why, oh, why do you even bother having a discussion with this guy? nobody loves a lively argument more than i do, but this is beyond pointless. do you think you're gonna convince him of anything? a guy who still thinks vp was careful (i.e., diligent, circumspect, precise) about the gobbledebooks he "wrote?" isn't arguing with him like telling a hair-raising story to a bald man? you know, just a waste of energy.
i know i'm new around here, but i think the best thing you could do for mike is never reply.
of course, if you kids are having fun, never mind.
'No, it does not ONLY go back only to that, but also to the benefits thousands of only somewhat careful and persistent students derived and still derive from it. "
Fallacy: Non sequitur
The fact that many folks benefited (real or perceived) from PFAL offers little support for the claim that PFAL's was god-breathed. Many books are beneficial, yet certainly not God-breathed as Wierwille defined it.
So it does not logically follow that because folks benefited from PFAL that PFAL has it roots in the original texts or is anymore authoritative/special than Bullingers "How to enjoy the Bible" or any other Bible help book.
vpw himself refuted the idea that benefits were necessarily God-breathed.
He pointed out how some people get a good feeling off the Psychiatrist's couch.
Respectfully, I would suggest that it really shouldn't matter why some folks choose to take Mike on and have dialog with him. We all have our own reasons. As for me, dialog here helps to sharpen my thinking cap among other things. If you don't see a reason - fine, don't participate.
But, I certainly hope you don't think that we are so ignorant and/or foolish as to believe we are gonna change Mike's mind.
I think one reason posters keep coming back, even after multiple threats to quit, is because my message (it’s the message I adopted, not one I wrote) is at the VERY HEART AND CORE of nearly everything that went right and nearly everything that went wrong with TWI.
Of course, I think that the True God knows this and His adversary knows it too.
The True God inspires whom He can to hang out in the vicinity of my adopted message in order to hear it, and the adversary inspires (I did NOT say possess!) whom he can to hang out and obfuscate it.
I didn’t offer "the benefits to thousands" as a "sequitur."
I said that we could add the benefits to the claim of the promise, and I meant it for added evidence , but still not as a logical proof at demands belief in the God-breathed PFAL. It lends credence to those who already want to believe, but does nothing for those who want to reject.
Goey had written: “It goes back, only to an alleged promise, sealed by an unconfirmed snowstorm.”
I responded with: “No, it does not ONLY go back only to that, but also to the benefits thousands of only somewhat careful and persistent students derived and still derive from it.”
I was merely trying to give the “alleged promise” some company.
You guys are too logic oriented. I suspect you can’t prove to anyone that your deepest commitments and beliefs are right on, not even to yourselves. Those things are the kind of bet we all make without prior proof to self and without communicable proof to others.
***
I’m looking forward to responding to Oakspear.
His post seems to be the only one seriously looking at the subject matter within PFAL and not at me.
You wrote: “Why do you continue to mention tapes, when you have said they are only *history*. Seriously -- I'm wondering. What *new ideas and surprising facts* are we going to learn from them (via your presentation of such), and if we quote you on it, will we be refuted (as before) for looking at the *tape* vs. the *written*??”
Why are you making a simple set of ideas unnecessarily complicated?
Actually -- it is not I that am making this complicated. :)
My simple premise is -- if docvic taught something (tape, book, live, whatever),
and if you believe that what he said was true, why differentiate between the mode of delivery??
After all -- it's the same guy teaching, the same stuff being taught.
And yes -- I did read all your answer, even though I did not quote it here.
I am willing to tolerate ridicule in exchange for the few who do listen and absorb. Some have believed.
[but much fewer than has been suggested in the past...]
WordWolf and Goey,
I didn’t offer "the benefits to thousands" as a "sequitur."
[Yes, you did-and shall prove it.]
I said that we could add the benefits to the claim of the promise, and I meant it for added evidence , but still not as a logical proof at demands belief in the God-breathed PFAL. It lends credence to those who already want to believe, but does nothing for those who want to reject.
[if "it lends credence to those who already want to believe",
then you're saying that numbers are important.
Therefore "the benefits to thousands" were relevant to your claim.]
Goey had written: “It goes back, only to an alleged promise, sealed by an unconfirmed snowstorm.”
I responded with: “No, it does not ONLY go back only to that, but also to the benefits thousands of only somewhat careful and persistent students derived and still derive from it.”
I was merely trying to give the “alleged promise” some company.
[Of course, those supposed thousands of students keep company
with all the people in the Heaven's Gate group,
the Branch Davidians,
and so on.
There's even a Church of Elvis,
who ALSO claim benefits from their beliefs.]
You guys are too logic oriented.
[To accept a "you must discard all logic, accept that I'm right,
then spend several months trying to prove I'm right"
religion like you're pushing,
YES, we're too logic-oriented for that.]
I suspect you can’t prove to anyone that your deepest commitments and beliefs are right on, not even to yourselves.
[You suspect wrongly.
As for myself, you have no idea why I ever became a Christian,
so you have little true basis for any possible conclusions,
but, hey, reading the minds of the posters-incorrectly-
is a Mike trademark...]
Those things are the kind of bet we all make without prior proof to self and without communicable proof to others.
***
[i have a higher standard than that.
Of course, I can DELIVER on it, so I've the luxury
of using a standard that high.]
I’m looking forward to responding to Oakspear.
His post seems to be the only one seriously looking at the subject matter within PFAL and not at me.
I will say this, he was clothed with power from on high.
He was wearing the Word. He is the Word become flesh.
You see, Tom, you only know the seeing with the senses.
I know I'm sounding a little like CM here, but in many respects he's right
about the spiritual dominating the physical.
Mike... no tricks... so describe what you saw please instead of quoting Bible verses and veepeeisms... describe what you saw please... that shouldn't be too hard for someone to do who made that statement...
and it shouldn't take some long drawn out complicated explanation... just state it like "the sky was blue... his shirt was green... he looked a lot like David Hasselhoff"...
Raf,
I am willing to tolerate ridicule in exchange for the few who do listen and absorb. Some have believed.
Mike... please name one person... or ask that person to come forth... please...
ATTENTION: IF YOU ARE OUT THERE AND BELIEVE MIKE'S 'PFAL IS GOD-BREATHED' THESIS, ET AL PLEASE POST ON THIS THREAD... A SIMPLE "I DO" WILL BE ALL THAT IS NEEDED... NOTHING MORE... WE PROMISE.
You wrote: "I did read all your answer, even though I did not quote it here."
Please read it again. Your answer is there.
I figured out that (what you figured) was an answer would be found there.
I didn't see an answer. Just more of the *same old* ---
Making a simple concept complicated.
