Raf is right on the chronology. It's pretty simple to see it in the first three gospels.
With John's Gospel it's not just a comma.
John is a little more complicated, because it's not strictly chronological. It has a "flash forward" that summarizes the entire crucifixion scene, and then it details the scene.
In an interlinear you can plainly see the addition of the word "one" to the English text of John where there is no Greek word. This is a place where the KJV translators added a word BUT they did not italicize it. They disgracefully added "one" to the text to line John up with their theology. It seems that other versions kept the word "one" also to keep "in step."
ALSO, with one of the pairs BOTH mocked Jesus, while only ONE in the other pair mocked and the other was meek to Jesus.
It demonstrates to us all how sloppy all past theologians have been, paying much more attention to tradition and Renaissance art than to the text. The addition of the word “one” to the text is the supreme example of this.
It also demonstrates to GSC readers now just who paid close attention back in their ministry days and who was sloppy in their study of what we were taught in PFAL. These things are elementary, yet many posters here are totally (or partially) in the dark regarding these very simple items. They're all in the PFAL book and the film class.
Mark, your question here shows your bias and your lack of understanding what we were taught. If you come back to PFAL and study it out without such bias you will be very pleasantly surprised. Same to you templelady, and all the others. Look at how much you all forgot or never absorbed!
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.
Nonesense! If you can't see the difference, any explanation given would be lost to you.
You wrote; "Right. I left that out. Thanks, Mike."
And thank YOU, Raf, for taking me off "ignore" status.
I also appreciate your generally objective approach to things.
Fundamental assumptions are unavoidable in life and everyone MUST have some of them. In Geometry they’re called Postulates. The trick in life is minimizing the number of them we hold, and only holding onto only the most true, elegant, and useful fundamental assumptions.
If you ever decide to experiment with your fundamental assumptions and temporarily hold onto the idea that PFAL is God-breathed as you thumb through the pages you will be able to see more than most with your greater commitment to objectivity.
All I have to do is adopt your point of view for a little while and I'll see things your way?
No thanks.
I haven't actually taken you off ignore. I simply read when there's the possibility that you're responding to something I said.
Your postulate has already been proven false. To continue to try to prove it true when it's already been proven false is known in science as futility, and known in rhetoric as insanity.
I'm sure if YOU would adopt the objective approach for which you compliment ME, you would see that.
The proving false of my Postulate was done only in the context of another set of another Postulates, which I now find untenable.
I was objective about my present set of Postulates in that prior to 1998 I did not embrace them at all. Objectivity, like an open mind, is useful in searching, but not useful once a desired end is found.
Instead of just shopping and comparing Postulate sets, we can also shop and compare the resulting sets of "theorems" that flow out from from each set of Postulates. This flow of theorems takes much more time and effort and few ever bother. I compared the theorm set flowing from God-breathed PFAl and saw it to be much better than the set flowing from the alternative Postulates.
I'm only using math terminology for the brevity it affords me.
The theorems of PFAL have also been proven false, repeatedly.
Mike, you're exalting a flawed document about the Word of God that document is trying to point you to. You've been doing that for years, to the point that it's seared your brain. You're now unABLE to consider that you might be wrong. If that's your position, fine.
To say what I want to say next would be a shot too cheap even for my feelings toward you, so I will stop here and not respond to any more of your nonsense.
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.
May I add my 2 cents worth here?
Idolatry (by this definition) is a wide blanket that covers a lot
of folks, and/or denominations.
Mike has entered the mix by declaring pfal to be *God-breathed*.
Fine. So be it. But by the same token, Mike has taken single words (from the way magazine) from one paragraph, and linked them to other words (in other paragraphs), and then said ---
SEE -- THIS IS GOD TALKING THROUGH DOCVIC.
He promotes the *hidden messages* found there-in.
I'm not being facetious. He is more than serious about this agenda. While I will agree that there is some good talked about in docvic's teachings, I would never extend myself to the point to link one word in an opening paragraph, to another in a concluding paragraph, FROM THE WAY MAGAZINE,
And then say --- This is God speaking, wake up and listen.
I don't know about you Oldies, but this to me is idolatry -- and by the definition you provided us with.
You wrote: “The theorems of PFAL have also been proven false, repeatedly.”
Only within a constrained context, as I said before. You must adopt a certain set of Postulates in order to humanly prove that. Proof on the flesh level is not absolute. It’s God Who really establishes these things. We must be meek to Him and allow Him to direct our paths to truth. If we trust our own abilities to direct our own paths THAT is the ultimate idolatry.
***
You wrote: “Mike, you're exalting a flawed document about the Word of God that document is trying to point you to. You've been doing that for years, to the point that it's seared your brain. You're now unABLE to consider that you might be wrong. If that's your position, fine.”
It’s flawed in your eyes, not flawed in mine, and we both must always look to God for the ultimate answer.
***
You wrote: “To say what I want to say next would be a shot too cheap even for my feelings toward you, so I will stop here and not respond to any more of your nonsense.”
I appreciate your self discipline here. Had you succumbed it would have had little effect on me and just dragged you down. I'm glad for you here.
***********
dmiller,
You wrote: “Mike has taken single words (from the way magazine) from one paragraph, and linked them to other words (in other paragraphs), and then said --- SEE -- THIS IS GOD TALKING THROUGH DOCVIC.”
Not quite. First I assume (for many complex reasons) that the same way God talked to Isreal us via the prophets of old, He can do the same thing today and He did with VPW. Then I apply something fundamental we were taught: that in order to see the truth regarding any topic we must examine not just one place where that topic occurs, but ALL the places where it occurs in God’s communication to us through the writings of the men he selects. I rightfully draw upon multiple locations in Dr’s writings to get the whole story. It’s wrong to NOT do this.
***
You wrote: “He promotes the *hidden messages* found there-in.”
We can see in the Old Testament how there were hidden messages in the way God had men prophesy about the future. God can do the same thing today. There’s nothing wrong with God having more than one meaning impregnating a text. Humans do it sometimes; why can’t God?
***
You wrote: “I'm not being facetious. He is more than serious about this agenda. While I will agree that there is some good talked about in docvic's teachings, I would never extend myself to the point to link one word in an opening paragraph, to another in a concluding paragraph, FROM THE WAY MAGAZINE,”
I’m not quite sure why it is that you have a phobia about the magazine form of Dr’s writings versus the book form. Text is text. What would you say to some nutty traditionalist who criticized you for reading a KJV Bible in book form and not in the original scroll form it was “intended” to be read from?
Please define your exact problem with the magazine form of Dr’s text so that I can help you dispense with this silly problem of yours.
***
You have admitted that there are problems with the received texts and their exact meaning in English. You have somewhat admitted that your solution to this problem is to wing it and hope you’re right. Don’t you think THAT is a form of idolatry, a form of self worship in that you expect God to respect your ability to wing it?
After my years of winging it and trusting in my own abilities I decided to submit to a form of God’s Word outside my own abilities. I have humbled myself to accept what I believe is bigger than me. Longer ago I was doing much the same kind of submission with the KJV and the abilities of the translators and text scholars, but I saw that break down. Now I see, with the best of my abilities, a stronger, more accurate form of God’s Word to submit to.
Dmiller, what do YOU submit to that’s bigger than you? Do you think there’s an authority that’s bigger than you, or are YOU the god in your life?
You wrote: “The theorems of PFAL have also been proven false, repeatedly.”
Only within a constrained context, as I said before.
[using the standards set out in PFAL, PFAL has been proven less than God-breathed.
Since THEY never said it WAS, this is hardly a problem.
Unless you decide to add that meaning on later, of course...]
You must adopt a certain set of Postulates in order to humanly prove that.
[believing its internal testimony is sufficient.]
Proof on the flesh level is not absolute.
[ The mathematical sentence " A and not-A " is ALWAYS false,
and the "pfal writings" contain at least one direct contradiction.
Not a problem for man's books, but-according to pfal- it makes your
whole Bible fall to pieces.]
It’s God Who really establishes these things. We must be meek to Him and allow Him to direct our paths to truth. If we trust our own abilities to direct our own paths THAT is the ultimate idolatry.
[Right. And trusting only ourselves leads to things like finding "hidden messages"
and DEMANDING the overt meaning of a sentence is WRONG.]
***
You wrote: “Mike, you're exalting a flawed document about the Word of God that document is trying to point you to. You've been doing that for years, to the point that it's seared your brain. You're now unABLE to consider that you might be wrong. If that's your position, fine.”
It’s flawed in your eyes, not flawed in mine, and we both must always look to God for the ultimate answer.
[it contains errors, plus internal contradictions.
In God's eyes as well as man's eyes, that means it's flawed.]
***
You wrote: “To say what I want to say next would be a shot too cheap even for my feelings toward you, so I will stop here and not respond to any more of your nonsense.”
I appreciate your self discipline here. Had you succumbed it would have had little effect on me and just dragged you down. I'm glad for you here.
[i. however, reserve the right to treat you in any manner I deem warranted,
to the limits of the board. I'm operating with different priorities than he is..]
***********
dmiller,
You wrote: “Mike has taken single words (from the way magazine) from one paragraph, and linked them to other words (in other paragraphs), and then said --- SEE -- THIS IS GOD TALKING THROUGH DOCVIC.”
Not quite.
[Actually, that IS it. But, we'll keep going.]
First I assume (for many complex reasons) that the same way God talked to Isreal us via the prophets of old, He can do the same thing today and He did with VPW.
[Which, of course, is error, but not the biggest one here.]
Then I apply something fundamental we were taught: that in order to see the truth regarding any topic we must examine not just one place where that topic occurs, but ALL the places where it occurs in God’s communication to us through the writings of the men he selects. I rightfully draw upon multiple locations in Dr’s writings to get the whole story. It’s wrong to NOT do this.
[According to the Orange Book, over 85% of Scripture explains itself in the verse right
where it's written. According to Mike, the Orange Book is Scripture.
Mike does NOT take the overt meaning of even 85%, let alone "over" that.
It's always hidden messages assembled from scattered pieces.]
***
You wrote: “He promotes the *hidden messages* found there-in.”
We can see in the Old Testament how there were hidden messages in the way God had men prophesy about the future.
[The prophecies were overt. The MEANINGS were unclear.
Mikean pfal has its "prophecies" hidden cabalistically.]
God can do the same thing today. There’s nothing wrong with God having more than one meaning impregnating a text. Humans do it sometimes; why can’t God?
[secret messages were always a hallmark of Gnosticism.]
***
You wrote: “I'm not being facetious. He is more than serious about this agenda. While I will agree that there is some good talked about in docvic's teachings, I would never extend myself to the point to link one word in an opening paragraph, to another in a concluding paragraph, FROM THE WAY MAGAZINE,”
I’m not quite sure why it is that you have a phobia about the magazine form of Dr’s writings versus the book form.
[That's not what he said, but you commonly mistake
"what is written" and add new meanings, so this is not news.]/b]
Text is text. What would you say to some nutty traditionalist who criticized you for reading a KJV Bible in book form and not in the original scroll form it was “intended” to be read from?
[i'd say the imaginary person was using the wrong analogy.]/b]
Please define your exact problem with the magazine form of Dr’s text so that I can help you dispense with this silly problem of yours.
[Please reread his post more carefully. Hopefully, you can see past your silly
problem and get the real meaning.]
***
You have admitted that there are problems with the received texts and their exact meaning in English. You have somewhat admitted that your solution to this problem is to wing it and hope you’re right.
[That's a fictionalized account of what he said.
But, in Mikean pfal, that's how it's done.
All text must be fictionalized and rewritten.]
Don’t you think THAT is a form of idolatry, a form of self worship in that you expect God to respect your ability to wing it?
[if he did wing it, he might have a problem.]
After my years of winging it and trusting in my own abilities I decided to submit to a form of God’s Word outside my own abilities.
[so did the rest of us. But we picked a Godly one.]
I have humbled myself to accept what I believe is bigger than me.
[Gulliver may believe the Lilliputians are bigger than him,
but it doesnt affect their actual heights.]
Longer ago I was doing much the same kind of submission with the KJV and the abilities of the translators and text scholars, but I saw that break down.
[if your talents were less meager, your heart more dedicated,
you would have seen NO break down.]
Now I see, with the best of my abilities, a stronger, more accurate form of God’s Word to submit to.
[That doesnt say much for the best of your abilities.
Slapping a label on something does NOT change its substance.]
Dmiller, what do YOU submit to that’s bigger than you? Do you think there’s an authority that’s bigger than you, or are YOU the god in your life?
[Mike's Table of Challenge.
I offered to answer it fully in exchange for him actually addressing a few of the
ACTUAL ERRORS of pfal-his choice.
These are things that expose his error.
Rather than try to address what he can't, he instead claimed he was unable
I'm saying ... that is the discrepancy pointed to by Wierwille:
In Matthew the two are crucified after the passage of some time.
In Luke the two are led with him at the same time.
Unless there are four people, there appears to be a discrepancy.
I'm not saying that is my position. I'm actually undecided on it. I am saying that this was Wierwille's position.
Right. I left that out. Thanks, Mike.
Well, I don't see the discrepancy. It seems to me that it was a non-issue that Wierwille could use to exalt his position and make himself appear to have gotten his patented knowledge that hadn't been revealed since the first century...the crux of the PFALoter's belief system.
This has probably been done several times before, so bear with me here:
Let's see if I understand it correctly,
Wierwille does the following in the piffle class:
He calls into question early in the piffle class a teaching pretty well universally accepted
One that is pretty well universally accepted by Christianity
One that has a very identifiable icon associated with it
An icon that has been seen and identified with the event by almost the entire population of the US
[*]He then proceeds to rip apart that teaching
He uses an English translation that is almost (now) 500 years old to do so. The effects of the use of that translation are:
The language is archaic, not familiar to modern English speakers, and is subject to misapplication
The translation is known to have several serious errors in it
Those errors and archaic usages are pointed out, where convenient, but the pointing out of them allows for Wierwille's interpretation to be inserted as he chooses
[*]He selectively refers back to the Greek terms used by the authors
He confuses the students by pointing out the difference between two greek words that are often rendered as the same english word in that archaic translation of the Bible
Confusing, because only one of those terms is used in that context and not the other
Confusing, because he doesn't refer back to the proper antecedent for the word that is used
[*]He doesn't, on the other hand, refer back to a greek word that was at the core of the apparent temporal anomaly that caused the 'apparent contradiction' that he was trying to 'solve.'
[*]He also mentions the difference between two english words used to describe those who were crucified with Christ
Note that he doesn't go back to the greek there, either. He just gives the 'translation'
In giving this 'translation,' he doesn't bother to mention that the words are different parts of speech (one was a noun -- an object; one was an adjective -- a word used to describe an object)
[*]He calls into question the use of punctuation and points out, correctly, that punctuation was not present in the original manuscripts. He does this to show that the numbers may have been rendered incorrectly in the translation.
But he doesn't refer the students back to the original greek here, either, where the numbers are clearly identified
He doesn't mention that in two gospel accounts, a numeral is translated as both 'one' and 'another'
He doesn't mention in the third gospel account that the preposition used was clearly used in the singular number
[*]The vast majority of the students of the piffle class are simply not Greek scholars. Those who may have taken some classes as the result of being enrolled in a religious high school or college (and who might have been exposed to some greek or some of the little tidbits that were thrown out) would likely have an incomplete knowledge or one that was fogged by time.
Thus bringing up the little tidbits (uncial versus cursive, punctuation in the manuscripts, heteros versus allos, etc.) would tend to impress the listener
All to bring up a sense of gravitas to the speaker
[*]The probable effects:
A pretty well universal, but trivial, teaching is called into question.
This establishes the gravitas of the speaker to the fairly uncritical student
The student is also left with the thought, "what else was I taught incorrectly?"
[*]The uncritical student is then going to pay a little more heed to subsequent lessons of the teacher, rendering them more vulnerable.
Sorry for the length of this, btw, but I have only a little more to say.
I remember when I went through the piffle class that, during a break, the class coordinator passed around a copy of Bullinger's Companion Bible and showed us Appendix 164 with that now very familiar grainy picture:
Now, let me quote a couple of accounts the locals have about the 5 crosses:
five Crosses, located at the locality "Ar Pemp Croaz", at the crossroads road of Kerfons. This monument is composed of a large cross (XVème or XVIème century), alongside of four smaller crosses (of the Average Age). One sees, in the vicinity, of the traces of the Roman way which went from Carhaix in Yaudet. These crosses have apparently were gathered on only one support, probably about 1728
Google translated page: here. Original (in french) here.
The monument of the five crosses is composed of a large cross (XV 2nd or XVI 2nd century), surrounded of four smaller and older. Oldest of all, which is also most massive, is a pattée cross of X 2nd century and comprises reasons carved on its reverse. It also comprises the date, "1728", it is probably the year when they were joined together on the same support according to the local tradition, this monument would have been high in commemoration of a combat during which the inhabitants would have overcome the English. Actually, a vice-chancellor gathered these crosses at the beginning of the XX 2nd century to save them destruction.
Google translation here. Original (in french) here.
Keeping in mind that Brittany is a very Catholic area of France, and looking at the color pictures, which explanation seems more feasible?
One other thing, the five crosses that are made on an altar when it is consecrated are symbolic of the five wounds of Christ...no more...
Sorry for the length of the post, folks...
on edit, to fix the bottom pic so it wouldn't screw up the whole page
In fairness to VPW, I don't recall him mentioning the punctuation difference in the gospel of John. That was just me.
The use of the five crosses pic always bugged me. After telling us not to rely on art to prove our points, TWI relies on art to prove Wierwille's point.
Now we know the truth: the monument was never intended to be a representation of the crucifixion. It's not even one monument!
Good catch.
By the way, on the heteros v. allos issue: has anyone ever found any scholarship indicating heteros means only two involved while allos means more than two? I mean, aside from Wierwille? Genuine question. I'm just curious to know where he got the definition from.
In fairness to VPW, I don't recall him mentioning the punctuation difference in the gospel of John. That was just me.
The use of the five crosses pic always bugged me. After telling us not to rely on art to prove our points, TWI relies on art to prove Wierwille's point.
Now we know the truth: the monument was never intended to be a representation of the crucifixion. It's not even one monument!
Good catch.
By the way, on the heteros v. allos issue: has anyone ever found any scholarship indicating heteros means only two involved while allos means more than two? I mean, aside from Wierwille? Genuine question. I'm just curious to know where he got the definition from.
You know, now that you mention it, I think you're right...wasn't the punctuation thing from the "today you will be with me in paradise" issue?
Another thing to show a misquote...but that's for later.
Thanks for the nice words.
(Of course, we will be informed by some that the modern pics are just foregeries )
On "the four crucified" and the gospel of John, Wierwille's point was that the word "one" (on either side one) was not in the text. On that he appears to have been correct, from the few interlinears I've seen.
By the way, on the heteros v. allos issue: has anyone ever found any scholarship indicating heteros means only two involved while allos means more than two? I mean, aside from Wierwille? Genuine question. I'm just curious to know where he got the definition from.
Wierwille got it by revelation as it happened to be snowing in the summertime, while he was reading Bullinger, of course:
He got it from Bullinger, but he mixed up Bullinger's distinctions. He agreed with Bullinger regarding number, but not kind. Wierwille said that heteros indicated two of the same kind, whereas allos indicated different kinds.
Bullinger's writing never was very clear. (I used to joke that the easiest way to fall asleep is reading "How to Enjoy the Bible." WordWolf and I were going to write a follow-up: "How to Enjoy How to Enjoy the Bible").
On "the four crucified" and the gospel of John, Wierwille's point was that the word "one" (on either side one) was not in the text. On that he appears to have been correct, from the few interlinears I've seen.
actually, if you take a look at my notes above, you'll find out that the word 'heis' is used in both Matthew and Mark and that 'hos' is used in the singular in Luke.
You can check for yourself at www.zhubert.com (really nice interface btw)
"He got it from Bullinger, but he mixed up Bullinger's distinctions. He agreed with Bullinger regarding number, but not kind. Wierwille said that heteros indicated two of the same kind, whereas allos indicated different kinds."
=====================
IIRC,
in one place, vpw made that mistake
(heteros of the same kind, allos of a different kind)
and in another place, did NOT make that mistake
(allos of the same kind, heteros of a different kind)
In the same place he made that mistake, he used Bullinger's (incorrect)
distinction of number.
=====
Me,
I always remembered them correctly referencing kind,
and ignored his numerical explanation which seemed anomalous.
The distinction was clear WITHOUT that, and adding
numerical meaning fogged it needlessly.
(Later study showed Bullinger just made it up OR SOMETHING.)
I found the easiest way to keep them clear was in Galatians 1,
where Paul chides them for turning to "another" (heteros) gospel
which was not "another" (allo).
In other words, they turned to a different gospel that was not of
the same type. (Which is redundantly redundant, but that's
fine in language, especially non-contemporary language.)
=======
Oh,
and that book would have been
"How to Enjoy 'How to Enjoy the Bible' " with the additional
markers to note we meant the other book.
====
I checked: part of the problem with HtEtB is the tiny print.
I've read chapters online-after enlarging the text-and they're
not as taxing to read like that. Then again, I still recommend
a chapter at a time.
=====
BTW, Bullinger's notes included a comment that he thought
that some churches were built with a cross in each of the
4 corners, and that this was supposed to symbolize the
4 crucified. Supposing they WERE built that way, it might
have simply been they were going to have 4 corners, then
added a cross to each, period. There need not be any more
detailed reason than that.
Mind you, I'm just saying the 4 crosses in the architecture
are proof of nothing. I'm not convinced one way or the
other of one side's correctness, but I'm paying attention.
(Mark, feel free to make your case, but please address the
objections more specifically. You summarized things to
briefly, which looks like you glossed over the objections.
If you have a stronger case, it's better served with more
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
Mike
Raf is right on the chronology. It's pretty simple to see it in the first three gospels.
With John's Gospel it's not just a comma.
John is a little more complicated, because it's not strictly chronological. It has a "flash forward" that summarizes the entire crucifixion scene, and then it details the scene.
In an interlinear you can plainly see the addition of the word "one" to the English text of John where there is no Greek word. This is a place where the KJV translators added a word BUT they did not italicize it. They disgracefully added "one" to the text to line John up with their theology. It seems that other versions kept the word "one" also to keep "in step."
ALSO, with one of the pairs BOTH mocked Jesus, while only ONE in the other pair mocked and the other was meek to Jesus.
.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Templelady,
This “Four Crucified” topic is VERY useful.
It demonstrates to us all how sloppy all past theologians have been, paying much more attention to tradition and Renaissance art than to the text. The addition of the word “one” to the text is the supreme example of this.
It also demonstrates to GSC readers now just who paid close attention back in their ministry days and who was sloppy in their study of what we were taught in PFAL. These things are elementary, yet many posters here are totally (or partially) in the dark regarding these very simple items. They're all in the PFAL book and the film class.
Mark, your question here shows your bias and your lack of understanding what we were taught. If you come back to PFAL and study it out without such bias you will be very pleasantly surprised. Same to you templelady, and all the others. Look at how much you all forgot or never absorbed!
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Nonesense! If you can't see the difference, any explanation given would be lost to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mark,
I'm saying ... that is the discrepancy pointed to by Wierwille:
In Matthew the two are crucified after the passage of some time.
In Luke the two are led with him at the same time.
Unless there are four people, there appears to be a discrepancy.
I'm not saying that is my position. I'm actually undecided on it. I am saying that this was Wierwille's position.
Right. I left that out. Thanks, Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
You wrote; "Right. I left that out. Thanks, Mike."
And thank YOU, Raf, for taking me off "ignore" status.
I also appreciate your generally objective approach to things.
Fundamental assumptions are unavoidable in life and everyone MUST have some of them. In Geometry they’re called Postulates. The trick in life is minimizing the number of them we hold, and only holding onto only the most true, elegant, and useful fundamental assumptions.
If you ever decide to experiment with your fundamental assumptions and temporarily hold onto the idea that PFAL is God-breathed as you thumb through the pages you will be able to see more than most with your greater commitment to objectivity.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
All I have to do is adopt your point of view for a little while and I'll see things your way?
No thanks.
I haven't actually taken you off ignore. I simply read when there's the possibility that you're responding to something I said.
Your postulate has already been proven false. To continue to try to prove it true when it's already been proven false is known in science as futility, and known in rhetoric as insanity.
I'm sure if YOU would adopt the objective approach for which you compliment ME, you would see that.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The proving false of my Postulate was done only in the context of another set of another Postulates, which I now find untenable.
I was objective about my present set of Postulates in that prior to 1998 I did not embrace them at all. Objectivity, like an open mind, is useful in searching, but not useful once a desired end is found.
Instead of just shopping and comparing Postulate sets, we can also shop and compare the resulting sets of "theorems" that flow out from from each set of Postulates. This flow of theorems takes much more time and effort and few ever bother. I compared the theorm set flowing from God-breathed PFAl and saw it to be much better than the set flowing from the alternative Postulates.
I'm only using math terminology for the brevity it affords me.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The theorems of PFAL have also been proven false, repeatedly.
Mike, you're exalting a flawed document about the Word of God that document is trying to point you to. You've been doing that for years, to the point that it's seared your brain. You're now unABLE to consider that you might be wrong. If that's your position, fine.
To say what I want to say next would be a shot too cheap even for my feelings toward you, so I will stop here and not respond to any more of your nonsense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
May I add my 2 cents worth here?
Idolatry (by this definition) is a wide blanket that covers a lot
of folks, and/or denominations.
Mike has entered the mix by declaring pfal to be *God-breathed*.
Fine. So be it. But by the same token, Mike has taken single words (from the way magazine) from one paragraph, and linked them to other words (in other paragraphs), and then said ---
SEE -- THIS IS GOD TALKING THROUGH DOCVIC.
He promotes the *hidden messages* found there-in.
I'm not being facetious. He is more than serious about this agenda. While I will agree that there is some good talked about in docvic's teachings, I would never extend myself to the point to link one word in an opening paragraph, to another in a concluding paragraph, FROM THE WAY MAGAZINE,
And then say --- This is God speaking, wake up and listen.
I don't know about you Oldies, but this to me is idolatry -- and by the definition you provided us with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
You wrote: “The theorems of PFAL have also been proven false, repeatedly.”
Only within a constrained context, as I said before. You must adopt a certain set of Postulates in order to humanly prove that. Proof on the flesh level is not absolute. It’s God Who really establishes these things. We must be meek to Him and allow Him to direct our paths to truth. If we trust our own abilities to direct our own paths THAT is the ultimate idolatry.
***
You wrote: “Mike, you're exalting a flawed document about the Word of God that document is trying to point you to. You've been doing that for years, to the point that it's seared your brain. You're now unABLE to consider that you might be wrong. If that's your position, fine.”
It’s flawed in your eyes, not flawed in mine, and we both must always look to God for the ultimate answer.
***
You wrote: “To say what I want to say next would be a shot too cheap even for my feelings toward you, so I will stop here and not respond to any more of your nonsense.”
I appreciate your self discipline here. Had you succumbed it would have had little effect on me and just dragged you down. I'm glad for you here.
***********
dmiller,
You wrote: “Mike has taken single words (from the way magazine) from one paragraph, and linked them to other words (in other paragraphs), and then said --- SEE -- THIS IS GOD TALKING THROUGH DOCVIC.”
Not quite. First I assume (for many complex reasons) that the same way God talked to Isreal us via the prophets of old, He can do the same thing today and He did with VPW. Then I apply something fundamental we were taught: that in order to see the truth regarding any topic we must examine not just one place where that topic occurs, but ALL the places where it occurs in God’s communication to us through the writings of the men he selects. I rightfully draw upon multiple locations in Dr’s writings to get the whole story. It’s wrong to NOT do this.
***
You wrote: “He promotes the *hidden messages* found there-in.”
We can see in the Old Testament how there were hidden messages in the way God had men prophesy about the future. God can do the same thing today. There’s nothing wrong with God having more than one meaning impregnating a text. Humans do it sometimes; why can’t God?
***
You wrote: “I'm not being facetious. He is more than serious about this agenda. While I will agree that there is some good talked about in docvic's teachings, I would never extend myself to the point to link one word in an opening paragraph, to another in a concluding paragraph, FROM THE WAY MAGAZINE,”
I’m not quite sure why it is that you have a phobia about the magazine form of Dr’s writings versus the book form. Text is text. What would you say to some nutty traditionalist who criticized you for reading a KJV Bible in book form and not in the original scroll form it was “intended” to be read from?
Please define your exact problem with the magazine form of Dr’s text so that I can help you dispense with this silly problem of yours.
***
You have admitted that there are problems with the received texts and their exact meaning in English. You have somewhat admitted that your solution to this problem is to wing it and hope you’re right. Don’t you think THAT is a form of idolatry, a form of self worship in that you expect God to respect your ability to wing it?
After my years of winging it and trusting in my own abilities I decided to submit to a form of God’s Word outside my own abilities. I have humbled myself to accept what I believe is bigger than me. Longer ago I was doing much the same kind of submission with the KJV and the abilities of the translators and text scholars, but I saw that break down. Now I see, with the best of my abilities, a stronger, more accurate form of God’s Word to submit to.
Dmiller, what do YOU submit to that’s bigger than you? Do you think there’s an authority that’s bigger than you, or are YOU the god in your life?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
why is this a question?
is it biblical?
where are your reasonings for this?
chapter and verse please
or just what you may think
got the time for an answer mike?
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
why does something have to be bigger then you to serve it
i serve people at work but they are not bigger then me
where do you get this idea from
why do you insist on it
it says my thoughts are higher then your thoughts
does that make it bigger?
what is bigger then you mike?
you will be the same size that you serve
no bigger no smaller
you are limited to yourself
you will not be able to go any further then your own mind
there is nothing bigger then you for you
your vain imaginations have gotten you no where close to
the potential that is dormant within you
you claim that "dr" has the revelation to follow
you don't even know what you are saying
"dr" spit in the face of his "revelations"
will you do the same when the time comes?
cuz it will mike
kicking and screaming you may protest
but you will die the death
you are no exception
you probably don't even know what i'm talking about
no matter you will know soon enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
and why do you insist that a written anything is authority
perhaps you don't understand what it is saying
maybe you have to start from a different source to
understand the multiple writings that are available to read
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Well, I don't see the discrepancy. It seems to me that it was a non-issue that Wierwille could use to exalt his position and make himself appear to have gotten his patented knowledge that hadn't been revealed since the first century...the crux of the PFALoter's belief system.
This has probably been done several times before, so bear with me here:
Let's see if I understand it correctly,
Wierwille does the following in the piffle class:
- He calls into question early in the piffle class a teaching pretty well universally accepted
- One that is pretty well universally accepted by Christianity
- One that has a very identifiable icon associated with it
- An icon that has been seen and identified with the event by almost the entire population of the US
- He uses an English translation that is almost (now) 500 years old to do so. The effects of the use of that translation are:
- The language is archaic, not familiar to modern English speakers, and is subject to misapplication
- The translation is known to have several serious errors in it
- Those errors and archaic usages are pointed out, where convenient, but the pointing out of them allows for Wierwille's interpretation to be inserted as he chooses
- He confuses the students by pointing out the difference between two greek words that are often rendered as the same english word in that archaic translation of the Bible
- Confusing, because only one of those terms is used in that context and not the other
- Confusing, because he doesn't refer back to the proper antecedent for the word that is used
- Note that he doesn't go back to the greek there, either. He just gives the 'translation'
- In giving this 'translation,' he doesn't bother to mention that the words are different parts of speech (one was a noun -- an object; one was an adjective -- a word used to describe an object)
- But he doesn't refer the students back to the original greek here, either, where the numbers are clearly identified
- He doesn't mention that in two gospel accounts, a numeral is translated as both 'one' and 'another'
- He doesn't mention in the third gospel account that the preposition used was clearly used in the singular number
- Thus bringing up the little tidbits (uncial versus cursive, punctuation in the manuscripts, heteros versus allos, etc.) would tend to impress the listener
- All to bring up a sense of gravitas to the speaker
- A pretty well universal, but trivial, teaching is called into question.
- This establishes the gravitas of the speaker to the fairly uncritical student
- The student is also left with the thought, "what else was I taught incorrectly?"
five Crosses, located at the locality "Ar Pemp Croaz", at the crossroads road of Kerfons. This monument is composed of a large cross (XVème or XVIème century), alongside of four smaller crosses (of the Average Age). One sees, in the vicinity, of the traces of the Roman way which went from Carhaix in Yaudet. These crosses have apparently were gathered on only one support, probably about 1728
The monument of the five crosses is composed of a large cross (XV 2nd or XVI 2nd century), surrounded of four smaller and older. Oldest of all, which is also most massive, is a pattée cross of X 2nd century and comprises reasons carved on its reverse. It also comprises the date, "1728", it is probably the year when they were joined together on the same support according to the local tradition, this monument would have been high in commemoration of a combat during which the inhabitants would have overcome the English. Actually, a vice-chancellor gathered these crosses at the beginning of the XX 2nd century to save them destruction.
Edited by markomalley[*]He then proceeds to rip apart that teaching
[*]He selectively refers back to the Greek terms used by the authors
[*]He doesn't, on the other hand, refer back to a greek word that was at the core of the apparent temporal anomaly that caused the 'apparent contradiction' that he was trying to 'solve.'
[*]He also mentions the difference between two english words used to describe those who were crucified with Christ
[*]He calls into question the use of punctuation and points out, correctly, that punctuation was not present in the original manuscripts. He does this to show that the numbers may have been rendered incorrectly in the translation.
[*]The vast majority of the students of the piffle class are simply not Greek scholars. Those who may have taken some classes as the result of being enrolled in a religious high school or college (and who might have been exposed to some greek or some of the little tidbits that were thrown out) would likely have an incomplete knowledge or one that was fogged by time.
[*]The probable effects:
[*]The uncritical student is then going to pay a little more heed to subsequent lessons of the teacher, rendering them more vulnerable.
Sorry for the length of this, btw, but I have only a little more to say.
I remember when I went through the piffle class that, during a break, the class coordinator passed around a copy of Bullinger's Companion Bible and showed us Appendix 164 with that now very familiar grainy picture:
Now, let me quote a couple of accounts the locals have about the 5 crosses:
Google translated page: here. Original (in french) here.
Google translation here. Original (in french) here.
Keeping in mind that Brittany is a very Catholic area of France, and looking at the color pictures, which explanation seems more feasible?
One other thing, the five crosses that are made on an altar when it is consecrated are symbolic of the five wounds of Christ...no more...
Sorry for the length of the post, folks...
on edit, to fix the bottom pic so it wouldn't screw up the whole page
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mark,
In fairness to VPW, I don't recall him mentioning the punctuation difference in the gospel of John. That was just me.
The use of the five crosses pic always bugged me. After telling us not to rely on art to prove our points, TWI relies on art to prove Wierwille's point.
Now we know the truth: the monument was never intended to be a representation of the crucifixion. It's not even one monument!
Good catch.
By the way, on the heteros v. allos issue: has anyone ever found any scholarship indicating heteros means only two involved while allos means more than two? I mean, aside from Wierwille? Genuine question. I'm just curious to know where he got the definition from.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You know, now that you mention it, I think you're right...wasn't the punctuation thing from the "today you will be with me in paradise" issue?
Another thing to show a misquote...but that's for later.
Thanks for the nice words.
(Of course, we will be informed by some that the modern pics are just foregeries
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
On "the four crucified" and the gospel of John, Wierwille's point was that the word "one" (on either side one) was not in the text. On that he appears to have been correct, from the few interlinears I've seen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Wierwille got it by revelation as it happened to be snowing in the summertime, while he was reading Bullinger, of course:
http://www.biblestudysite.com/124.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ah. So it comes from Bullinger, who used it to prove the same "four crucified" teaching for which Wierwille used it.
Any other non-Bullinger sources?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
He got it from Bullinger, but he mixed up Bullinger's distinctions. He agreed with Bullinger regarding number, but not kind. Wierwille said that heteros indicated two of the same kind, whereas allos indicated different kinds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh my! Is that right? (checking)
Bullinger's writing never was very clear. (I used to joke that the easiest way to fall asleep is reading "How to Enjoy the Bible." WordWolf and I were going to write a follow-up: "How to Enjoy How to Enjoy the Bible").
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
actually, if you take a look at my notes above, you'll find out that the word 'heis' is used in both Matthew and Mark and that 'hos' is used in the singular in Luke.
You can check for yourself at www.zhubert.com (really nice interface btw)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
'LG':
"He got it from Bullinger, but he mixed up Bullinger's distinctions. He agreed with Bullinger regarding number, but not kind. Wierwille said that heteros indicated two of the same kind, whereas allos indicated different kinds."
=====================
IIRC,
in one place, vpw made that mistake
(heteros of the same kind, allos of a different kind)
and in another place, did NOT make that mistake
(allos of the same kind, heteros of a different kind)
In the same place he made that mistake, he used Bullinger's (incorrect)
distinction of number.
=====
Me,
I always remembered them correctly referencing kind,
and ignored his numerical explanation which seemed anomalous.
The distinction was clear WITHOUT that, and adding
numerical meaning fogged it needlessly.
(Later study showed Bullinger just made it up OR SOMETHING.)
I found the easiest way to keep them clear was in Galatians 1,
where Paul chides them for turning to "another" (heteros) gospel
which was not "another" (allo).
In other words, they turned to a different gospel that was not of
the same type. (Which is redundantly redundant, but that's
fine in language, especially non-contemporary language.)
=======
Oh,
and that book would have been
"How to Enjoy 'How to Enjoy the Bible' " with the additional
markers to note we meant the other book.
====
I checked: part of the problem with HtEtB is the tiny print.
I've read chapters online-after enlarging the text-and they're
not as taxing to read like that. Then again, I still recommend
a chapter at a time.
=====
BTW, Bullinger's notes included a comment that he thought
that some churches were built with a cross in each of the
4 corners, and that this was supposed to symbolize the
4 crucified. Supposing they WERE built that way, it might
have simply been they were going to have 4 corners, then
added a cross to each, period. There need not be any more
detailed reason than that.
Mind you, I'm just saying the 4 crosses in the architecture
are proof of nothing. I'm not convinced one way or the
other of one side's correctness, but I'm paying attention.
(Mark, feel free to make your case, but please address the
objections more specifically. You summarized things to
briefly, which looks like you glossed over the objections.
If you have a stronger case, it's better served with more
detail-please elaborate when you have time.)
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.