My story is internally consistent. The only way you can hurt it is to prove that the writings are not God-breathed. That’s going to be impossible, hence this is a betting game. We’re betting our lives here. I just want you to know the logical stakes.
Not only is it possible, it's been done, repeatedly. There's no betting involved here. Betting whether PFAL is God-breathed is like betting, today, whether the Yankees will win the 2005 World Series. If you want to stake your life on that, that's your privilege. Stupid, but your privilege. PFAL is not God-breathed, according to PFAL, your silly contrivances notwithstanding.
I'm also wary of people who NOW have the truth that's been hidden and mis-understood for years.
yeah, me too, Belle
but i also think this kind of wariness might also bite us in the arse from time to time, as knowledges and sciences and philosophies and religions actually DO learn and understand more and more about history, culture, and human nature and whatnot (in spite of all the many many cults and scams and pop culture trends and other absolutist flat-out stances).
that "appearance is deceiving," can also be good news, imo
it seems to me, that we have the potential to continue to simply know more and more about the bible stories and other scriptures and traditions, and more and more and more about all the many contexts surrounding their authoring...not to mention knowing more and more and more about all the many branches and lineages and legacies and splinter beliefs that have trailed after
meanwhile...many many people seem to naturally continue to live and die according to whatever mythic versions they hold or reject, largely uninterested in learning new or old ways of thinking...perhaps even terrified of those inner "earthquakes" of belief change (and who can blame for that?)
but whether it is religious or scientific...it seems as if we should want more and more verifiable knowledge of history and reasons why we believe things...NOT less
I was not appointed to be either Judge, nor Jury, nor Lord High Executioner.
I did see that the job for Messenger was vacant and I volunteered. There are some judgments in the message, but they are not mine. I see no executions in there though.
***
You wrote: “And we should be more open minded than you and entertain your assumptions because???”
Because I don’t need to be open minded any more, not in THIS area anyway. I'm talking about obtaining the True Word, not in all aspects of it's understanding and application. There I do need to maintain an open mind.
Regarding the obtaining of the Word, I finished that course and arrived at the end of what open mindedness is useful for by obeying Dr’s final instructions. You all, however, have not yet come back to this Word in PFAL, so open mindedness is a good thing for you. When you come back then it will be good to close your mind to eliminate false paths.
When a searcher finds what is being sought it’s only logical to stop searching.
I did see that the job for Messenger was vacant and I volunteered.
1) you "saw" the position was vacant ( no one else in the whole world, huh?)
2) You volunteered. ( which makes it true you weren't appointed.)
And if not appointed , by what authority do you assume the mantle ?? By your own admission not by God's or man's authority.. And if you lack any authority from God you most certainly are the last person I would be listening to. And for those who still support PFAL, If you lack any authority from VPW, or LCM or Bullinger or any of the other scholars whose works are included in that program you lack the authority to speak for them too.
You see you can't have it both ways If you claim VPW has to be listened too because God gave him the authority--They by your admission of not having been given authority but deciding to usurp it you admit that you are not to be listened too
Just because you have eagerly embraced idolatry ...
If Mike is practicing idolatry because he believes PFAL to be God-Breathed (which would probably be a form of bibliolatry), then all peoples who believe the Bible is God-Breathed, are practicing idolatry, or bibliolatry.
Same goes for Jews and the Torah.
Koran.
Book of Mormon.
Or any "holy" book one believes to be the truth.
Or maybe even any "book" one believes to be the truth.
If Mike is practicing idolatry because he believes PFAL to be God-Breathed (which would probably be a form of bibliolatry), then all peoples who believe the Bible is God-Breathed, are practicing idolatry, or bibliolatry.
Same goes for Jews and the Torah.
Koran.
Book of Mormon.
Or any "holy" book one believes to be the truth.
Or maybe even any "book" one believes to be the truth.
There is a little bit of a difference, Oldies.
A more appropriate analogue would be if Mike is practicing idolatry because he believes PFAL to be God-Breathed, then all peoples who believe other bible exegetes' writings are God-Breathed are practicing idolatry.
Now that's not to say that there is not a situation with bibliolatry in Christianity or any other religion, but bibliolatry is not Mike's problem. IMHO.
I still don't get it, I don't see where he is practicing idolatry, and it is disturbing that a brother in Christ is accused of this.
I wouldn't accuse you or anyone on GS of practicing idolatry, and wouldn't accuse ANYONE of it, unless I really KNOW that I KNOW that I KNOW.
I have never even accused those who believe in the TRINITY of practicing idolatry, even though VP taught and believed that. I was never that sure.
You say it extends beyond Mike's belief that PFAL is God Breathed. Are you around him, live with him, know all of his thoughts and actions, that you can be so sure he practices idolatry?
I got the following brief definition of idolatry from the Catholic Encyclopedia Online:
Idolatry etymologically denotes Divine worship given to an image, but its signification has been extended to all Divine worship given to anyone or anything but the true God.
I think that sums it up pretty well.
The way I understand it, it looks to me like two key ingredients are required for the practice of idolatry:
(1) elevation of something/someone to the level of a God,
(2) then, worshipping that something/someone in place of the true God.
YES to VPW copyrighting for proper control of the books, and NO him considering himself to be sole author.
...
Dr placed the copyrights on them so that no one could mess with them, change them, or worse: control them. Like Dr was placed in charge of the grand project of collecting the pieces, writing some himself, and training editors to help him, he was also placed in charge of protecting the finished product.
Actually it is this very thing which has gotten the VPW critics all worked up. It's not really an issue over whether or not VPW properly cited his sources and likewise footnoted them. How very ironic! The critics who charge VPW with not properly citing sources and proper footnoting (plagiarsim) have already proven they have no interest or concern regarding the footnotes already present in the PFAL series and collaterals. If they were really concerned about the footnotes in the PFAL series, the footnotes would only make it harder for them to misrepresent VPW and his position. The footnotes present in PFAL only makes it harder for one to misquote VPW and take him out of context. Here's proof Dr. Wordwolf:
A good example is the four crucified with Jesus. It is difficult to disprove this position when one closely scrutinizes all the scriptures that deal with those crucified with Jesus Christ. By careful scrutiny of the scriptures one easily recognizes two malefactors were led out with Jesus from the Praetorium. Sometime afterward, two robbers (it says theives in the KJV) were brought and crucified along with Jesus and the two malefactors when they hung up the superscription over Jesus Christ's head. The debate the critics make against this position hinges on the meanings of the Greek words for "other" - the Greek Words specifically being: heteros and allos.
VPW gives the definitions of these Greek words in TWW on p237 as such:
Allos – means “the other” or second of two when and where there may be more.
Heteros – means “the other” or second of two when and where there are only two
A problem arises when a student finds where the Greek word heteros has been used, but in some cases there are scriptures where heteros was used and more than two are involved - not "only" two according to the definition that VPW provided in TWW. Here is a prime example of "lazy scholarship" - not necessarily so much on VPW's part but rather on the part of the PFAL student. VPW NEVER said heteros MUST always indicate there are only two. That's a definition of heteros being read into the definition of heteros given by VPW by the lazy student.
If we look at the footnote of heteros in RTHS today (p174) VPW states: "Heteros may and is used also as a generic discrimination in some instances, but not in this Corinthian section where heteros always means “another” in respect to two parties.
While VPW did define heteros as meaning "only two" he did not give the student the definiton that heteros must always mean and be only two. This is readily seen in the footnote when VPW states heteros may and is also used as a generic discrimination ... yet the critics don't bother with this part of the footnote. They have built an entire argument against the four crucified on the premise that heteros MUST always mean "only two". A more masterful PFAL student can see from this footnote in RTHS this is NOT the only definition for heteros. Even VPW himself recognized this, although many of his "apprentice" students completely missed it. Now they think they think they are more masterful at rightly dividing the Word than VPW - they got to start another thread about all the errors in PFAL, eh? They were also given the vehicle for rightly dividing the word, but it's not VPW's fault if you're just someone who let the tires go flat.
As far as accusations of plagarism - IMO it makes more sense to do away with copyright infringement and all the legal wranglings that accompany it in favor of "compulsory licensing". The music and recording industry already recognize this. Compulsory licensing takes away the control of the copyright owner; as a copyright owner has no right to refuse, restrict or interfere with a license's statutory rights under the license agreement. It simply pays the owner their just compensation. Napster had started a good thing if you ask me.
I've answered your question many times before, and as I said, I refuse to entertain your play at ignorance. You've asked this before, I've answered it before, and you keep asking as though it's never been answered. Enough.
I only brought this up to show that your definition of "idolatry" conveniently changes when it suits your purposes.
WTH:
Interesting post. I would go a step further and say heteros has nothing to do with whether two are involved or more than two are involved. That's the error there. Nonetheless, whether or not it's footnoted and whether or not it's accurate are two separate issues.
Why would anyone complain about the footnotes that ARE present in the PFAL series (incidentally, you flat out lie when you say there's no concern there: I've applauded those footnotes, as have others). Complaining about footnotes that are present is like getting a traffic ticket for stopping at a stop sign.
Your point is flawed, your example is flawed, and your example is a non-sequitir when it comes to your point.
Now they think they think they are more masterful at rightly dividing the Word than VPW...
Who said this? When did anyone say this? For the record, when confronted on this very point, here's what I said:
I do not propose that my conclusions are superior. I only propose that they are MINE... I [am] quite willing to listen and adjust my views accordingly. I am not a better teacher than VPW. I am merely different, with different viewpoints. And I think you should consider those viewpoints. If you disagree with them, that's just dandy with me. As long as you're thinking, I'm happy.
Hey since the configuration of those crucified with Christ is mentioned here, I have a question for you biblical scholars.
VPW said that there was had to have been two separate sets of folks there with Christ at the crucifixion. One set were a couple of malefactors. One set were a couple of robbers/theives/whatever.
Why is it that the word rendered 'malefactor' in the kjv (Luke 23:33) is an adjective kakourgos (meaning doing ill, mischievous, knavish). It has a masculine gender and is in the plural. Anyway, so far as I can tell, there is no noun that this adjective modifies.
Now the word rendered 'thief' in the kjv Mark 15:27 and Mat 27:38 account is the word lestes (meaning robber, bandit, revolutionary, or rebel). It's a masculine noun written in the plural.
So anyway, I'm not sure where this alleged 'apparent discrepency' was that was used as an excuse to teach the unique 4-crucified with Christ theory. After all, the adjective 'doing ill' or 'mischevious' would be apt descriptions that would fit a person that could be labeled a 'robber,' 'bandit,' 'revolutionary,' or 'rebel,' couldn't it?
The discrepancy in the four crucified is, if I'm not mistaken, that in two gospels, two people are crucified at the same time as Jesus, while in another gospel, two are crucified well after Jesus is crucified (I could have this backward, but the point is that the discrepancy is in the timing). If that chronology is correct, then there must be a total of five people crucified (three at first, then two joined them). John says "two others with him on this side and on that side." Without a comma, it's pretty clear that four are crucified with him. WITH a comma ("two others with him, on this side and on that side"), it's pretty clear that there's only two.
Acceptance of four crucified with Jesus entails acceptance that the chronology of the others crucified as presented in PFAL (and How to Enjoy the Bible) is significant, and that no comma belongs in the verse in the gospel of John.
Whether a comma belongs there or not is unprovable, according to PFAL, because the oldest existing texts contained no punctuation (has anyone verified this?).
Acceptance of four crucified with Jesus entails.......
It entails getting sidetracked with interesting theories and conclusions to the exclusion of what was really important about the goings on on that hill.
I'm not saying we should discuss the subject--what I am saying is that discussions like this in TWI , were IMO, often used to avoid the more critical points of the text--such as Jesus Christ being a alive and present in our lives.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
37
23
30
24
Popular Days
Jan 11
29
Jan 6
27
Jan 9
20
Jan 5
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 37 posts
WordWolf 23 posts
Mike 30 posts
markomalley 24 posts
Popular Days
Jan 11 2006
29 posts
Jan 6 2006
27 posts
Jan 9 2006
20 posts
Jan 5 2006
17 posts
Raf
No, Mike. That is not what I said. Stop misrepresenting me.
And while you're at it, stop misrepresenting God, stop misrepresenting Christ, and EVEN stop misrepresenting VPW!
I said God will not do what He said He will not do, and your conscience is so seared you refuse to see it.
Go back to the shadow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Not only is it possible, it's been done, repeatedly. There's no betting involved here. Betting whether PFAL is God-breathed is like betting, today, whether the Yankees will win the 2005 World Series. If you want to stake your life on that, that's your privilege. Stupid, but your privilege. PFAL is not God-breathed, according to PFAL, your silly contrivances notwithstanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
yeah, me too, Belle
but i also think this kind of wariness might also bite us in the arse from time to time, as knowledges and sciences and philosophies and religions actually DO learn and understand more and more about history, culture, and human nature and whatnot (in spite of all the many many cults and scams and pop culture trends and other absolutist flat-out stances).
that "appearance is deceiving," can also be good news, imo
it seems to me, that we have the potential to continue to simply know more and more about the bible stories and other scriptures and traditions, and more and more and more about all the many contexts surrounding their authoring...not to mention knowing more and more and more about all the many branches and lineages and legacies and splinter beliefs that have trailed after
meanwhile...many many people seem to naturally continue to live and die according to whatever mythic versions they hold or reject, largely uninterested in learning new or old ways of thinking...perhaps even terrified of those inner "earthquakes" of belief change (and who can blame for that?)
but whether it is religious or scientific...it seems as if we should want more and more verifiable knowledge of history and reasons why we believe things...NOT less
which is why overall...
i think it's more wise to light a candle
than curse the darkness
imho
humanity has only one childhood
and it seems we are not quite done with it yet
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
And we should be more open minded that you and entertain your assumptions because???
IF FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUEMENT ONLY I were to entertain all you say about PFAL and VPW the next question becomes--
Just who exactly appointed you Judge, Jury and Lord High Executioner???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Templelady,
I was not appointed to be either Judge, nor Jury, nor Lord High Executioner.
I did see that the job for Messenger was vacant and I volunteered. There are some judgments in the message, but they are not mine. I see no executions in there though.
***
You wrote: “And we should be more open minded than you and entertain your assumptions because???”
Because I don’t need to be open minded any more, not in THIS area anyway. I'm talking about obtaining the True Word, not in all aspects of it's understanding and application. There I do need to maintain an open mind.
Regarding the obtaining of the Word, I finished that course and arrived at the end of what open mindedness is useful for by obeying Dr’s final instructions. You all, however, have not yet come back to this Word in PFAL, so open mindedness is a good thing for you. When you come back then it will be good to close your mind to eliminate false paths.
When a searcher finds what is being sought it’s only logical to stop searching.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Just because you have eagerly embraced idolatry and refuse to see your way out of it doesn't mean the rest of us should.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
1) you "saw" the position was vacant ( no one else in the whole world, huh?)
2) You volunteered. ( which makes it true you weren't appointed.)
And if not appointed , by what authority do you assume the mantle ?? By your own admission not by God's or man's authority.. And if you lack any authority from God you most certainly are the last person I would be listening to. And for those who still support PFAL, If you lack any authority from VPW, or LCM or Bullinger or any of the other scholars whose works are included in that program you lack the authority to speak for them too.
You see you can't have it both ways If you claim VPW has to be listened too because God gave him the authority--They by your admission of not having been given authority but deciding to usurp it you admit that you are not to be listened too
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
That's Part One -- 3 chapters. Page 13 through 77.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
If Mike is practicing idolatry because he believes PFAL to be God-Breathed (which would probably be a form of bibliolatry), then all peoples who believe the Bible is God-Breathed, are practicing idolatry, or bibliolatry.
Same goes for Jews and the Torah.
Koran.
Book of Mormon.
Or any "holy" book one believes to be the truth.
Or maybe even any "book" one believes to be the truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
There is a little bit of a difference, Oldies.
A more appropriate analogue would be if Mike is practicing idolatry because he believes PFAL to be God-Breathed, then all peoples who believe other bible exegetes' writings are God-Breathed are practicing idolatry.
Now that's not to say that there is not a situation with bibliolatry in Christianity or any other religion, but bibliolatry is not Mike's problem. IMHO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
mike's problem is that he wants to be worshipped
he could care less about pfal
it's just a way to get what he wants
he don't even believe it himself
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldies,
Mike's idolatry extends beyond considering PFAL God-breathed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I still don't get it, I don't see where he is practicing idolatry, and it is disturbing that a brother in Christ is accused of this.
I wouldn't accuse you or anyone on GS of practicing idolatry, and wouldn't accuse ANYONE of it, unless I really KNOW that I KNOW that I KNOW.
I have never even accused those who believe in the TRINITY of practicing idolatry, even though VP taught and believed that. I was never that sure.
You say it extends beyond Mike's belief that PFAL is God Breathed. Are you around him, live with him, know all of his thoughts and actions, that you can be so sure he practices idolatry?
How can you be so sure?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
ok, just part observation
and part request
now that the good ole curse of "idolatry" is going thru a popularity spike
can someone here tell me what it really means
(whether you have to start a new thread on it
or cleverly put it in the context of this one)
I kinda like OM's question on the matter: "how can you be so sure?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldies,
If you don't see it now, you're not going to see it, and I'm not going to entertain your request for me to prove that the sky is blue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Sirguessalot,
I got the following brief definition of idolatry from the Catholic Encyclopedia Online:
I think that sums it up pretty well.
The way I understand it, it looks to me like two key ingredients are required for the practice of idolatry:
(1) elevation of something/someone to the level of a God,
(2) then, worshipping that something/someone in place of the true God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
So Catholics don't practice idolatry, in your view?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
It is only fair that you try to answer my question first, then I will try to answer yours.
Have a great weekend, I'm outta here. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Actually it is this very thing which has gotten the VPW critics all worked up. It's not really an issue over whether or not VPW properly cited his sources and likewise footnoted them. How very ironic! The critics who charge VPW with not properly citing sources and proper footnoting (plagiarsim) have already proven they have no interest or concern regarding the footnotes already present in the PFAL series and collaterals. If they were really concerned about the footnotes in the PFAL series, the footnotes would only make it harder for them to misrepresent VPW and his position. The footnotes present in PFAL only makes it harder for one to misquote VPW and take him out of context. Here's proof Dr. Wordwolf:
A good example is the four crucified with Jesus. It is difficult to disprove this position when one closely scrutinizes all the scriptures that deal with those crucified with Jesus Christ. By careful scrutiny of the scriptures one easily recognizes two malefactors were led out with Jesus from the Praetorium. Sometime afterward, two robbers (it says theives in the KJV) were brought and crucified along with Jesus and the two malefactors when they hung up the superscription over Jesus Christ's head. The debate the critics make against this position hinges on the meanings of the Greek words for "other" - the Greek Words specifically being: heteros and allos.
VPW gives the definitions of these Greek words in TWW on p237 as such:
Allos – means “the other” or second of two when and where there may be more.
Heteros – means “the other” or second of two when and where there are only two
A problem arises when a student finds where the Greek word heteros has been used, but in some cases there are scriptures where heteros was used and more than two are involved - not "only" two according to the definition that VPW provided in TWW. Here is a prime example of "lazy scholarship" - not necessarily so much on VPW's part but rather on the part of the PFAL student. VPW NEVER said heteros MUST always indicate there are only two. That's a definition of heteros being read into the definition of heteros given by VPW by the lazy student.
If we look at the footnote of heteros in RTHS today (p174) VPW states: "Heteros may and is used also as a generic discrimination in some instances, but not in this Corinthian section where heteros always means “another” in respect to two parties.
While VPW did define heteros as meaning "only two" he did not give the student the definiton that heteros must always mean and be only two. This is readily seen in the footnote when VPW states heteros may and is also used as a generic discrimination ... yet the critics don't bother with this part of the footnote. They have built an entire argument against the four crucified on the premise that heteros MUST always mean "only two". A more masterful PFAL student can see from this footnote in RTHS this is NOT the only definition for heteros. Even VPW himself recognized this, although many of his "apprentice" students completely missed it. Now they think they think they are more masterful at rightly dividing the Word than VPW - they got to start another thread about all the errors in PFAL, eh? They were also given the vehicle for rightly dividing the word, but it's not VPW's fault if you're just someone who let the tires go flat.
As far as accusations of plagarism - IMO it makes more sense to do away with copyright infringement and all the legal wranglings that accompany it in favor of "compulsory licensing". The music and recording industry already recognize this. Compulsory licensing takes away the control of the copyright owner; as a copyright owner has no right to refuse, restrict or interfere with a license's statutory rights under the license agreement. It simply pays the owner their just compensation. Napster had started a good thing if you ask me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I've answered your question many times before, and as I said, I refuse to entertain your play at ignorance. You've asked this before, I've answered it before, and you keep asking as though it's never been answered. Enough.
I only brought this up to show that your definition of "idolatry" conveniently changes when it suits your purposes.
WTH:
Interesting post. I would go a step further and say heteros has nothing to do with whether two are involved or more than two are involved. That's the error there. Nonetheless, whether or not it's footnoted and whether or not it's accurate are two separate issues.
Why would anyone complain about the footnotes that ARE present in the PFAL series (incidentally, you flat out lie when you say there's no concern there: I've applauded those footnotes, as have others). Complaining about footnotes that are present is like getting a traffic ticket for stopping at a stop sign.
Your point is flawed, your example is flawed, and your example is a non-sequitir when it comes to your point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Hey since the configuration of those crucified with Christ is mentioned here, I have a question for you biblical scholars.
VPW said that there was had to have been two separate sets of folks there with Christ at the crucifixion. One set were a couple of malefactors. One set were a couple of robbers/theives/whatever.
Why is it that the word rendered 'malefactor' in the kjv (Luke 23:33) is an adjective kakourgos (meaning doing ill, mischievous, knavish). It has a masculine gender and is in the plural. Anyway, so far as I can tell, there is no noun that this adjective modifies.
Now the word rendered 'thief' in the kjv Mark 15:27 and Mat 27:38 account is the word lestes (meaning robber, bandit, revolutionary, or rebel). It's a masculine noun written in the plural.
So anyway, I'm not sure where this alleged 'apparent discrepency' was that was used as an excuse to teach the unique 4-crucified with Christ theory. After all, the adjective 'doing ill' or 'mischevious' would be apt descriptions that would fit a person that could be labeled a 'robber,' 'bandit,' 'revolutionary,' or 'rebel,' couldn't it?
So where's the problem again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mark,
The discrepancy in the four crucified is, if I'm not mistaken, that in two gospels, two people are crucified at the same time as Jesus, while in another gospel, two are crucified well after Jesus is crucified (I could have this backward, but the point is that the discrepancy is in the timing). If that chronology is correct, then there must be a total of five people crucified (three at first, then two joined them). John says "two others with him on this side and on that side." Without a comma, it's pretty clear that four are crucified with him. WITH a comma ("two others with him, on this side and on that side"), it's pretty clear that there's only two.
Acceptance of four crucified with Jesus entails acceptance that the chronology of the others crucified as presented in PFAL (and How to Enjoy the Bible) is significant, and that no comma belongs in the verse in the gospel of John.
Whether a comma belongs there or not is unprovable, according to PFAL, because the oldest existing texts contained no punctuation (has anyone verified this?).
So it comes down to chronology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
It entails getting sidetracked with interesting theories and conclusions to the exclusion of what was really important about the goings on on that hill.
I'm not saying we should discuss the subject--what I am saying is that discussions like this in TWI , were IMO, often used to avoid the more critical points of the text--such as Jesus Christ being a alive and present in our lives.
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.