Now -- another question --- If docvic taught something live, and (in the process) somehow managed to contradict what he had written in the pfal series (damn that drambuie any-hoo!!), and you were in the audience, would you shout out your dissaproval of him misquoting himself?
After all -- that is the MOG speaking,
to whom the *re-issued Word* was entrusted,
and from which Jesus will be teaching from at the Return
(or was that the Rapture?? I never did get that one straight).
Would you tell docvic his writings and the way magazine carried more weight, than his live teachings???
Sure -- he's pushing up daisies, so this is a hypothetical question,
I didn't offer "the benefits to thousands" as a "sequitur."
I said that we could add the benefits to the claim of the promise, and I meant it for added evidence , but still not as a logical proof at demands belief in the God-breathed PFAL. It lends credence to those who already want to believe, but does nothing for those who want to reject.
Fair enough then Mike -- you added the evidence. So now we have:
An unsubstantied promise
An unconfirmed snow storm
Many folks benefited
Your testimony
Mike, folks "that already want to believe" ??? Where and who are these folks ? But I will concede that the evidence above would give your message some credence to the hypothetical folks that "already want to believe" since these kind of folks (your target audience) require little in the form of credible evidence in order to believe. But does this audience exist?
You guys are too logic oriented. I suspect you can't prove to anyone that your deepest commitments and beliefs are right on, not even to yourselves. Those things are the kind of bet we all make without prior proof to self and without communicable proof to others.
Logic is good Mike. It can be a great help in separating truth from error and fact from fiction. But of course it is not the end all of what is true. Most logic is inductive and can only really show what is likely, and thats really what I am concerned with here Mike here. What is likely or what is not likely.
Take Wierwille's promise for example, no one can really prove with logic and reason that it did not happen. Likewise, no one can logically prove that it did happen. So shall we abandon logic and reason? No ....We can use (sound) logic and reason to try to determine if it was likely. Those of us that believe the Bible to be authorative will naturally call upon scriptures from the Bible as some of the premises in our arguments.
Mike, even if I didn't believe the Bible and assumed the evidence you gave to be true there is still no way I could conclude that: Therefore PFAL is the Word of God. Why, because the conclusion does not naturally or necessarily follow the evidence. In other words, those things could all be true and PFAL still not the the Word of God.
So it's like you said Mike, someone would have to "already want to believe" that PFAL is the Word in order to really believe. This, I imagine, is why you don't use sound logic very often - it just doesn't work to help your cause. And it is also probably why you suggest that we are "too logic oriented".
I suggest that logic and faith can co-exist in harmony. And that having faith does not require a dumbing down by abandoning sound logic and reason.
Mike, I agree that most of us have things we accept by faith. Not necessarily because we wan't to believe them, but because we are somehow compelled to. These things transcend certain kinds of logic. For example, no one can really deductively prove that God exists, or even that the Bible is the Word of God for that matter. But, pointing out that we accept things by faith doesn't really help your case for PFAL -- or get folks to believe your message. I think there is a big difference in having faith in something and in "already wanting to believe" something and then believe it with less than compelling evidence.
IMO, the first strike is the abandonment of sound reasoning in making your case. The second is that the evidence is less than compelling. Think about it Mike. .... For years, many folks here and elsewhere have heard the message that you have presented, yet the best I can tell not one single person anywhere has accepted it - at least not the PFAL is the word of God reissued part. ..... Why?
I suggest that since it cannot be proven logically, that there is just nothing compelling about it. It would seem to me that if it were really God's message, that it would be hard not to believe, especially by PFAL fans and those who thought very highly of VPW. But it seems even these folks aren't persuaded or compelled to accept and believe your message.
Mike does this tell you anything at all, (except that everyone besides you is blind to the truth) ??
You wrote: “Mike, even if I didn't believe the Bible and assumed the evidence you gave to be true there is still no way I could conclude that: Therefore PFAL is the Word of God. Why, because the conclusion does not naturally or necessarily follow the evidence. In other words, those things could all be true and PFAL still not the Word of God.”
Yes. I can concur on this.
I think you’re wise in not believing PFAL to be God-breathed from what I have presented.
You haven’t been visibly around my posting lately, but in the past several months I have often and explicitly explained several times that I cannot reasonably expect to prove or inspire belief in PFAL being God-breathed. These admissions are in this thread, but it would take some looking to find them in such a large thread.
All I can do here is inspire or induce or help usher those who have a hankering to do what none of the upper leadership of 1985 TWI did, and that is to obey Dr’s strong urgings in his last teaching, and increasingly strong in the last ten years of his life, to master written PFAL.
I believe that God will do the proving of PFAL being God-breathed to those who meekly obey Dr and crack those books in a big way.
***
You wrote: “So it's like you said Mike, someone would have to "already want to believe" that PFAL is the Word in order to really believe.”
Close, but not exact. It’s people who are inclined to do what Dr urged and master the books that I expect to someday reach. These would be the thousands who were blessed with his teachings and who still somewhat teach the same in their fellowships.
***
You wrote: “This, I imagine, is why you don't use sound logic very often - it just doesn't work to help your cause. And it is also probably why you suggest that we are "too logic oriented".”
Oh I like to use it for what I can, but for God-breathedness I don’t think it can be done at all, by anyone. Another recurring theme, not only on this thread but in all my posting for three years, is to challenge those who believe the original manuscripts of the Bible were God-breathed to logically prove their case. So far no Bible believers have tried to take me up on this challenge.
If you want to be the first, please start a thread with such a title and I’m sure some would try to help you with this kind of proof, but I think the logical atheists and agnostics and many others with logic backgrounds would mute the effort. I think you’d all quickly find why I don’t even try to use logic to prove the God-breathedness of PFAL, and never have.
The only way I knew in the good old days to “prove” the God-breathedness of the originals is to invite someone to fellowship and to take the class. I use the same strategy here of inviting grads who liked Dr’s teachings, and who saw how all of top leadership distanced themselves from Dr’s advice to master the written forms of PFAL, and who feel the urge to try to do what leadership failed to do.
***
You wrote: “I suggest that logic and faith can co-exist in harmony. And that having faith does not require a dumbing down by abandoning sound logic and reason.”
I agree. I try to use it in my invitation, and in my handling of the contents of PFAL, and in my recounting ministry history from the tape and print record.”
***
You wrote: “Mike, I agree that most of us have things we accept by faith. Not necessarily because we wan't to believe them, but because we are somehow compelled to. These things transcend certain kinds of logic. For example, no one can really deductively prove that God exists, or even that the Bible is the Word of God for that matter. But, pointing out that we accept things by faith doesn't really help your case for PFAL -- or get folks to believe your message.”
Here we converge in our positions in a most satisfying way. I would merely add that my message is more an invitation to open the books a lot, and not a logical proof of what to believe about the books. I think the books will do that BECAUSE I believe they are God-breathed. In other words, I think the big proof will be performed by God on an individual basis.
***
You wrote: “For years, many folks here and elsewhere have heard the message that you have presented, yet the best I can tell not one single person anywhere has accepted it - at least not the PFAL is the word of God reissued part. ..... Why?”
Why? Because you are forgetting seaspray, with whom I am in constant contact, just not on this board.
Another reason is because few souls want venture into this lions den to join me with such a “Kick Me” sign taped on their back. I was specially prepared for this battle, decades before posting. I’m not bragging, just marveling.
Example: it just happened that I lived for two years back in the mid 70’s with one of Dr’s PFAL book editors and we became best friends for life. Another best friend was a longtime editor of the Way Magazine. One of my longtime lusts was researching the first century canon development, which is the writing and eventual acceptance of God-breathed writings 2000 years ago. My life developed into loving the writing of long handwritten letters witnessing to old friends decades ago. I picked up the necessary typing and computer skills to compete here when word processors became available with home PC in the early 80's. In the ministry meltdown I was graced with many rare materials I use constantly, such as transcripts of the class and AC long before anyone else had them. I was prepped with a hoard of information to devote to this grad outreach cause decades before posting on it. Yet, I still had very wobbly legs in venturing into these forums three years ago with this kind of message.
I would never expect those who God prepped for other jobs to join me here without sufficient armor. Behind the scenes there is a bit more acceptance of me and my message than what is posted.
***
You wrote: “I suggest that since it cannot be proven logically, that there is just nothing compelling about it. It would seem to me that if it were really God's message, that it would be hard not to believe, especially by PFAL fans and those who thought very highly of VPW. But it seems even these folks aren't persuaded or compelled to accept and believe your message.”
Ok, so from what’s been discussed above, I’m only trying to get my invitation to open the books a lot to be logically compelling, and I’m saving the job of convincing those who do meekly master the material for God to perform.
If we look at Noah’s efforts to convince the world of his message for the time it took to build the Arc they look pretty bad too. Look at Paul’s efforts and how thoroughly he was rejected in the later part of his life. It took time for people to accept the epistles he wrote shamed and in jail. I’m willing to wait for people to accept my invitation.
It does look like that's what you're advocating, though: allowing the spiritual to dominate the physical, as it eventually should. I disagree with your short-cut to that dominance though.
I was just wondering Mike - Do you use a "speech to text" editor to post here? I certainly can't figure out how it would even be remotely possible for you to respond to so many people and also post so prolifically here on GSC without it.
I compared my situation to his situation. I compared my lack of response to his lack of response. I think that’s why we have accounts like his, to help us relate to their situations. That wasn’t even a nice try, it was a desperate one.
I compare myself to Jesus Christ all the time, and find myself lacking in most areas.
You wrote: "I was just wondering Mike - Do you use a "speech to text" editor to post here? I certainly can't figure out how it would even be remotely possible for you to respond to so many people and also post so prolifically here on GSC without it."
No, but I have often though of using one of those voice to text programs. I have an old one, but it takes a lot of tweaking to get it up and running well. I don’t have a wife or kids so my time is more free than most.
The reason I drive myself to post like this, in spite of the many attempts to frustrate and stop me, is because I see my family is in a desperate situation. I’m very impressed with the fierce strength of the evil forces that got all the ministry leadership to blow off Dr’s repeated ten year urgings to master the simple texts of PFAL. I know what those forces are cooking up next now that they have nearly totally succeeded in wrenching everyone away from those texts.
What we went through in the last 20 years is identical to the rejection of Paul in the first century by all his leadership who were ashamed of him being in prison. After the leadership was gone then it was easy pickings and a lot of terrible things happened.
I’m strongly motivated by love to see it run different this time.
It does look like that's what you're advocating, though: allowing the spiritual to dominate the physical, as it eventually should. I disagree with your short-cut to that dominance though.
I don't care what it looks like to you Mike.
You are not seeing correctly.
Please do not use my name again in your assumptions.
Thank you so much for addressing the actual material in this thread and not me. It is so often refreshing to talk to you. I appreciate your efforts.
You wrote regarding "Thus Saith The Lord Statement" #1, which is taken from TNDC, near the end of Chapter Two, “The Unqualified Commitment.”
Here is the text of that statement, with my bold fonts:
“Change what you put in your mind. To change the food you are sending to your mind is to “renew your mind.” Think those things which are true, honest, just, pure, lovely and of good report. __ If you by your free will accept Christ as your Savior and renew your mind according to The Word, you will find that every word I have written to you is true. I challenge you to stand upon the Word of God, declare your authority in Christ and claim your rights.”
You wrote: “Clearly he is not referring to every word without exception, but every word that he has written previously on the subject that he is writing about. __ So what is Wierwille saying here? That his words in the previous section are the equivalent to scripture? Or that they are true because they line up with what the bible says? It would really be a stretch to suppose that he was saying anything other than his words line up biblically, therefore they are true.”
I’ll first handle the last part of your post and then the first.
It would be a pretty big claim for Dr say that every word he wrote in that chapter, or even in the last section of that chapter, lined up factually accurate with the Bible.
Even this qualifies to satisfy the goal of my posting the 22 “thus saith” statements, which was to document that we missed many things in written PFAL and had not at all mastered it, therefore can’t say PFAL failed us. I never had seen this statement of “every word I have written to you is true,” or at least I didn’t remember it when I saw it in 1998 when I first came back to these books. A few years ago I saw an OLG literally jump 3 inches up from her chair in surprise when this page was read from a TNDC in front of her. I doubt if many readers here at GSC remembered it when I first posted it.
But I think there is much more to be seen here.
When Dr used the word “true” he meant something a whole lot bigger than factually accurate. I know this from the many times he said this very thing. In the Sep/Oct 1983 issue of the Way Magazine is his article titled “The Importance of Words In God’s Word.” In that article he explicitly outlines the differences between “facts” and “truths.”
In Dr’s vocabulary a fact is on the human level. It’s accurate to the extent the five senses and the reasoning machine attached to them (the brain) are sound, all of which are actually quite lacking. A fact is something that is lined up with man’s experiences, and it can change. A truth, however, is lined up with God, is unchangeable, and is super-duper right-on. A fact is sound from man’s perspective, while a truth is sound from God’s perspective.
So for Dr to claim that “every word I have written to you is true” is MUCH bigger a claim than if he had said something like “every word I have written to you is factual” or “every word I have written to you is lined up with the facts of the somewhat partial Bible data we have available and think we understand.”
For Dr to claim that “every word I have written to you is true” means that every word lines up perfectly with God’s Word and will and will never change and will never have to be "taken back" and re-examined for error, excepting simply typos.
The only way a human being can write such words would be if God gave them in the first place, if God inspired them, if God breathed them.
This difference between fact and true is a huge topic. We will need to spend a lot more time on this for it to settle with people.
***
Notice also that he does not say “every verse I have quoted to you is true,” although EVEN THAT would be a large claim, claiming that all the biblical research needed to check out the KJV handling of the manuscripts and translation for the verses quoted in that section WAS TOTALLY DONE. The only way a rational researcher could make such a claim is if he were convinced he had revelation on it. (Late Edit Adition)
***
So, if Dr could make such a claim that that particular portion of that chapter was totally right on in every way, then he had to have gotten it from God. It’s AT LEAST a mini “thus saith the lord” statement that we all missed.
But I think it’s a lot bigger than that.
There is a set of audio recordings that Dr had broadcast on various radio stations back in the 60’s. In that set of tapes, which I have, he handles this chapter. I am only relatively sure that this tape comes from a time before TNDC was published in 1971, but we’ll handle that later.
In that radio version of “The Unqualified Commitment” the passage reads:
“...every word I said to you [slight pause] today is true.”
He very deliberately adds a qualifier of “today” to what we have in TNDC, so we know he was aware of the difference between him claiming just that last portion of the chapter being true and the entire chapter being true. He claimed the entire chapter was true in the radio address.
Have you read that chapter lately? It’s LOADED with doctrine, just LOADED. It’s a VERY large claim he made in the radio address.
In the radio tape he has the kind of higher pitched shrill voice he had in the ’67 film class and not the mellower low voice of the 70's we see in the Rock of Ages '72 movie, so I think it’s before TNDC’s publication, which would mean he took out the qualifier that limited the “true” claim to the chapter. It’s a different “you” also in TNDC that he’s writing to than the “you” in the radio address. In the radio address it was the public at large, while in TNDC it’s his students in PFAL who received TNDC in the class.
***
If the radio address was post-1971, then we have him adding the qualifier “today” to TNDC, which would be logical seeing he’s addressing an audience that would have some people who had not heard anything but what he said on that day. But I don't think this is the case.
If it was the case that he saw a problem with TNDC’s early printing without the qualifier, and then added it to a post TNDC radio address, he could have added it in later printings of TNDC, but didn’t. This collateral book and most others did not undergo full blown edition changes, but they did have minor tweaks in different printings. I am tracking these changes the best I can, but it’s slow work, requiring more materials than are available to me. I do, howevr, have a copy of first printing of TNDC and a copy of it's last prior to Dr's death, though, and the qualifier was never added.
I am searching for a pre-TNDC collateral booklet to see what he wrote prior to TNDC's 1971 publication.
***
So, what I see so far, is that Dr’s claim that every word used in explanation and every verse rendering in that chapter is totally right on from God’s perspective, and therefore God-breathed, because that’s the only way humans can write with such perfection.
If God and Dr produced one God-breathed chapter, then it’s NOT A STRETCH to think that they produced a bunch more. This is even easier to believe when the scope of all 22 “thus saith” statements are embraced and used as a platform to view this chapter. The scope of all 22 statements adds MUCH more to the mix.
For the next "Thus Saith The Lord Statement"#2 we have TNDC page 116:
“Paul in I Thessalonians 2:13, thanked God that ‘when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.’ You too must follow God’s truth as told in the Word of God. But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive. If you know that what I am saying to you are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is speaking to you by me, then you too will manifest the greatness of the power of God. If you will literally do what I ask you, then you can manifest the fullness of the abundance of God, the wonderful power of God.”
Oakspear, you wrote: “I'd be interested in the broader context here. Is what he wrote previous to this quote Wierwille quoting scripture? Or is it Wierwille speaking on his own? (or claiming to speak by revelation)”
Here is everything that precedes the quoted passage in that chapter, with my bold fonts:
CHAPTER TEN
How to Speak in Tongues
Now that you know why one speaks in tongues and when one speaks in tongues, I know that you would like to receive into manifestation the power of the fullness of the Holy Spirit. I know that you would like to speak the wonderful works of God and magnify God. To do this there is one thing you must do and that is to believe God’s Word. Surely you do believe God’s Word for what He has promised He is not only willing to perform, but He is able to perform. I can assure you upon the integrity of God’s Word that when you speak in tongues you will be speaking the wonderful works of God and magnifying God.*
(footnote: *Acts 2:11: “Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.” Acts 10:46: “For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God ....”)
Before you can tap any of God’s resources you must know, first of all, what is available. You know speaking in tongues is available because the Word of God says all born-again believers have the holy spirit within them, which is the ability to speak in tongues. Next you must know how to receive it, which is set forth in the following paragraphs.
Let me unfold the keys to you and shortly you too will be speaking the wonderful works of God. Acts 2:4 says, “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” They were all filled, nobody was missed. Nobody ever gets missed if he has heard The Word and if he believes it and then acts upon it. God is always faithful and nobody then can be passed over. Do exactly what I tell you to do down to the most minute detail.
Late Edit Addition:
The context AFTER the TNDC page 116's "thus saith" statement #2 goes directly into "the mechanics of speech" which has no verses other than Acts 2:4a where “they did the speaking” and Dr had to supply the word “they.” One would be hard pressed to find ANY Bible verses for what Dr says on these following two nearly full pages dealing with the mechanics of speech.
I refrained from pasting in these pages to avoid straining the "Fair Use" rules.
The expanded context of "thus saith" statement #2 I have elaborated on from the words “or speaking” is worth looking at too. It’s in the “Dear Cheryl and Jim” letter in Post #310, and can be found here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=300
Oakspear, you wrote: “In both of these statements we have Wierwille very obviously claiming that what he has taught is true. He is considering no other possibility. But is he suggesting that what he is writing can in any way replace, or supercede 'the bible'? If he is saying it, it's not in these two statements.”
He most certainly IS saying that what he is presenting is true and unchangeable as you state.
We also have many, many places where he says that what we know is as “the Bible” or manuscripts or translations or versions, is changeable and not always true and not even factually accurate with the originals.
As for “replacing,” what data we have, there I disagree and have done so before. Instead of replacing Biblical data and facts he incorporates them into nearly every page of PFAL. I only use the word “replace” in regards to priorities and study scheduling. I have replaced my KJV study time with PFAL study time, but KJV verses are still included, being highly incorporated within the PFAL text and with occasional PFAL recommendations to look at various places in a KJV that are not incorporated in PFAL.
The 22 “thus saith” statements I posted is just the beginning of a larger set I have found in my study. It’s in putting together all the “thus saith” statements AND immersing myself in the PFAL materials that my surety in all of VPW’s PFAL writings being God-breathed emerges.
Some minor edits to this post occured as well as a few major additions several hours after the original posting. These major Late Edit Additions are in bright blue fonts.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
89
149
306
85
Popular Days
Feb 10
62
Feb 20
61
Feb 11
46
Mar 2
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 89 posts
CM 149 posts
Mike 306 posts
Tom Strange 85 posts
Popular Days
Feb 10 2006
62 posts
Feb 20 2006
61 posts
Feb 11 2006
46 posts
Mar 2 2006
45 posts
Posted Images
sprawled out
why, oh, why do you even bother having a discussion with this guy? nobody loves a lively argument more than i do, but this is beyond pointless. do you think you're gonna convince him of anything? a guy who still thinks vp was careful (i.e., diligent, circumspect, precise) about the gobbledebooks he "wrote?" isn't arguing with him like telling a hair-raising story to a bald man? you know, just a waste of energy.
i know i'm new around here, but i think the best thing you could do for mike is never reply.
of course, if you kids are having fun, never mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
vpw himself refuted the idea that benefits were necessarily God-breathed.
He pointed out how some people get a good feeling off the Psychiatrist's couch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Sprawled,
Respectfully, I would suggest that it really shouldn't matter why some folks choose to take Mike on and have dialog with him. We all have our own reasons. As for me, dialog here helps to sharpen my thinking cap among other things. If you don't see a reason - fine, don't participate.
But, I certainly hope you don't think that we are so ignorant and/or foolish as to believe we are gonna change Mike's mind.
So please let us play.
:)
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike said:
I actually did fall off my chair laughing when I read this... (thanks Mike)Sprawled Out said:
Like Goey said... none of us thinks we're going to change Mike's mind (it's already been changed by Jesus through Mastering PFAL).
And personally... I just come here to play... (yeah, I know... it's a sickness)
Carry on with the plan of the day...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Hey Mike... I posted this a few days ago but I must have missed your response to it...
Mike... what was Jesus wearing? I really, truly do want to know... and I bet others do as well...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Tom,
Back to your old tricks again, huh?
Two can play the paste game. I didn't think it would come in handy so soon, but:
Since my DIRECT answers to you never satisfy you-
you just pick something in the reply and formulate a new attack-
I don't see why I should entertain endless permutations of
your attacks. No matter how you phrase anything,
it's ALWAYS an attack on my beliefs. That's dishonest,
ungentlemanly, and tacky.
But hey, that's you, so whatever.
Actually, Tom, I'd love to get into this subject of seeing the Lord Jesus Christ and what that means,
but I already told you it will require some setup and some shutup.
I will say this, he was clothed with power from on high.
He was wearing the Word. He is the Word become flesh.
You see, Tom, you only know the seeing with the senses.
I know I'm sounding a little like CM here, but in many respects he's right
about the spiritual dominating the physical.
******************************************************************
******************************************************************
******************************************************************
******************************************************************
Sprawled Out,
I think one reason posters keep coming back, even after multiple threats to quit, is because my message (it’s the message I adopted, not one I wrote) is at the VERY HEART AND CORE of nearly everything that went right and nearly everything that went wrong with TWI.
Of course, I think that the True God knows this and His adversary knows it too.
The True God inspires whom He can to hang out in the vicinity of my adopted message in order to hear it, and the adversary inspires (I did NOT say possess!) whom he can to hang out and obfuscate it.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually, some of us think your message is just funny, by now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
I am willing to tolerate ridicule in exchange for the few who do listen and absorb. Some have believed.
**********************************************************
**********************************************************
**********************************************************
**********************************************************
WordWolf and Goey,
I didn’t offer "the benefits to thousands" as a "sequitur."
I said that we could add the benefits to the claim of the promise, and I meant it for added evidence , but still not as a logical proof at demands belief in the God-breathed PFAL. It lends credence to those who already want to believe, but does nothing for those who want to reject.
Goey had written: “It goes back, only to an alleged promise, sealed by an unconfirmed snowstorm.”
I responded with: “No, it does not ONLY go back only to that, but also to the benefits thousands of only somewhat careful and persistent students derived and still derive from it.”
I was merely trying to give the “alleged promise” some company.
You guys are too logic oriented. I suspect you can’t prove to anyone that your deepest commitments and beliefs are right on, not even to yourselves. Those things are the kind of bet we all make without prior proof to self and without communicable proof to others.
***
I’m looking forward to responding to Oakspear.
His post seems to be the only one seriously looking at the subject matter within PFAL and not at me.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Actually -- it is not I that am making this complicated. :)
My simple premise is -- if docvic taught something (tape, book, live, whatever),
and if you believe that what he said was true, why differentiate between the mode of delivery??
After all -- it's the same guy teaching, the same stuff being taught.
And yes -- I did read all your answer, even though I did not quote it here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike... no tricks... so describe what you saw please instead of quoting Bible verses and veepeeisms... describe what you saw please... that shouldn't be too hard for someone to do who made that statement...
and it shouldn't take some long drawn out complicated explanation... just state it like "the sky was blue... his shirt was green... he looked a lot like David Hasselhoff"...
Mike... please name one person... or ask that person to come forth... please...
ATTENTION: IF YOU ARE OUT THERE AND BELIEVE MIKE'S 'PFAL IS GOD-BREATHED' THESIS, ET AL PLEASE POST ON THIS THREAD... A SIMPLE "I DO" WILL BE ALL THAT IS NEEDED... NOTHING MORE... WE PROMISE.
thank you.
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
I'm not interested in either of your proposals.
***
dmiller,
You wrote: "I did read all your answer, even though I did not quote it here."
Please read it again. Your answer is there.
***
WordWolf,
You wrote: “you're saying that numbers are important.”
No I’m not.
I’m appealing to those very thousands who respect VPW and PFAL, and not to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
i never said
"the spritual dominating the physical"
please note the misquote here
thank you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I figured out that (what you figured) was an answer would be found there.
I didn't see an answer. Just more of the *same old* ---
Making a simple concept complicated.
Now -- another question --- If docvic taught something live, and (in the process) somehow managed to contradict what he had written in the pfal series (damn that drambuie any-hoo!!), and you were in the audience, would you shout out your dissaproval of him misquoting himself?
After all -- that is the MOG speaking,
to whom the *re-issued Word* was entrusted,
and from which Jesus will be teaching from at the Return
(or was that the Rapture?? I never did get that one straight).
Would you tell docvic his writings and the way magazine carried more weight, than his live teachings???
Sure -- he's pushing up daisies, so this is a hypothetical question,
but what say ye? :)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Fair enough then Mike -- you added the evidence. So now we have:
Mike, folks "that already want to believe" ??? Where and who are these folks ? But I will concede that the evidence above would give your message some credence to the hypothetical folks that "already want to believe" since these kind of folks (your target audience) require little in the form of credible evidence in order to believe. But does this audience exist?
Logic is good Mike. It can be a great help in separating truth from error and fact from fiction. But of course it is not the end all of what is true. Most logic is inductive and can only really show what is likely, and thats really what I am concerned with here Mike here. What is likely or what is not likely.
Take Wierwille's promise for example, no one can really prove with logic and reason that it did not happen. Likewise, no one can logically prove that it did happen. So shall we abandon logic and reason? No ....We can use (sound) logic and reason to try to determine if it was likely. Those of us that believe the Bible to be authorative will naturally call upon scriptures from the Bible as some of the premises in our arguments.
Mike, even if I didn't believe the Bible and assumed the evidence you gave to be true there is still no way I could conclude that: Therefore PFAL is the Word of God. Why, because the conclusion does not naturally or necessarily follow the evidence. In other words, those things could all be true and PFAL still not the the Word of God.
So it's like you said Mike, someone would have to "already want to believe" that PFAL is the Word in order to really believe. This, I imagine, is why you don't use sound logic very often - it just doesn't work to help your cause. And it is also probably why you suggest that we are "too logic oriented".
I suggest that logic and faith can co-exist in harmony. And that having faith does not require a dumbing down by abandoning sound logic and reason.
Mike, I agree that most of us have things we accept by faith. Not necessarily because we wan't to believe them, but because we are somehow compelled to. These things transcend certain kinds of logic. For example, no one can really deductively prove that God exists, or even that the Bible is the Word of God for that matter. But, pointing out that we accept things by faith doesn't really help your case for PFAL -- or get folks to believe your message. I think there is a big difference in having faith in something and in "already wanting to believe" something and then believe it with less than compelling evidence.
IMO, the first strike is the abandonment of sound reasoning in making your case. The second is that the evidence is less than compelling. Think about it Mike. .... For years, many folks here and elsewhere have heard the message that you have presented, yet the best I can tell not one single person anywhere has accepted it - at least not the PFAL is the word of God reissued part. ..... Why?
I suggest that since it cannot be proven logically, that there is just nothing compelling about it. It would seem to me that if it were really God's message, that it would be hard not to believe, especially by PFAL fans and those who thought very highly of VPW. But it seems even these folks aren't persuaded or compelled to accept and believe your message.
Mike does this tell you anything at all, (except that everyone besides you is blind to the truth) ??
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
You wrote: “Mike, even if I didn't believe the Bible and assumed the evidence you gave to be true there is still no way I could conclude that: Therefore PFAL is the Word of God. Why, because the conclusion does not naturally or necessarily follow the evidence. In other words, those things could all be true and PFAL still not the Word of God.”
Yes. I can concur on this.
I think you’re wise in not believing PFAL to be God-breathed from what I have presented.
You haven’t been visibly around my posting lately, but in the past several months I have often and explicitly explained several times that I cannot reasonably expect to prove or inspire belief in PFAL being God-breathed. These admissions are in this thread, but it would take some looking to find them in such a large thread.
All I can do here is inspire or induce or help usher those who have a hankering to do what none of the upper leadership of 1985 TWI did, and that is to obey Dr’s strong urgings in his last teaching, and increasingly strong in the last ten years of his life, to master written PFAL.
I believe that God will do the proving of PFAL being God-breathed to those who meekly obey Dr and crack those books in a big way.
***
You wrote: “So it's like you said Mike, someone would have to "already want to believe" that PFAL is the Word in order to really believe.”
Close, but not exact. It’s people who are inclined to do what Dr urged and master the books that I expect to someday reach. These would be the thousands who were blessed with his teachings and who still somewhat teach the same in their fellowships.
***
You wrote: “This, I imagine, is why you don't use sound logic very often - it just doesn't work to help your cause. And it is also probably why you suggest that we are "too logic oriented".”
Oh I like to use it for what I can, but for God-breathedness I don’t think it can be done at all, by anyone. Another recurring theme, not only on this thread but in all my posting for three years, is to challenge those who believe the original manuscripts of the Bible were God-breathed to logically prove their case. So far no Bible believers have tried to take me up on this challenge.
If you want to be the first, please start a thread with such a title and I’m sure some would try to help you with this kind of proof, but I think the logical atheists and agnostics and many others with logic backgrounds would mute the effort. I think you’d all quickly find why I don’t even try to use logic to prove the God-breathedness of PFAL, and never have.
The only way I knew in the good old days to “prove” the God-breathedness of the originals is to invite someone to fellowship and to take the class. I use the same strategy here of inviting grads who liked Dr’s teachings, and who saw how all of top leadership distanced themselves from Dr’s advice to master the written forms of PFAL, and who feel the urge to try to do what leadership failed to do.
***
You wrote: “I suggest that logic and faith can co-exist in harmony. And that having faith does not require a dumbing down by abandoning sound logic and reason.”
I agree. I try to use it in my invitation, and in my handling of the contents of PFAL, and in my recounting ministry history from the tape and print record.”
***
You wrote: “Mike, I agree that most of us have things we accept by faith. Not necessarily because we wan't to believe them, but because we are somehow compelled to. These things transcend certain kinds of logic. For example, no one can really deductively prove that God exists, or even that the Bible is the Word of God for that matter. But, pointing out that we accept things by faith doesn't really help your case for PFAL -- or get folks to believe your message.”
Here we converge in our positions in a most satisfying way. I would merely add that my message is more an invitation to open the books a lot, and not a logical proof of what to believe about the books. I think the books will do that BECAUSE I believe they are God-breathed. In other words, I think the big proof will be performed by God on an individual basis.
***
You wrote: “For years, many folks here and elsewhere have heard the message that you have presented, yet the best I can tell not one single person anywhere has accepted it - at least not the PFAL is the word of God reissued part. ..... Why?”
Why? Because you are forgetting seaspray, with whom I am in constant contact, just not on this board.
Another reason is because few souls want venture into this lions den to join me with such a “Kick Me” sign taped on their back. I was specially prepared for this battle, decades before posting. I’m not bragging, just marveling.
Example: it just happened that I lived for two years back in the mid 70’s with one of Dr’s PFAL book editors and we became best friends for life. Another best friend was a longtime editor of the Way Magazine. One of my longtime lusts was researching the first century canon development, which is the writing and eventual acceptance of God-breathed writings 2000 years ago. My life developed into loving the writing of long handwritten letters witnessing to old friends decades ago. I picked up the necessary typing and computer skills to compete here when word processors became available with home PC in the early 80's. In the ministry meltdown I was graced with many rare materials I use constantly, such as transcripts of the class and AC long before anyone else had them. I was prepped with a hoard of information to devote to this grad outreach cause decades before posting on it. Yet, I still had very wobbly legs in venturing into these forums three years ago with this kind of message.
I would never expect those who God prepped for other jobs to join me here without sufficient armor. Behind the scenes there is a bit more acceptance of me and my message than what is posted.
***
You wrote: “I suggest that since it cannot be proven logically, that there is just nothing compelling about it. It would seem to me that if it were really God's message, that it would be hard not to believe, especially by PFAL fans and those who thought very highly of VPW. But it seems even these folks aren't persuaded or compelled to accept and believe your message.”
Ok, so from what’s been discussed above, I’m only trying to get my invitation to open the books a lot to be logically compelling, and I’m saving the job of convincing those who do meekly master the material for God to perform.
If we look at Noah’s efforts to convince the world of his message for the time it took to build the Arc they look pretty bad too. Look at Paul’s efforts and how thoroughly he was rejected in the later part of his life. It took time for people to accept the epistles he wrote shamed and in jail. I’m willing to wait for people to accept my invitation.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CM,
You misquoted me misquoting you on that.
I never said that you said that.
It does look like that's what you're advocating, though: allowing the spiritual to dominate the physical, as it eventually should. I disagree with your short-cut to that dominance though.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
I was just wondering Mike - Do you use a "speech to text" editor to post here? I certainly can't figure out how it would even be remotely possible for you to respond to so many people and also post so prolifically here on GSC without it.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
aww... c'mon Mike... inquiring minds want to know...
if you don't want to tell us what he was wearing, could you tell us what possessed you to make such a claim?
thousands??? plural??? who respect VPW AND PFAL???
Mike, I don't think you can find 'thousands' who (at this point in time) do both ...most certainly not at Greasespot Cafe.
On what do you base your numbers?
IF you are really being honest about your doing this for the "thousands who respect VPW and PFAL"...
you're in the wrong church buddy... (hint: Myspace.com has a much broader audience that's not nearly as biased)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike... so now you're comparing yourself to Noah? Jiminy Cricket! ...first Jesus Christ and now Noah...
who's next? Moses?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
You are showing desperation in how you attack me.
I didn’t compare myself to Noah.
I compared my situation to his situation. I compared my lack of response to his lack of response. I think that’s why we have accounts like his, to help us relate to their situations. That wasn’t even a nice try, it was a desperate one.
I compare myself to Jesus Christ all the time, and find myself lacking in most areas.
Don’t you.
**************************************************************
**************************************************************
**************************************************************
**************************************************************
Hi What the Hey,
You wrote: "I was just wondering Mike - Do you use a "speech to text" editor to post here? I certainly can't figure out how it would even be remotely possible for you to respond to so many people and also post so prolifically here on GSC without it."
No, but I have often though of using one of those voice to text programs. I have an old one, but it takes a lot of tweaking to get it up and running well. I don’t have a wife or kids so my time is more free than most.
The reason I drive myself to post like this, in spite of the many attempts to frustrate and stop me, is because I see my family is in a desperate situation. I’m very impressed with the fierce strength of the evil forces that got all the ministry leadership to blow off Dr’s repeated ten year urgings to master the simple texts of PFAL. I know what those forces are cooking up next now that they have nearly totally succeeded in wrenching everyone away from those texts.
What we went through in the last 20 years is identical to the rejection of Paul in the first century by all his leadership who were ashamed of him being in prison. After the leadership was gone then it was easy pickings and a lot of terrible things happened.
I’m strongly motivated by love to see it run different this time.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
I don't care what it looks like to you Mike.
You are not seeing correctly.
Please do not use my name again in your assumptions.
Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CM,
If you don't want me to refer to your name or what I think you are saying,
then please do not post again in the discussions in which I am engaged.
Thank you.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
Thank you so much for addressing the actual material in this thread and not me. It is so often refreshing to talk to you. I appreciate your efforts.
You wrote regarding "Thus Saith The Lord Statement" #1, which is taken from TNDC, near the end of Chapter Two, “The Unqualified Commitment.”
Here is the text of that statement, with my bold fonts:
“Change what you put in your mind. To change the food you are sending to your mind is to “renew your mind.” Think those things which are true, honest, just, pure, lovely and of good report. __ If you by your free will accept Christ as your Savior and renew your mind according to The Word, you will find that every word I have written to you is true. I challenge you to stand upon the Word of God, declare your authority in Christ and claim your rights.”
You wrote: “Clearly he is not referring to every word without exception, but every word that he has written previously on the subject that he is writing about. __ So what is Wierwille saying here? That his words in the previous section are the equivalent to scripture? Or that they are true because they line up with what the bible says? It would really be a stretch to suppose that he was saying anything other than his words line up biblically, therefore they are true.”
I’ll first handle the last part of your post and then the first.
It would be a pretty big claim for Dr say that every word he wrote in that chapter, or even in the last section of that chapter, lined up factually accurate with the Bible.
Even this qualifies to satisfy the goal of my posting the 22 “thus saith” statements, which was to document that we missed many things in written PFAL and had not at all mastered it, therefore can’t say PFAL failed us. I never had seen this statement of “every word I have written to you is true,” or at least I didn’t remember it when I saw it in 1998 when I first came back to these books. A few years ago I saw an OLG literally jump 3 inches up from her chair in surprise when this page was read from a TNDC in front of her. I doubt if many readers here at GSC remembered it when I first posted it.
But I think there is much more to be seen here.
When Dr used the word “true” he meant something a whole lot bigger than factually accurate. I know this from the many times he said this very thing. In the Sep/Oct 1983 issue of the Way Magazine is his article titled “The Importance of Words In God’s Word.” In that article he explicitly outlines the differences between “facts” and “truths.”
In Dr’s vocabulary a fact is on the human level. It’s accurate to the extent the five senses and the reasoning machine attached to them (the brain) are sound, all of which are actually quite lacking. A fact is something that is lined up with man’s experiences, and it can change. A truth, however, is lined up with God, is unchangeable, and is super-duper right-on. A fact is sound from man’s perspective, while a truth is sound from God’s perspective.
So for Dr to claim that “every word I have written to you is true” is MUCH bigger a claim than if he had said something like “every word I have written to you is factual” or “every word I have written to you is lined up with the facts of the somewhat partial Bible data we have available and think we understand.”
For Dr to claim that “every word I have written to you is true” means that every word lines up perfectly with God’s Word and will and will never change and will never have to be "taken back" and re-examined for error, excepting simply typos.
The only way a human being can write such words would be if God gave them in the first place, if God inspired them, if God breathed them.
This difference between fact and true is a huge topic. We will need to spend a lot more time on this for it to settle with people.
***
Notice also that he does not say “every verse I have quoted to you is true,” although EVEN THAT would be a large claim, claiming that all the biblical research needed to check out the KJV handling of the manuscripts and translation for the verses quoted in that section WAS TOTALLY DONE. The only way a rational researcher could make such a claim is if he were convinced he had revelation on it. (Late Edit Adition)
***
So, if Dr could make such a claim that that particular portion of that chapter was totally right on in every way, then he had to have gotten it from God. It’s AT LEAST a mini “thus saith the lord” statement that we all missed.
But I think it’s a lot bigger than that.
There is a set of audio recordings that Dr had broadcast on various radio stations back in the 60’s. In that set of tapes, which I have, he handles this chapter. I am only relatively sure that this tape comes from a time before TNDC was published in 1971, but we’ll handle that later.
In that radio version of “The Unqualified Commitment” the passage reads:
“...every word I said to you [slight pause] today is true.”
He very deliberately adds a qualifier of “today” to what we have in TNDC, so we know he was aware of the difference between him claiming just that last portion of the chapter being true and the entire chapter being true. He claimed the entire chapter was true in the radio address.
Have you read that chapter lately? It’s LOADED with doctrine, just LOADED. It’s a VERY large claim he made in the radio address.
In the radio tape he has the kind of higher pitched shrill voice he had in the ’67 film class and not the mellower low voice of the 70's we see in the Rock of Ages '72 movie, so I think it’s before TNDC’s publication, which would mean he took out the qualifier that limited the “true” claim to the chapter. It’s a different “you” also in TNDC that he’s writing to than the “you” in the radio address. In the radio address it was the public at large, while in TNDC it’s his students in PFAL who received TNDC in the class.
***
If the radio address was post-1971, then we have him adding the qualifier “today” to TNDC, which would be logical seeing he’s addressing an audience that would have some people who had not heard anything but what he said on that day. But I don't think this is the case.
If it was the case that he saw a problem with TNDC’s early printing without the qualifier, and then added it to a post TNDC radio address, he could have added it in later printings of TNDC, but didn’t. This collateral book and most others did not undergo full blown edition changes, but they did have minor tweaks in different printings. I am tracking these changes the best I can, but it’s slow work, requiring more materials than are available to me. I do, howevr, have a copy of first printing of TNDC and a copy of it's last prior to Dr's death, though, and the qualifier was never added.
I am searching for a pre-TNDC collateral booklet to see what he wrote prior to TNDC's 1971 publication.
***
So, what I see so far, is that Dr’s claim that every word used in explanation and every verse rendering in that chapter is totally right on from God’s perspective, and therefore God-breathed, because that’s the only way humans can write with such perfection.
If God and Dr produced one God-breathed chapter, then it’s NOT A STRETCH to think that they produced a bunch more. This is even easier to believe when the scope of all 22 “thus saith” statements are embraced and used as a platform to view this chapter. The scope of all 22 statements adds MUCH more to the mix.
*************************************************************
For the next "Thus Saith The Lord Statement"#2 we have TNDC page 116:
“Paul in I Thessalonians 2:13, thanked God that ‘when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.’ You too must follow God’s truth as told in the Word of God. But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive. If you know that what I am saying to you are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is speaking to you by me, then you too will manifest the greatness of the power of God. If you will literally do what I ask you, then you can manifest the fullness of the abundance of God, the wonderful power of God.”
Oakspear, you wrote: “I'd be interested in the broader context here. Is what he wrote previous to this quote Wierwille quoting scripture? Or is it Wierwille speaking on his own? (or claiming to speak by revelation)”
Here is everything that precedes the quoted passage in that chapter, with my bold fonts:
CHAPTER TEN
How to Speak in Tongues
Now that you know why one speaks in tongues and when one speaks in tongues, I know that you would like to receive into manifestation the power of the fullness of the Holy Spirit. I know that you would like to speak the wonderful works of God and magnify God. To do this there is one thing you must do and that is to believe God’s Word. Surely you do believe God’s Word for what He has promised He is not only willing to perform, but He is able to perform. I can assure you upon the integrity of God’s Word that when you speak in tongues you will be speaking the wonderful works of God and magnifying God.*
(footnote: *Acts 2:11: “Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.” Acts 10:46: “For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God ....”)
Before you can tap any of God’s resources you must know, first of all, what is available. You know speaking in tongues is available because the Word of God says all born-again believers have the holy spirit within them, which is the ability to speak in tongues. Next you must know how to receive it, which is set forth in the following paragraphs.
Let me unfold the keys to you and shortly you too will be speaking the wonderful works of God. Acts 2:4 says, “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” They were all filled, nobody was missed. Nobody ever gets missed if he has heard The Word and if he believes it and then acts upon it. God is always faithful and nobody then can be passed over. Do exactly what I tell you to do down to the most minute detail.
Late Edit Addition:
The context AFTER the TNDC page 116's "thus saith" statement #2 goes directly into "the mechanics of speech" which has no verses other than Acts 2:4a where “they did the speaking” and Dr had to supply the word “they.” One would be hard pressed to find ANY Bible verses for what Dr says on these following two nearly full pages dealing with the mechanics of speech.
I refrained from pasting in these pages to avoid straining the "Fair Use" rules.
The expanded context of "thus saith" statement #2 I have elaborated on from the words “or speaking” is worth looking at too. It’s in the “Dear Cheryl and Jim” letter in Post #310, and can be found here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=300
Oakspear, you wrote: “In both of these statements we have Wierwille very obviously claiming that what he has taught is true. He is considering no other possibility. But is he suggesting that what he is writing can in any way replace, or supercede 'the bible'? If he is saying it, it's not in these two statements.”
He most certainly IS saying that what he is presenting is true and unchangeable as you state.
We also have many, many places where he says that what we know is as “the Bible” or manuscripts or translations or versions, is changeable and not always true and not even factually accurate with the originals.
As for “replacing,” what data we have, there I disagree and have done so before. Instead of replacing Biblical data and facts he incorporates them into nearly every page of PFAL. I only use the word “replace” in regards to priorities and study scheduling. I have replaced my KJV study time with PFAL study time, but KJV verses are still included, being highly incorporated within the PFAL text and with occasional PFAL recommendations to look at various places in a KJV that are not incorporated in PFAL.
The 22 “thus saith” statements I posted is just the beginning of a larger set I have found in my study. It’s in putting together all the “thus saith” statements AND immersing myself in the PFAL materials that my surety in all of VPW’s PFAL writings being God-breathed emerges.
Some minor edits to this post occured as well as a few major additions several hours after the original posting. These major Late Edit Additions are in bright blue fonts.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites