You wrote: “There are no ORIGINAL manuscripts for the New Testament, at best what we have are copies of copies of some of the letters of Paul and other believers (some not included at all in the New Testament) not to mention those that are forever lost to us. The Gospels were written much later than the letters”
Yes. I’ve pointed this out many times. There are some problems with the ancient manuscripts that are known to exist. There are many more problems with the translations into English.
***
You wrote: “So right there there is a big ALERT sign on VPW's teachings, he couldn't have read it in the "Original" because the "Original" is long gone”
Actually, what you just said should be a big alert to you on what YOU MISSED in VPW’s teachings.
Dr never claimed to have held in his hand or read with his eyes any originals. He did say in the class “I wish you could see this in the originals.” However, he taught many times that nobody has the originals, that they were lost.
Any knowledge Dr had of the originals, that was not derived from and supported by existing manuscripts, was by revelation. He did claim this to be the case on many occasions. He even once said (Ephesians U of L #17) that for one phrase we probably will NEVER find a manuscript to back him up, but that he knew it should read in the originals to be such-and-such. He said that he knew this from his spiritual awareness, i.e., revelation.
***
You wrote: “Suggest you read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D Ehrman on this subject. __ Oops, sorry that would mean something not written by VPW --just forget I mentioned it.”
Actually I was well aware of that book before it was brought up here on GreaseSpot.
You forget that I read plenty of things not written by VPW, because I’m reading YOUR words here on GreaseSpot, along with many others. Did that slip your mind?
It looks like some communications glitches have occurred here too.
Dr never claimed to have held in his hand or read with his eyes any originals. He did say in the class “I wish you could see this in the originals.”
No -- he didn't say that. What he DID say was ---
I WISH YOU COULD SEE IT IN THE ORIGINAL, (no *s*)
and he always said that statement, when he was trying to explain (or cover-up) how he came up with some the interpretations that he did. It was always meant to show that he had (supposedly) seen the greek/whatever text, and we were to take his word for what he was saying, as *gospel*. <_<
“The doctrine I hold, should be the engine that drives me to loving others unconditionally, yet so often, it is that very doctrine that constructs a wall between me and others. Thus, that which should connect me with others in love, is actually a divisive, rather than a connecting belief.”
You then wrote: “Why do I mention this?? It suits a lot of us here at GSC to the *T*. You, me, and others also.”
Here at GSC we are not bound together by any common doctrine or even any goal to achieve a common doctrine. What binds us here is our common background in a situation that went haywire.
In the church of God, which I assume is the context Schoenheit is describing, there is this goal of achieving unity of doctrine. I can see his paraphrased statement applying much better to that setting than to here. STILL, though, it’s a good principle he spoke and it does have some applicability here.
I’m all for avoiding the erection of walls, but what if those walls are already erected and firmly in place? Civil discourse, of course.
Sometimes unconditional love requires reproof and correction, as the Bible says. Those words don’t fit in well here, though. Jesus was sometimes tough on his apostles, even to the point of threatening expulsion if they didn’t walk with him.
We can also read Jesus’ saying something that looks to be the total opposite of what Schoenheit said in Matt 10:34-37:
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”
Unity and peace with false doctrine in place is false unity and false peace. Seeking unity and peace without good doctrine is sure to fail.
Still, I am all for civil discourse.
***
You wrote: “The rest of the tape showed how to get out of the ~~~~~
*Me, me, me, My doctrine over all* --- and learning to accept other's viewpoints.”
I can accept another who holds a differing viewpoint without accepting that viewpoint on one particular item. If I love that person, then I will look for ways to help them. If my viewpoint is right and theirs is wrong, then the loving thing to do is help them see this.
If they refuse, then it’s still right to continue loving them, but including them in work that will crucially require that proper viewpoint is foolish. Expulsion from that work is right, otherwise Jesus would not have threatened it when it was an issue.
Remember, I’m talking about differences on one particular item. If there are many items, then working with them becomes less and less possible. If the entire viewpoint is different and off the Word, then outside of witnessing, any kind of spiritual fellowshipping with them would be foolish. I’m not talking about secular interactions like work or social functions. It’s not possible, or even always good, to totally separate from unbelievers. Civil discourse is proper.
***
You wrote: “Hey --- I'll be the first to admit. I'm guilty of that, but then again so are you. After hearing what was said on that tape, I decided to try a little more humility in my life. I've always admitted that I haven't got all the answers, even though some of my posts have indicated otherwise.”
When we do have SOME answers, though, it’s good to hold on tight to them and not let anyone talk us out of them. In our culture of relativism, though, this concept of having ANYTHING correct is excluded. Many people think that there ARE no answers and that the idea of getting anything correct is excluded from all thought. Absolute truth has become a fiction for our culture, and we have lost all footing on which to discuss it in many areas of our culture.
When God gives us an absolute answer on something, the humble thing to do is offer that answer to others with the insistence that it is greater than mere opinion.
***
You wrote: “How about you?? Willing to make your doctrine an *engine* that gets folks to listen? Or are you content with the alienation process??”
Well, like I said above, the alienation is already in place. We’re all as alienated from each other as the workers on the tower of Babel were, all speaking a different language, because we all drifted from the unifying doctrine once held us together.
On top of that, I explained how the alienation of me from many GreasSpotters occurred months before my first post, and after posting I was mercilessly attacked en masse. Many here have a chip on their shoulder when they approach me. I don’t think you have ever experienced anything like this, at least not here.
I must often make a decision to stand tough with someone who is trying to bully me, or get as tough or tougher in their face as they are with me. I vastly prefer to respond politely, and I’ve demonstrated this. Tom Strange just chided me in my recent response to T-Bone, acting as if my politeness was unusual or new-found. It’s not. I know perfectly well how to be polite, and prefer it.
With you (and anyone else willing) I am happy to lay aside the boxing gloves and get into the material printed in PFAL that we all so sorely missed.
Please take all this rambling as an acceptance of your peace offering.
Regarding Dr’s statements about the originals you wrote: “It was always meant to show that he had (supposedly) seen the greek/whatever text, and we were to take his word for what he was saying, as *gospel*.”
From the last part of this quote, might I infer that you have just come up with a rough form of “Thus saith the lord” Statement Number 23? ;)
But more seriously, sometimes he was referring to the critical Greek texts which ARE in existence. Most people think that the critical Greek texts are the same as the originals, but they are not. It sounds like they are the most important, the most critically important texts, and therefore the originals.
But no. There is a HUGE difference between the original texts and the critical texts.
The critical Greek texts were written over 1500 years after the originals. They were done by relatively modern scholars who criticized the various DIFFERING ancient manuscripts (fragments usually) and rated them according to which ones should be accepted and which rejected. Just because a manuscript is ancient doesn’t make it accurate. They CAN’T all be accurate because they differ from each other in many, many places.
Dr was very clear in his teaching that there were no originals in our physical possession to be physically seen.
However, many of us missed many details he presented. When he did refer to the originals (in his book and magazine form) it was always in the light of what indirect but compelling physical evidence was available and/or any revelation God gave him on it.
Anyone who came away from studying PFAL who thought Dr had physical access to any originals didn’t study hard enough. Many fresh out of the film class did think this way, and I was one of them for a while. But as I learned more detail I saw this was a misimpression that Dr did clear up for those sharp enough or persistent enough to catch it.
***
Here’s another way to think about it: even if some archeologist or text scholar announces on the front page of the NY Times that the originals were just discovered in a cave somewhere, how could we know they really are the originals?
In addition to the originals being lost, all means of verifying what was original and what was not have been lost too.
Many fresh out of the film class did think this way, and I was one of them for a while. But as I learned more detail I saw this was a misimpression that Dr did clear up for those sharp enough or persistent enough to catch it.
That is the point Mike, There should have never been any doubt at all, You shouldn't have had to be sharp or persistent to find out it was a "misimpression" as you so quaintly put it. The slowest student in the Class should have been clear during the class about VPW not seeing the originals.
Dr never claimed to have held in his hand or read with his eyes any originals. He did say in the class “I wish you could see this in the originals.”
No -- he didn't say that. What he DID say was ---
I WISH YOU COULD SEE IT IN THE ORIGINAL, (no *s*)
and he always said that statement, when he was trying to explain (or cover-up) how he came up with some the interpretations that he did. It was always meant to show that he had (supposedly) seen the greek/whatever text, and we were to take his word for what he was saying, as *gospel*.
Or sometimes it was read it in the original.
Although he did clearly say that there were no originals "in extant", I can see some folks getting confused. I always thought he meant that we should see it or read it in the original language, which I wonder if he ever did
There were mistakes and some rough spots in the film class.
This is the reason Dr often urged us to get the books open more. If we had done that these misimpressions would have cleared up. They did for me and I was not all that persistent nor sharp.
But even in the film class there was enough information to lead us to the right impressions on this issue if we were thorough and listened carefully.
In segment 16 of the film class he says: :
No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's all we have today at best are translations. No translation may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!
I have found out from many interviews of grads in recent years that very few did listen very carefully to this section. I think many felt this segment was boring and dry. It didn’t have anything about answered prayers, the power, or abundance and I think many tuned it out.
I even had a bizarre discussion with a Region Leader in 1988 who seemed to be totally ignorant of this segment. That he hadn’t listened carefully to this area of the class was the farthest thing from my mind as we talked, so I though he was trying to teach me something new or weird the way he talked. Only many years later, after I discovered that hardly anyone listened carefully to this segment 16, did that 1988 conversation finally make sense.
Just a few minutes after the above quote in that segment 16, after urging us to listen carefully, Dr says all this:
You see, we have no originals. Each translation, each translation is no better and at best it is no better than the interpretation given to the translation by the translator. in extant today as far as anybody knows.
The oldest manuscripts that are available (and these are not originals), these date perhaps to 400 to 430 A.D. And perhaps some of the old Aramaic materials in possession of our friend Dr. George M. Lamsa may be a little older than this. But the oldest in extant for the most part that students or scholars refer to as originals are really not originals. They date to 400, 430 or 500, 600, 700 A.D. But these oldest manuscripts, and this by the way here is the abbreviation for the plural manuscripts--mss. Whenever you see this (mss) in a Bible or in writings it refers to the different manuscripts if it's in the singular the last "s" is deleted then it refers to manuscript.
Now of all the manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts that we have available, many of them we as Biblical research men and women at The Way Biblical Research Center have had an opportunity to study in microfilm form and other forms. These manuscripts which the scholars refer to as the originals which are not original because the original is entirely different. Because the original is that which God gave when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit.
But of the oldest that we have in extant, the oldest are called uncils, the word u-n-c-i-l-s, referred to as uncil manuscripts. The word "uncil" means simply all caps. They are beautifully done. They are delicately, wonderfully presented. It's just a marvel to see some of these old uncils, how much patience and time men spent with them. The uncils are written in all caps like if it were in English which they are not, but if they were in English it would be all caps. And the words are all put together one right after the other. There are no periods, no semicolons, no paragraphs, no verses, nothing. FORGODSOLOVED, just all tied together.
The next oldest in manuscript form are referred to as cursive, c-u-r-s-i-v-e. The word "cursive" means nothing but running hand, that's what the word "cursive" means--running hand. And here it is running hand (write: forgodsolovedtheworld) just one after the other, forgodsolovedtheworld. These are the manuscripts.
Now, the scholars know that the uncils are older than the cursive. But we have discovered in our Biblical research work that at times the records in the cursives are more accurate than those we have found in the uncils. You know what this tells us? This tells us that that particular cursive was taken from a uncil which is older and predates the oldest uncil manuscripts which are now in extant.
So, you see we have no originals. At best we have copies, that's all. And it was of the originals that we learn from II Timothy 3:16 that "all scripture was God-breathed." And all scripture which is God-breathed is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [which is] instruction in righteousness:" "That the man of God" in verse 17, "may be perfect, throughly furnished [through and throughly perfected] unto all good works."
v. To scold mildly so as to correct or improve; reprimand: chided the boy for his sloppiness.
v. intr. To express disapproval.
chide
v : censure severely or angrily; "The mother scolded the child for entering a stranger's car"; "The deputy ragged the Prime Minister"; "The customer dressed down the waiter for bringing cold soup" [syn: call on the carpet, rebuke, rag, trounce, reproof, lecture, reprimand, jaw, dress down, call down, scold, berate, bawl out, remonstrate, chew out, chew up, have words, lambaste, lambast]
entries found for compliment.
com·pli·ment
n. An expression of praise, admiration, or congratulation. A formal act of civility, courtesy, or respect.
compliments Good wishes; regards: Extend my compliments to your parents.
n : a remark (or act) expressing praise and admiration v 1: say something to someone that expresses praise; "He complimented her on her last physics paper" [syn: congratulate] 2: express respect or esteem for
Mike, did I chide you or compliment you?
Where is the "problem" with communication here?
I spent a great deal of time trying to communicate with you about this threorem:
THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR POSTING IS NOT IN YOUR MESSAGE BUT IN YOUR METHOD.
Yet you choose to only address my compliment to you as a chide.
Your interaction with others is what gets you in trouble. You don't play well with others... or should I amend it to 'you haven't played well with others in the past'? You've relayed the story of how you were "attacked" and "beset upon" from prior to your even posting here... but you know what? You've got to put that behind you OR AT THE VERY LEAST only deal with those folks on that level if you can't put it behind you... otherwise you'll continue to have "problems" here at GSC... but if that's what you want, I can't stop you.
No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's all we have today at best are translations. No translation may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!
Mike... would you also be able to provide the quote where he said "PFAL is the Word of God" or "PFAL is God's Word re-issued"...?
Could you post and reference that quote as well please?
I apologize. It looks like I chose the wrong word. Would “condescension” be a better one?
It looked condescending to me, more than a compliment. I saw perfectly well that I was being polite to T-Bone when I was writing the post long before you pointed it out, and didn’t need you to point it out.
If I am also wrong in feeling like you were condescending I again apologize.
Please believe me that I know when I’m being polite and when I’m getting tough. Usually both are on purpose.
***
You wrote: “I spent a great deal of time trying to communicate with you about this threorem: THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR POSTING IS NOT IN YOUR MESSAGE BUT IN YOUR METHOD.”
Hey, I hear you, but do you hear me? I’m all for civil discourse, and don’t need compliments nor general communication regarding it. If I do err in this area, a specific pointer will do to help, and a private one is better than a public one, as Jesus taught.
Those who do not want my message will not hear it no matter how much honey I soak it in. Those who DO want my message will brush off the sand and eat.
Now let’s get away from this focus on me and my method. If you want to start a thread on etiquette and communication I’ll visit it and read it some. Right now I’m bored silly with all this talk about how I type my message. Let’s get back to PFAL.
***
You wrote (on topic): “Mike... would you also be able to provide the quote where he said "PFAL is the Word of God" or "PFAL is God's Word re-issued"...? __ Could you post and reference that quote as well please?”
Yes.
I already posted 22 such statements of Dr’s on this very thread, the exact quotes and documentation referencing their locations.
The first and second “thus saith the lord” statements by Dr were in Post #294, a long subdivided post, in the subdivision addressed to doojable, in purple fonts. I’m not sure if page numbers or URLs will work for everyone, but I use the GSC default settings to determine the number of posts per page, as I suspect most do. If that setting is changed then page numbers will differ, as well as URLs, maybe. The Post #’s should be the same for all, though.
"PFAL is the Word of God" or "PFAL is God's Word re-issued"
You, see Mike I only have VPW's word for that, and it isn't enough. Surely there should be one other person in the world who saw that snowstom, saw those gas pumps, was present when GOD Spoke to VPW, but there never was.
You were asked: "Mike... would you also be able to provide the quote where he said "PFAL is the Word of God" or "PFAL is God's Word re-issued"...? __ Could you post and reference that quote as well please?"
You replied: "Yes. ...... I already posted 22 such statements of Dr's on this very thread, the exact quotes and documentation referencing their locations."
No you didn't Mike. You posted no such statements.
I read the links you provided. Nothing at all there that even alluded to or implied such. Not even a hint.
In no place anywhere did VPW ever state: "PFAL is the Word of God" or "PFAL is God's Word re-issued"
Not in PFAL, or in any other book, and not on tape. Nowhere. He flat out never said it.
That Wiereille wanted folks to study PFAL and his other teachings is no secret, but that is certainly not evidence of PFAL being the Word of God. It instead suggests VPW's desire for folks get back to the Word of God by using the keys taught in PFAL. Nothing more.
To conclude that PFAL is the Word of God , or God's word reissued based upon the things you have provided, one would have discard rational thought and redefine the English language, both of which you have seemed to have done quite well.
You wrote: “I spent a great deal of time trying to communicate with you about this threorem: THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR POSTING IS NOT IN YOUR MESSAGE BUT IN YOUR METHOD.”
Hey, I hear you, but do you hear me? I’m all for civil discourse, and don’t need compliments nor general communication regarding it. If I do err in this area, a specific pointer will do to help, and a private one is better than a public one, as Jesus taught.
Mike... I'm not "Miss Manners' Hall Monitor"... I mentioned the statement above because you had said that you had been pretty much "confined" to this thread... I'm merely pointing out a way to get back out on the other threads without getting red-flagged... that's all... and I'm pretty sure that you are already aware of it but on the off chance that you weren't, thought I'd mention it... so... if you want to keep on being confined to this thread and this space, so be it...
just don't blame anyone else but yourself for that... and don't complain about it... you've made your bed, I was just trying to point out that you could choose to make it a different way... without being mean, rude, tough, condescending or offensive.
I know Dr doesn't use those exact words, but he does imply it, and quite strongly.
Try reading those 22 statements again.
You breezed through them all in less than 50 minutes from the time stamps, probably less. That's like less than 5 minutes per statement. I've spent years pondering them and still see new things when I return to read them again.
I agree that Dr’s simple statements claiming guidance are not proofs in themselves.
The reason I posted that list just now was because Tom asked if Dr said that kind of thing.
The reason I originally posted those 22 items weeks ago was to show how much we missed, not to prove that Dr was right.
The only way I know of to verify that PFAL is of God is the same general way many of us came to believe the original scriptures were of God: study, and a lot of it, and application in love, and talking to God about it a lot.
***
You wrote: “Surely there should be one other person in the world who saw that snowstom, saw those gas pumps, was present when GOD Spoke to VPW, but there never was.”
I expect that some did see that snowstorm, but it sounds like it may have been the small rogue type. Did you see the post several years ago by Lifted Up where he said he saw two such extremely small yet extremely dense snow storms? I’m talking so small that mere blocks away no one would see it. Would you like me to re-post that testimony? It would be a task to find it, but I know I can.
I’m not surprised that no one was in the office with Dr to witness the event. It was a private thing between God and VPW. However, we do have the fruit. God promised Dr then that if hw would teach it, He would teach him his word like it had not been known since the first century.
On the tenth anniversary of CES they issued a newsletter where they admitted, in spite of all their differences with Dr, that it was entirely likely that the PFAL package taught more of God’s accurate Word than any other package since the first century up to that date it was released.
I hear you, but must remind you that you’ve not been in my shoes. You have never been ganged up on here, and I doubt it ever happened to you outside GSC either. It’s a relatively rare thing to be attacked over and over by many people for a long time. I think I’m dealing with it pretty well, but I do know I make mistakes.
I appreciate your concern, and again, will welcome any specific pointing to a specific error on my part in lacking civility, especially if you mention it in private, the way Jesus taught it should be.
I hear you, but must remind you that you’ve not been in my shoes. You have never been ganged up on here, and I doubt it ever happened to outside GSC either. It’s a relatively rare thing to be attacked over and over by many people for a long time. I think I’m dealing with it pretty well, but I do know I make mistakes.
I appreciate your concern, and again, will welcome any specific pointing to a specific error on my part in lacking civility, especially if you mention it in private, the way Jesus taught it should be.
You're right Mike... it hasn't happened to me... and I'm pretty sure that's because I know how to behave and discuss things with folks. It's as much about how one projects or portrays oneself as it is anything...
"PFAL is the Word of God" or "PFAL is God's Word re-issued"
You, see Mike I only have VPW's word for that, and it isn't enough. Surely there should be one other person in the world who saw that snowstom, saw those gas pumps, was present when GOD Spoke to VPW, but there never was.
You wrote: “I know how to behave and discuss things with folks. It's as much about how one projects or portrays oneself as it is anything...”
I’ll watch how you move closer to learn. In the meantime, can we drop this issue? I’m doing my best to be civil with whoever wants to be civil themselves.
No one, and if the same could also be said, of parting the Red Sea, The cloud on Mt Sinai, Water from the rock, the plagues of Egypt etc etc Then I would have serious problems with Moses too. But in point of fact there were more than a few witnesses for much of what happened in Moses life. Hence It is easier to believe him when he speaks of other events--
Unlike VPW who never seems to have witnesses for anything
You wrote: "What did Moses do, after he saw the burning bush, And what did docvic do, after he saw the snow ????"
For Moses we have scripture to tell us what he did.
For Dr we don’t have scripture to tell us what he did.
We do, however, have the MANY thousands who came to know God from PFAL like never before and never since. You don’t see them testifying here at GSC, but that’s because they still respect him. Many of them have told me they wont come here for all the negative reports about him and what he taught, even though they do know many things went wrong in the ministry. These many thousands teach what he taught them in their fellowships, and that can be readily determined in many ways. ...Oh, yes, we also have the testimony of a few here that he had sin in his life, but scripture already had assured us of that.
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
Mike
templelady,
You wrote: “There are no ORIGINAL manuscripts for the New Testament, at best what we have are copies of copies of some of the letters of Paul and other believers (some not included at all in the New Testament) not to mention those that are forever lost to us. The Gospels were written much later than the letters”
Yes. I’ve pointed this out many times. There are some problems with the ancient manuscripts that are known to exist. There are many more problems with the translations into English.
***
You wrote: “So right there there is a big ALERT sign on VPW's teachings, he couldn't have read it in the "Original" because the "Original" is long gone”
Actually, what you just said should be a big alert to you on what YOU MISSED in VPW’s teachings.
Dr never claimed to have held in his hand or read with his eyes any originals. He did say in the class “I wish you could see this in the originals.” However, he taught many times that nobody has the originals, that they were lost.
Any knowledge Dr had of the originals, that was not derived from and supported by existing manuscripts, was by revelation. He did claim this to be the case on many occasions. He even once said (Ephesians U of L #17) that for one phrase we probably will NEVER find a manuscript to back him up, but that he knew it should read in the originals to be such-and-such. He said that he knew this from his spiritual awareness, i.e., revelation.
***
You wrote: “Suggest you read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D Ehrman on this subject. __ Oops, sorry that would mean something not written by VPW --just forget I mentioned it.”
Actually I was well aware of that book before it was brought up here on GreaseSpot.
You forget that I read plenty of things not written by VPW, because I’m reading YOUR words here on GreaseSpot, along with many others. Did that slip your mind?
It looks like some communications glitches have occurred here too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
No -- he didn't say that. What he DID say was ---
I WISH YOU COULD SEE IT IN THE ORIGINAL, (no *s*)
and he always said that statement, when he was trying to explain (or cover-up) how he came up with some the interpretations that he did. It was always meant to show that he had (supposedly) seen the greek/whatever text, and we were to take his word for what he was saying, as *gospel*. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
You paraphrased John Schoenheit thusly:
“The doctrine I hold, should be the engine that drives me to loving others unconditionally, yet so often, it is that very doctrine that constructs a wall between me and others. Thus, that which should connect me with others in love, is actually a divisive, rather than a connecting belief.”
You then wrote: “Why do I mention this?? It suits a lot of us here at GSC to the *T*. You, me, and others also.”
Here at GSC we are not bound together by any common doctrine or even any goal to achieve a common doctrine. What binds us here is our common background in a situation that went haywire.
In the church of God, which I assume is the context Schoenheit is describing, there is this goal of achieving unity of doctrine. I can see his paraphrased statement applying much better to that setting than to here. STILL, though, it’s a good principle he spoke and it does have some applicability here.
I’m all for avoiding the erection of walls, but what if those walls are already erected and firmly in place? Civil discourse, of course.
Sometimes unconditional love requires reproof and correction, as the Bible says. Those words don’t fit in well here, though. Jesus was sometimes tough on his apostles, even to the point of threatening expulsion if they didn’t walk with him.
We can also read Jesus’ saying something that looks to be the total opposite of what Schoenheit said in Matt 10:34-37:
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”
Unity and peace with false doctrine in place is false unity and false peace. Seeking unity and peace without good doctrine is sure to fail.
Still, I am all for civil discourse.
***
You wrote: “The rest of the tape showed how to get out of the ~~~~~
*Me, me, me, My doctrine over all* --- and learning to accept other's viewpoints.”
I can accept another who holds a differing viewpoint without accepting that viewpoint on one particular item. If I love that person, then I will look for ways to help them. If my viewpoint is right and theirs is wrong, then the loving thing to do is help them see this.
If they refuse, then it’s still right to continue loving them, but including them in work that will crucially require that proper viewpoint is foolish. Expulsion from that work is right, otherwise Jesus would not have threatened it when it was an issue.
Remember, I’m talking about differences on one particular item. If there are many items, then working with them becomes less and less possible. If the entire viewpoint is different and off the Word, then outside of witnessing, any kind of spiritual fellowshipping with them would be foolish. I’m not talking about secular interactions like work or social functions. It’s not possible, or even always good, to totally separate from unbelievers. Civil discourse is proper.
***
You wrote: “Hey --- I'll be the first to admit. I'm guilty of that, but then again so are you. After hearing what was said on that tape, I decided to try a little more humility in my life. I've always admitted that I haven't got all the answers, even though some of my posts have indicated otherwise.”
When we do have SOME answers, though, it’s good to hold on tight to them and not let anyone talk us out of them. In our culture of relativism, though, this concept of having ANYTHING correct is excluded. Many people think that there ARE no answers and that the idea of getting anything correct is excluded from all thought. Absolute truth has become a fiction for our culture, and we have lost all footing on which to discuss it in many areas of our culture.
When God gives us an absolute answer on something, the humble thing to do is offer that answer to others with the insistence that it is greater than mere opinion.
***
You wrote: “How about you?? Willing to make your doctrine an *engine* that gets folks to listen? Or are you content with the alienation process??”
Well, like I said above, the alienation is already in place. We’re all as alienated from each other as the workers on the tower of Babel were, all speaking a different language, because we all drifted from the unifying doctrine once held us together.
On top of that, I explained how the alienation of me from many GreasSpotters occurred months before my first post, and after posting I was mercilessly attacked en masse. Many here have a chip on their shoulder when they approach me. I don’t think you have ever experienced anything like this, at least not here.
I must often make a decision to stand tough with someone who is trying to bully me, or get as tough or tougher in their face as they are with me. I vastly prefer to respond politely, and I’ve demonstrated this. Tom Strange just chided me in my recent response to T-Bone, acting as if my politeness was unusual or new-found. It’s not. I know perfectly well how to be polite, and prefer it.
With you (and anyone else willing) I am happy to lay aside the boxing gloves and get into the material printed in PFAL that we all so sorely missed.
Please take all this rambling as an acceptance of your peace offering.
Agape.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
Regarding Dr’s statements about the originals you wrote: “It was always meant to show that he had (supposedly) seen the greek/whatever text, and we were to take his word for what he was saying, as *gospel*.”
From the last part of this quote, might I infer that you have just come up with a rough form of “Thus saith the lord” Statement Number 23? ;)
But more seriously, sometimes he was referring to the critical Greek texts which ARE in existence. Most people think that the critical Greek texts are the same as the originals, but they are not. It sounds like they are the most important, the most critically important texts, and therefore the originals.
But no. There is a HUGE difference between the original texts and the critical texts.
The critical Greek texts were written over 1500 years after the originals. They were done by relatively modern scholars who criticized the various DIFFERING ancient manuscripts (fragments usually) and rated them according to which ones should be accepted and which rejected. Just because a manuscript is ancient doesn’t make it accurate. They CAN’T all be accurate because they differ from each other in many, many places.
Dr was very clear in his teaching that there were no originals in our physical possession to be physically seen.
However, many of us missed many details he presented. When he did refer to the originals (in his book and magazine form) it was always in the light of what indirect but compelling physical evidence was available and/or any revelation God gave him on it.
Anyone who came away from studying PFAL who thought Dr had physical access to any originals didn’t study hard enough. Many fresh out of the film class did think this way, and I was one of them for a while. But as I learned more detail I saw this was a misimpression that Dr did clear up for those sharp enough or persistent enough to catch it.
***
Here’s another way to think about it: even if some archeologist or text scholar announces on the front page of the NY Times that the originals were just discovered in a cave somewhere, how could we know they really are the originals?
In addition to the originals being lost, all means of verifying what was original and what was not have been lost too.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
That is the point Mike, There should have never been any doubt at all, You shouldn't have had to be sharp or persistent to find out it was a "misimpression" as you so quaintly put it. The slowest student in the Class should have been clear during the class about VPW not seeing the originals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I agree that would be ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world.
Dr did his best to present the material, but we did NOT do our best to receive it all. We got distracted.
This is good news in that there is a lot more treasure still to receive by opening the PFAL books and studying them again.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Although he did clearly say that there were no originals "in extant", I can see some folks getting confused. I always thought he meant that we should see it or read it in the original language, which I wonder if he ever did
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
There were mistakes and some rough spots in the film class.
This is the reason Dr often urged us to get the books open more. If we had done that these misimpressions would have cleared up. They did for me and I was not all that persistent nor sharp.
But even in the film class there was enough information to lead us to the right impressions on this issue if we were thorough and listened carefully.
In segment 16 of the film class he says: :
No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's all we have today at best are translations. No translation may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!
I have found out from many interviews of grads in recent years that very few did listen very carefully to this section. I think many felt this segment was boring and dry. It didn’t have anything about answered prayers, the power, or abundance and I think many tuned it out.
I even had a bizarre discussion with a Region Leader in 1988 who seemed to be totally ignorant of this segment. That he hadn’t listened carefully to this area of the class was the farthest thing from my mind as we talked, so I though he was trying to teach me something new or weird the way he talked. Only many years later, after I discovered that hardly anyone listened carefully to this segment 16, did that 1988 conversation finally make sense.
Just a few minutes after the above quote in that segment 16, after urging us to listen carefully, Dr says all this:
You see, we have no originals. Each translation, each translation is no better and at best it is no better than the interpretation given to the translation by the translator. in extant today as far as anybody knows.
The oldest manuscripts that are available (and these are not originals), these date perhaps to 400 to 430 A.D. And perhaps some of the old Aramaic materials in possession of our friend Dr. George M. Lamsa may be a little older than this. But the oldest in extant for the most part that students or scholars refer to as originals are really not originals. They date to 400, 430 or 500, 600, 700 A.D. But these oldest manuscripts, and this by the way here is the abbreviation for the plural manuscripts--mss. Whenever you see this (mss) in a Bible or in writings it refers to the different manuscripts if it's in the singular the last "s" is deleted then it refers to manuscript.
Now of all the manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts that we have available, many of them we as Biblical research men and women at The Way Biblical Research Center have had an opportunity to study in microfilm form and other forms. These manuscripts which the scholars refer to as the originals which are not original because the original is entirely different. Because the original is that which God gave when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit.
But of the oldest that we have in extant, the oldest are called uncils, the word u-n-c-i-l-s, referred to as uncil manuscripts. The word "uncil" means simply all caps. They are beautifully done. They are delicately, wonderfully presented. It's just a marvel to see some of these old uncils, how much patience and time men spent with them. The uncils are written in all caps like if it were in English which they are not, but if they were in English it would be all caps. And the words are all put together one right after the other. There are no periods, no semicolons, no paragraphs, no verses, nothing. FORGODSOLOVED, just all tied together.
The next oldest in manuscript form are referred to as cursive, c-u-r-s-i-v-e. The word "cursive" means nothing but running hand, that's what the word "cursive" means--running hand. And here it is running hand (write: forgodsolovedtheworld) just one after the other, forgodsolovedtheworld. These are the manuscripts.
Now, the scholars know that the uncils are older than the cursive. But we have discovered in our Biblical research work that at times the records in the cursives are more accurate than those we have found in the uncils. You know what this tells us? This tells us that that particular cursive was taken from a uncil which is older and predates the oldest uncil manuscripts which are now in extant.
So, you see we have no originals. At best we have copies, that's all. And it was of the originals that we learn from II Timothy 3:16 that "all scripture was God-breathed." And all scripture which is God-breathed is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [which is] instruction in righteousness:" "That the man of God" in verse 17, "may be perfect, throughly furnished [through and throughly perfected] unto all good works."
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
From Dictionary.com:
entries found for chide.
chide
v. To scold mildly so as to correct or improve; reprimand: chided the boy for his sloppiness.
v. intr. To express disapproval.
chide
v : censure severely or angrily; "The mother scolded the child for entering a stranger's car"; "The deputy ragged the Prime Minister"; "The customer dressed down the waiter for bringing cold soup" [syn: call on the carpet, rebuke, rag, trounce, reproof, lecture, reprimand, jaw, dress down, call down, scold, berate, bawl out, remonstrate, chew out, chew up, have words, lambaste, lambast]
entries found for compliment.
com·pli·ment
n. An expression of praise, admiration, or congratulation. A formal act of civility, courtesy, or respect.
compliments Good wishes; regards: Extend my compliments to your parents.
n : a remark (or act) expressing praise and admiration v 1: say something to someone that expresses praise; "He complimented her on her last physics paper" [syn: congratulate] 2: express respect or esteem for
Mike, did I chide you or compliment you?
Where is the "problem" with communication here?
I spent a great deal of time trying to communicate with you about this threorem:
THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR POSTING IS NOT IN YOUR MESSAGE BUT IN YOUR METHOD.
Yet you choose to only address my compliment to you as a chide.
Your interaction with others is what gets you in trouble. You don't play well with others... or should I amend it to 'you haven't played well with others in the past'? You've relayed the story of how you were "attacked" and "beset upon" from prior to your even posting here... but you know what? You've got to put that behind you OR AT THE VERY LEAST only deal with those folks on that level if you can't put it behind you... otherwise you'll continue to have "problems" here at GSC... but if that's what you want, I can't stop you.
Mike... would you also be able to provide the quote where he said "PFAL is the Word of God" or "PFAL is God's Word re-issued"...?
Could you post and reference that quote as well please?
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
I apologize. It looks like I chose the wrong word. Would “condescension” be a better one?
It looked condescending to me, more than a compliment. I saw perfectly well that I was being polite to T-Bone when I was writing the post long before you pointed it out, and didn’t need you to point it out.
If I am also wrong in feeling like you were condescending I again apologize.
Please believe me that I know when I’m being polite and when I’m getting tough. Usually both are on purpose.
***
You wrote: “I spent a great deal of time trying to communicate with you about this threorem: THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR POSTING IS NOT IN YOUR MESSAGE BUT IN YOUR METHOD.”
Hey, I hear you, but do you hear me? I’m all for civil discourse, and don’t need compliments nor general communication regarding it. If I do err in this area, a specific pointer will do to help, and a private one is better than a public one, as Jesus taught.
Those who do not want my message will not hear it no matter how much honey I soak it in. Those who DO want my message will brush off the sand and eat.
Now let’s get away from this focus on me and my method. If you want to start a thread on etiquette and communication I’ll visit it and read it some. Right now I’m bored silly with all this talk about how I type my message. Let’s get back to PFAL.
***
You wrote (on topic): “Mike... would you also be able to provide the quote where he said "PFAL is the Word of God" or "PFAL is God's Word re-issued"...? __ Could you post and reference that quote as well please?”
Yes.
I already posted 22 such statements of Dr’s on this very thread, the exact quotes and documentation referencing their locations.
The first and second “thus saith the lord” statements by Dr were in Post #294, a long subdivided post, in the subdivision addressed to doojable, in purple fonts. I’m not sure if page numbers or URLs will work for everyone, but I use the GSC default settings to determine the number of posts per page, as I suspect most do. If that setting is changed then page numbers will differ, as well as URLs, maybe. The Post #’s should be the same for all, though.
So, statements #1 and #2 are in Post #294
and is here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=280
Statements #2 (repeated) through #7 are in Posts #310, 312, and 317
here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=300
Statements #8 through #11 are in Posts #321, 322, and 337
here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=320
Statements #12 through #16 are in Posts #349, 354, 355, and 356
here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=340
Statements #17 through #20 are in Posts #362, 363, 373, and 377
here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=360
Statements #21 through #22 are in Posts #381, and 382
here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=380
There are more such “thus saith” statements, but these are all I have written up so far.
And let’s not forget the #23 dmiller offered not many posts ago here.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
"PFAL is the Word of God" or "PFAL is God's Word re-issued"
You, see Mike I only have VPW's word for that, and it isn't enough. Surely there should be one other person in the world who saw that snowstom, saw those gas pumps, was present when GOD Spoke to VPW, but there never was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike,
You were asked: "Mike... would you also be able to provide the quote where he said "PFAL is the Word of God" or "PFAL is God's Word re-issued"...? __ Could you post and reference that quote as well please?"
You replied: "Yes. ...... I already posted 22 such statements of Dr's on this very thread, the exact quotes and documentation referencing their locations."
No you didn't Mike. You posted no such statements.
I read the links you provided. Nothing at all there that even alluded to or implied such. Not even a hint.
In no place anywhere did VPW ever state: "PFAL is the Word of God" or "PFAL is God's Word re-issued"
Not in PFAL, or in any other book, and not on tape. Nowhere. He flat out never said it.
That Wiereille wanted folks to study PFAL and his other teachings is no secret, but that is certainly not evidence of PFAL being the Word of God. It instead suggests VPW's desire for folks get back to the Word of God by using the keys taught in PFAL. Nothing more.
To conclude that PFAL is the Word of God , or God's word reissued based upon the things you have provided, one would have discard rational thought and redefine the English language, both of which you have seemed to have done quite well.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike said:
Mike... I'm not "Miss Manners' Hall Monitor"... I mentioned the statement above because you had said that you had been pretty much "confined" to this thread... I'm merely pointing out a way to get back out on the other threads without getting red-flagged... that's all... and I'm pretty sure that you are already aware of it but on the off chance that you weren't, thought I'd mention it... so... if you want to keep on being confined to this thread and this space, so be it...
just don't blame anyone else but yourself for that... and don't complain about it... you've made your bed, I was just trying to point out that you could choose to make it a different way... without being mean, rude, tough, condescending or offensive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
I know Dr doesn't use those exact words, but he does imply it, and quite strongly.
Try reading those 22 statements again.
You breezed through them all in less than 50 minutes from the time stamps, probably less. That's like less than 5 minutes per statement. I've spent years pondering them and still see new things when I return to read them again.
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
templelady,
I agree that Dr’s simple statements claiming guidance are not proofs in themselves.
The reason I posted that list just now was because Tom asked if Dr said that kind of thing.
The reason I originally posted those 22 items weeks ago was to show how much we missed, not to prove that Dr was right.
The only way I know of to verify that PFAL is of God is the same general way many of us came to believe the original scriptures were of God: study, and a lot of it, and application in love, and talking to God about it a lot.
***
You wrote: “Surely there should be one other person in the world who saw that snowstom, saw those gas pumps, was present when GOD Spoke to VPW, but there never was.”
I expect that some did see that snowstorm, but it sounds like it may have been the small rogue type. Did you see the post several years ago by Lifted Up where he said he saw two such extremely small yet extremely dense snow storms? I’m talking so small that mere blocks away no one would see it. Would you like me to re-post that testimony? It would be a task to find it, but I know I can.
I’m not surprised that no one was in the office with Dr to witness the event. It was a private thing between God and VPW. However, we do have the fruit. God promised Dr then that if hw would teach it, He would teach him his word like it had not been known since the first century.
On the tenth anniversary of CES they issued a newsletter where they admitted, in spite of all their differences with Dr, that it was entirely likely that the PFAL package taught more of God’s accurate Word than any other package since the first century up to that date it was released.
****************************************************
****************************************************
****************************************************
****************************************************
Tom,
I hear you, but must remind you that you’ve not been in my shoes. You have never been ganged up on here, and I doubt it ever happened to you outside GSC either. It’s a relatively rare thing to be attacked over and over by many people for a long time. I think I’m dealing with it pretty well, but I do know I make mistakes.
I appreciate your concern, and again, will welcome any specific pointing to a specific error on my part in lacking civility, especially if you mention it in private, the way Jesus taught it should be.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
#########################################
#########################################
#########################################
Boo
wierwille the dick...uh ...dr ......o ............mr
implyed many things
and down right said some things straight out
but you don't want to see what he wrote or said or implyed
all you see is what you want to see
i'm still ready to talk pfal
and it still has not been acknowledged by you Mike
although i posted as well as others the exact words
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
You're right Mike... it hasn't happened to me... and I'm pretty sure that's because I know how to behave and discuss things with folks. It's as much about how one projects or portrays oneself as it is anything...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
(Playing devil's advocate here ---
who else besides Moses, saw the burning bush???
Ya wanna shoot me now, or later Mo???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
Good point. Your credibility increased. Not kidding. Not condescending.
******************************************************
******************************************************
******************************************************
******************************************************
Tom,
You wrote: “I know how to behave and discuss things with folks. It's as much about how one projects or portrays oneself as it is anything...”
I’ll watch how you move closer to learn. In the meantime, can we drop this issue? I’m doing my best to be civil with whoever wants to be civil themselves.
******************************************************
******************************************************
******************************************************
******************************************************
CM,
Feel free to bring up any PFAL topics. Page number references will help.
You wrote: "i'm still ready to talk pfal __ and it still has not been acknowledged by you Mike __ although i posted as well as others the exact words"
With so many posts it's easy for me to miss some or fail to acknowledge some unintentionally.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
I don't buy it Mike, and not likely the truth either.
Everyone is getting tired of that lame excuse Mike.
Go back over the thread yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
No one, and if the same could also be said, of parting the Red Sea, The cloud on Mt Sinai, Water from the rock, the plagues of Egypt etc etc Then I would have serious problems with Moses too. But in point of fact there were more than a few witnesses for much of what happened in Moses life. Hence It is easier to believe him when he speaks of other events--
Unlike VPW who never seems to have witnesses for anything
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Well -- I'll tell ya. It was a question that was begging to be asked,
but here is another question as well.
What did Moses do, after he saw the burning bush,
And what did docvic do, after he saw the snow ????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike, I just thought you might want to venture 'outside the house'... that's all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Y'all are STILL bickering!!!??????
Geeeeezus H. Christmas I have looked in from time to time and this sounds like a bunch of hens in a henhouse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
Have you come to rescue me from all the talk about me? I need it!
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
Tom,
I got it.
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
dmiller,
You wrote: "What did Moses do, after he saw the burning bush, And what did docvic do, after he saw the snow ????"
For Moses we have scripture to tell us what he did.
For Dr we don’t have scripture to tell us what he did.
We do, however, have the MANY thousands who came to know God from PFAL like never before and never since. You don’t see them testifying here at GSC, but that’s because they still respect him. Many of them have told me they wont come here for all the negative reports about him and what he taught, even though they do know many things went wrong in the ministry. These many thousands teach what he taught them in their fellowships, and that can be readily determined in many ways. ...Oh, yes, we also have the testimony of a few here that he had sin in his life, but scripture already had assured us of that.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites