't write the book" what many of us heard was "I DID write the book!" and he was trying to convince us of that very thing!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Outin88.
Wow, I even see some of my old posts from the waydale days!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
did Mike used to be called "rev2"???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Outin88.
Ha! Could be!!!
Actually Rev2 is a CFF reverand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
rev2 didn't believe that VP's books were God Breathed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Plus their posting styles are completely different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Outin88.
Oldies, do you believe VP's books are God Breathed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Mormonlady(aka Templelady)..men of old spoke as they were inspired by God..error crept in
through various translations and transliterations.
Your comments were a bit 'rich' don't you think considering you go by the book of 'Mormon' !!
Do you believe the book of 'Mormon' was 'inspired' ??!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
So I suppose there isn't too much difference. Maybe semantics.
"When and where we rightly divide the Word, we have the true word." That's what VP taught.
Where Mike and I part company, I think, is Mike believes that VP must have rightly divided the Word in every instance. Every book of VP's is the rightly divided truth.
Whereas I leave open the possibility that he could have missed the mark on things, and he did.
Even if VP thought, and said that he wrote the truth, it's still open to checking and rechecking and rightly dividing and examination to see if it's really rightly divided.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
There's a significant difference.
Here's a quick example.
Oldiesman considers "Christians Should Be Prosperous" to be error.
Oldiesman believes that if CSBP was God-Breathed, it would not have errors.
Therefore, Oldiesman does not believe CSBP was God-Breathed.
If it is "open to checking and rechecking" then it is not "inerrant",
which is a requirement for "God-Breathed".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Outin88.
Oldies,
I'm glad that you post. (I'm not being sarcastic)
I don't agree with you very often, but I believe you sincerly speak what you believe to be truth, and it makes for some lively discussion.
Greaspostcafe would be a pretty dull place if we all agreed with each other all the time.
Wierwille copied variuos men's biblical research claiming it as his own, but some of those men were right on biblically, imo. So in parts of some of his books and classes, there is some truth.
PFAL is no exception, it had some truth and some error, I'd guestimate 50% of both.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Allan, once again, you refuse to read what's written and, once again, show your ignorance and ridiculous agenda. :huh:
Read what Mo said - what she REALLY said and not what you WISH she had said just so you could pick a fight:
CLEARLY, Mo is saying that she believes that the inaccuracies being taught came from the teachings in TWI and NOT from the Bible.
Geeze, Man, just because you disagree with some people's decisions in life doesn't mean you need to go twisting and attacking every post they make.
You're just opening your mouth and removing all doubt regarding how stupid and UN-Christian you are.
Mo, did you see my "Knocking on My Door" thread? I started it just for you! :D
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Oh!! wait a minute!!!! I think I inadvertantly just proved you right!!
(Mea culpa!)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
And I actually did post the original post for the innies. Did not mean to start up old disagreements, though I guess that is inevitable, and comes with the territory.
Shoulda thunk of that one first, eh?!!
David
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Why not let Mo (rmon) lady answer her own questions 'Belle', are you an 'overprotective person' ??
I guess the real question is "why lambast Dr.Wierwilles teachings when you sit in a pew on Sundays listening to easily proven absolute crap and dribble from the book of Mormon..??!!
Your comments are tantamount to 'sheer hypocisy'
Sorry Belle but I will not let some Mormon (whether they are your 'best buddy' or not) belittle what I believe to be true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Hey Allen,
Why don't you just chill out. Or .... off. Either way is just fine by me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Mo has paid the price to be here and in NO way deserves your disrespect allan..
Folks have treated you with the same calibur of decency while you vomited the judgemental poison of twi dogma all over the people here.
People generally have no respect for bullies, even if by some wild stretch of the imagination that you were right in your opinion....
Edited by rascalLink 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.