3. No following posters to other threads to emphasize your point. If you want to argue with Mike, please do it HERE, on THIS thread. Don't drag the argument out to other threads by baiting him, then complaining to us when he replies.
4. No moderator alerts. If you find this thread upsets you or makes you uncomfortable in any way, please exit immediately, and join in on any number of our other doctrinal discussions in this forum. All other discussions will follow our usual forum rules.
Well I’m done unpacking, now that we’ve moved into this new thread.
Let’s let the readers in on what happened before.
RECAPPING THE PREVIOUS THREAD
On the Round One thread of this PFAL series titled “The Official, the Ultimate, the Amazing PFAL Thread, Come Back to PFAL, but watch for the land mines” in Post #1009, just before it reached such a large size that it was locked down (probably to prevent slowing down the server’s hard drive from the weight), Tom Strange had asked me a question after pasting in some lines where he quoted me.
Tom Strange wrote over there in that thread’s Post #1009 the following:
So then you're talking "spiritually" here???
Mike 2/2/04, 12:17am.
"When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand
and teaching you from it."
Mike 2/3/04 5:22am.
"Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman.
Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL.
He told me so."
Vickles 2/3/04, 7:51pm.
"So, Mike, you weren't kidding about JC coming with a PFAL book in his hand."
Mike, 2/3/04, 7:53pm.
"Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once."
...you haven't actually physically seen him? just spiritually???”
Then I responded to Tom in that thread’s last Post #1011 with:
What do you mean by “...just spiritually”???
Is that like “merely spiritually”?
Is there something lacking with spiritually?
Is there something less than “actual” with spiritually?
I think we got a lot of background work to do.
***
Let me ask YOU a question to get you prepared for some answers.
When you see Jesus, how will you know FOR SURE that it’s him, the REAL him and not a counterfeit?
You wouldn’t want to bend the knee and swear loyalty to the wrong god accidentally.
Have you ever thought this through deeply?
I used to do this all the time in the 60’s. I saw all kinds of things then. From those experiences I would say the counterfeit is much more possible than most people think.
This is related to your questions to me, because how are you going to tell if what I saw was counterfeit or not?
What criteria can be used to discern the real Jesus? Finger prints? Iris scan? DNA?
One guy I know used touching the holes in his hands feet and the gash in his side to tell, but he got scolded for that.
How much thought have you put into things like this? I’m serious.
Before I’m allowed to bring you on a tour of the limits of the universe, I have to make sure you can take it. It’s a liability issue. My hands are tied by insurance regulations. You have to be fit to survive the ride, doncha know.
In an unorthodox translation (hence the name of this thread) Tom Strange’s response to me was then transferred over to this “Round 2” thread and can be seen in Post #1 above.
If you don’t know whether “actually” physically seeing isn’t better than spiritually seeing, then why did you phrase it the way you did with “actually”?
If you don’t know whether physically seeing isn’t better than “just” spiritually seeing, then why did you phrase it the way you did with “just”?
You’re going to have to answer my questions better than that or I’m going to have to make a paste-up rubber stamp for you until you do.
***
I’m not sure I understand this from your last post:
“The way you phrased it earlier didn't really make any distinction between the two...”
“It” what?
“Earlier” where?
Which “two”
I deal with a lot of parameters and references here, so please expand this sentence out so I understand it.
***
You wrote: “I'll ask you the same question back: What proof do you have that what you saw was not the counterfeit? Like you claim to have seen in the 60's? How do you know it wasn't just another one of those?”
No, no, Tom. I’m the one asking questions here. I need to gage how much background you need to understand my answer. You’re distancing yourself even farther from me by answering my questions with a question or your own.
***
Here’s a set of questions you didn’t even touch. You just brushed them off as unimportant and ok to ignore. If that’s an example of how you’ve dealt with these kinds of thoughts in the past then you’re not going to get any more answers from me than Pontius Pilate got from Jesus. And don’t distract me from the issue by accusing me of comparing myself with Jesus, again. That’ll just delay your answers even more.
Here are the questions you thought you could shove under the rug:
When you see Jesus, how will you know FOR SURE that it’s him, the REAL him and not a counterfeit?
What criteria can be used to discern the real Jesus? Finger prints? Iris scan? DNA?
One guy I know used touching the holes in his hands feet and the gash in his side to tell, but he got scolded for that. WHY?
How much thought have you put into things like this?
I have a large file waiting to get into posting form on this subject as soon as people here are ready. maybe that’s why I blurted out some of the things you’ve latched onto. I just need to have people interested in them for the right reasons, not for nailing me to a wall.
***
You see, Tom, I have to not only test your preparedness and help fill in the gaps of your understanding to answer you, but I also have to protect myself from a trick. Why would I suspect a trick from a trickster like you? Oh, I don’t know. ...call it experience? ...call it observation? Don’t you think I ought to protect myself from you just picking up new material for another paste-job? You need to convince me that you want to learn from my answer and not just use it against me, like you have been SO PRONE to do, doncha know?
You got some convincing to do.
***
So, go ahead. Start thinking about your answers.
You got some preparation to do.
It may take some intense thinking to answer my questions, especially if you haven’t intensely thought these questions through on your own for years and decades. You can’t show up as a kindergarten student and demand to be taught calculus. You have to jump through some hoops to get ready for the strong stuff.
***
Maybe we ought to go back and read the “Ubiquitously Hidden Teaching of VPW” thread and see what your grades look like there. Did you pay any attention in that class on the big difference between physical and spiritual, or were you busy throwing spitballs?
I want to answer your questions, but I’d like to think you’re asking me for your learning and not prepping for a fresh paste-job.
***
Hey! I can answer one. I’m in a generous mood.
Mike 2/3/04 5:22am. "Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL. He told me so."
I don’t remember most of your quotes, because I am constantly dealing with so many things here that fleeting one-time statements fade from my memory pretty fast. I think I remember this one though. It looks like the one WW got his shorts in a bunch over a few months ago. It was hilarious, because this is just a typo... I think.
Actually, the quote doesn’t look to be quite right. I thought there was an object of a preposition involved, where I simply thought antecedent nouns didn’t count, or something like that.
The “He” in the last sentence is supposed to refer back to Dr and not Jesus Christ. I know this from the word “spokesman.” One of the 22 “thus saith” statements is Dr claim in the Introduction of JCNG that Jesus Christ appointed him as his spokesman. It was Dr who told me that Jesus Christ appointed Dr as his spokesman.
When WW went into orbit over this I was amazed at how much effort he exerted over a simple typo. Attitude counts, Tom, so pay attention! WW’s attitude was so stinky that I just let him rant. I’ve kept my mouth shut in your recent paste-jobs regarding this one item to see if he jumps on it again, but he’s leaving me alone lately, and I’ve even detected an increase of civility emerging in some of his posts to me.
(By the way, you guys and a few others look like you have a tag-team going on me. When one gets tired, another jumps in to keep the heat on me. It’s another source of amusement for me, pondering if it’s true... er... I mean factual.)
Anyway, you’ve exhibited some civility toward me in recent weeks so I decided to throw you a bone here.
Still, I could swear there was an object of a preposition involved where I made my typo or grammar mistake. Maybe it was another one. I have way too much on my plate to chase all these things down, especially for people who don’t want to learn and just razz me and impede my progress.
You wouldn’t happen to know what thread it was on do you? If you’re going to do paste-jobs then supplying the source (and not merely the date) is the proper thing to do. Letting others know where it came from allows them to check out the whole context for themselves. Surely you can see this... unless fully informing readers is a low priority and merely influencing them is your real intention.
That's OK Mike... I'll just "assume" that you "saw" Jesus spiritually because he couldn't have been here physically cuz I heard veepee say that he's only coming back once... and I don't remember veepee saying that it was "to see Mike"... so if you don't want to tell us, that's your business... I'm sure others are curious as well...
And you just keep on throwing out your stuff... I'll just keep on asking you about it... you keep on complaining about the fact that I "bog you down" with my questions, my wanting explanations... did you ever think that there wouldn't be any "bogging" questions without "bogging" declarations by you?
So... either be prepared to be asked questions or don't make up crazy stuff to post... either way it's in your court...
Know what I mean?
OH... and I think those latest quotes of mine were from the "Open Letter to Brady" thread IIRC... and I assure you that I'm not in any sort of club who's purpose it is to tag-team you... that's just your paranoia showing through again...
I still think they’re important, and I’ll just have to repeat them if or when you do your next paste-job.
I wouldn’t discount, either, the physical aspect totally. To do so reveals two hidden assumptions you and many others make regarding the Return of Christ.
The first hidden assumption is that there is total synchronization in seeing Christ, that we all see him at the same time. The second is that we’ll see him physically. I think these need to be thought through as part of that theological make-over Dr called for TWICE in his final contribution to the Way Magazine. Remember I quoted those two places from that last issue?
Both his main article and his Our Times article warned of dark clouds over us, and both also urged us to re-think everything we believed.
Where did we come up with the idea that the Gathering Together would be a synchronous event for us all?
Where did we come up with the idea that the Gathering Together would be seeing him physically?
Then add to these theology make-over questions the ones I challenged you with above.
Do you want to walk away from all these greater issues things
just because you think I claimed to have seen him "only" or "merely" spiritually?
Where did we come up with the idea that the Gathering Together would be a synchronous event for us all?
Where did we come up with the idea that the Gathering Together would be seeing him physically?
Then add to these theology make-over questions the ones I challenged you with above.
1 Thessalonians 4
[16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
[17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
[18] Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
How can we Meet the Lord in the air if we can't see him?
We which are alive the dead..rise first , what suggests this is not at the same time??
Matthew 24
[30] And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Direct from Christ himself
Shall Appear
All the tribes of the earth
Revelation 1
[7] Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Every eye shall see him
all kindreds
What was it about the Number three--wasn't it that Three establishes it??
I noticed Mr "I-Dont-Going-Around-Insulting-People"
wasted no time on the new thread insulting me.
======
Ok, we were discussing a few of Mike's greatest hits here...
======
Mike 2/2/04, 12:17am.
"When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand
and teaching you from it."
Mike 2/3/04 5:22am.
"Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman.
Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL.
He told me so."
Vickles 2/3/04, 7:51pm.
"So, Mike, you weren't kidding about JC coming with a PFAL book in his hand."
Mike, 2/3/04, 7:53pm.
"Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once."
======
Now, Tom Strange asked him about these "more than once"
times Mike has claimed to see Jesus.
Mike asked what Jesus looked like when Mike saw him.
Mike then went into a lengthy obfuscation where he did
everything BUT describe what Jesus looked like,
and talked a lot about the "spiritual" versus the
"physical".
So-while refusing to say so outright-
which should be trademarked by Mike, who always hated
answering questions directly-
Mike INSINUATED-SUGGESTED-
that those times he saw Jesus it was some sort of
"spiritual" seeing of him,
and he didn't actually lay eyes on him in any
conventional fashion, not even a normal vision.
Tom also asked how Mike-who won't say HOW he saw
Jesus-knows he saw the REAL Jesus and not some sort
of counterfeit.
Mike's reply was typical Mike.
Mike pretended Tom never asked him, and instead
challenged Tom to tell how HE would identify Jesus
if he saw him.
Let me ask YOU a question to get you prepared for some answers.
When you see Jesus, how will you know FOR SURE that it’s him, the REAL him and not a counterfeit?
You wouldn’t want to bend the knee and swear loyalty to the wrong god accidentally.
Have you ever thought this through deeply?
I used to do this all the time in the 60’s. I saw all kinds of things then. From those experiences I would say the counterfeit is much more possible than most people think.
This is related to your questions to me, because how are you going to tell if what I saw was counterfeit or not?
What criteria can be used to discern the real Jesus? Finger prints? Iris scan? DNA?
One guy I know used touching the holes in his hands feet and the gash in his side to tell, but he got scolded for that.
How much thought have you put into things like this? I’m serious.
Before I’m allowed to bring you on a tour of the limits of the universe, I have to make sure you can take it.
In all that, supposedly, the reader isn't supposed to notice that Mike
completely dodged Tom's question, and pretended this was HIS
question. Most people can see the difference, however.
Then, of course, came another round of dodging.
Not so fast.
If you don’t know whether “actually” physically seeing isn’t better than spiritually seeing, then why did you phrase it the way you did with “actually”?
If you don’t know whether physically seeing isn’t better than “just” spiritually seeing, then why did you phrase it the way you did with “just”?
You’re going to have to answer my questions better than that or I’m going to have to make a paste-up rubber stamp for you until you do.
***
I’m not sure I understand this from your last post:
“The way you phrased it earlier didn't really make any distinction between the two...”
“It” what?
“Earlier” where?
Which “two”
I deal with a lot of parameters and references here, so please expand this sentence out so I understand it.
***
You wrote: “I'll ask you the same question back: What proof do you have that what you saw was not the counterfeit? Like you claim to have seen in the 60's? How do you know it wasn't just another one of those?”
No, no, Tom. I’m the one asking questions here. I need to gage how much background you need to understand my answer. You’re distancing yourself even farther from me by answering my questions with a question or your own.
This was Mike pretending that Tom's question wasn't under
discussion already, and that Tom was dodging MIKE's
question, rather than the other way around.
Here he goes again...
Here’s a set of questions you didn’t even touch. You just brushed them off as unimportant and ok to ignore. If that’s an example of how you’ve dealt with these kinds of thoughts in the past then you’re not going to get any more answers from me than Pontius Pilate got from Jesus. And don’t distract me from the issue by accusing me of comparing myself with Jesus, again. That’ll just delay your answers even more.
Here are the questions you thought you could shove under the rug:
When you see Jesus, how will you know FOR SURE that it’s him, the REAL him and not a counterfeit?
What criteria can be used to discern the real Jesus? Finger prints? Iris scan? DNA?
One guy I know used touching the holes in his hands feet and the gash in his side to tell, but he got scolded for that. WHY?
How much thought have you put into things like this?
I have a large file waiting to get into posting form on this subject as soon as people here are ready.
You, of course, note that ALL of that was STILL to avoid
answering Tom's question.
Then comes the famous "I meant to do that" also from
the classic Mike playbook.
maybe that’s why I blurted out some of the things you’ve latched onto. I just need to have people interested in them for the right reasons, not for nailing me to a wall.
Aaand, more reasons why he won't answer the question...
***
You see, Tom, I have to not only test your preparedness and help fill in the gaps of your understanding to answer you, but I also have to protect myself from a trick. Why would I suspect a trick from a trickster like you? Oh, I don’t know. ...call it experience? ...call it observation? Don’t you think I ought to protect myself from you just picking up new material for another paste-job? You need to convince me that you want to learn from my answer and not just use it against me, like you have been SO PRONE to do, doncha know?
Here's what Tom occasionally refers to as Mike requiring
his approval so that we have access to his advanced
abilities.
I previously claimed I didn't see them per se,
and it looks like Mike's proven me wrong on that one...
You got some convincing to do.
***
So, go ahead. Start thinking about your answers.
You got some preparation to do.
It may take some intense thinking to answer my questions, especially if you haven’t intensely thought these questions through on your own for years and decades. You can’t show up as a kindergarten student and demand to be taught calculus. You have to jump through some hoops to get ready for the strong stuff.
***
Maybe we ought to go back and read the “Ubiquitously Hidden Teaching of VPW” thread and see what your grades look like there. Did you pay any attention in that class on the big difference between physical and spiritual, or were you busy throwing spitballs?
I want to answer your questions, but I’d like to think you’re asking me for your learning and not prepping for a fresh paste-job.
Here's Mike pretending to answer Tom by addressing what
Tom didn't ask him...
***
Hey! I can answer one. I’m in a generous mood.
Mike 2/3/04 5:22am. "Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL. He told me so."
I don’t remember most of your quotes, because I am constantly dealing with so many things here that fleeting one-time statements fade from my memory pretty fast. I think I remember this one though. It looks like the one WW got his shorts in a bunch over a few months ago. It was hilarious, because this is just a typo... I think.
Actually, the quote doesn’t look to be quite right. I thought there was an object of a preposition involved, where I simply thought antecedent nouns didn’t count, or something like that.
The “He” in the last sentence is supposed to refer back to Dr and not Jesus Christ. I know this from the word “spokesman.” One of the 22 “thus saith” statements is Dr claim in the Introduction of JCNG that Jesus Christ appointed him as his spokesman. It was Dr who told me that Jesus Christ appointed Dr as his spokesman.
Here's Mike's "non-insults" of me while I'm just going about
my own business.
Notice how Mike objects to others "attacking" him,
but is swift to use derogatory terms in reference to me?
Not even something of substance, just insults.
The reader's supposed to not notice that he's using
an ad hominem attack rather than substance,
to hide the weakness of his "case."
When WW went into orbit over this I was amazed at how much effort he exerted over a simple typo. Attitude counts, Tom, so pay attention! WW’s attitude was so stinky that I just let him rant. I’ve kept my mouth shut in your recent paste-jobs regarding this one item to see if he jumps on it again, but he’s leaving me alone lately, and I’ve even detected an increase of civility emerging in some of his posts to me.
And here's another...
(By the way, you guys and a few others look like you have a tag-team going on me. When one gets tired, another jumps in to keep the heat on me. It’s another source of amusement for me, pondering if it’s true... er... I mean factual.)
Anyway, you’ve exhibited some civility toward me in recent weeks so I decided to throw you a bone here.
Generously answering what Tom didn't ask him...
Still, I could swear there was an object of a preposition involved where I made my typo or grammar mistake. Maybe it was another one. I have way too much on my plate to chase all these things down, especially for people who don’t want to learn and just razz me and impede my progress.
You wouldn’t happen to know what thread it was on do you? If you’re going to do paste-jobs then supplying the source (and not merely the date) is the proper thing to do. Letting others know where it came from allows them to check out the whole context for themselves. Surely you can see this... unless fully informing readers is a low priority and merely influencing them is your real intention.
Hey- he never actually got around to answering it.....
Unless his entire answer was the matter of the preposition,
which we DID discuss once.
(Making this an old answer to a question nobody's asking him now.)
So, here's what Mike said originally:
"Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL.
He told me so."
Here's what Mike's later claimed he meant, in an incomplete answer...
"Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Dr told me so.
Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL."
So far, Mike refused to explain the "Jesus Christ is VERY interested
in PFAL" part, as in "how does Mike justify this statement?"
But the first part was explained as
"I know vpw was appointed as Jesus Christ's spokesman,
because when I read the PFAL books, I see vpw saying
"As to JC being 'VERY interested in PFAL'" is the easiest to explain.
PFAL is the Word of God.
Jesus Christ is the Word of God.
There's cause for Jesus Christ taking interest right there.
And it makes perfect sense WHEN one believes that PFAL is God-breathed.
PFAL is the mind of Christ when it's assimilated in us.
PFAL is the means by which we recognize Jesus Christ.
That's why I said he is VERY interested in PFAL.
It's the means by which we become like him.
And there's more, but that's the simple-to-explain-to-an-antagonistic-audience part.
***
Here's another simple angle on Jesus Christ being interested in PFAL.
If he appointed Dr his spokesman, then PFAL is from the mind of Christ.
I know you and others want an answer that doesn't depend on believing PFAL,
but you can't always get what you wa-ant.
***
I didn't mean to insult you, in fact I mentioned that you seemed to be mellowing out a little, at times, and being more civil towards me than in previous years. I just thought it was funny how you miss what I say and latch onto trivialities, both due to an overzealous goal of snuffing out my message.
Usually when I ask grads about the common assumption that everything happens in sync to everyone and everyone sees Christ at the same time, the answer I get is from I Corinthians 15:52 where it says “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump....” The logic then is simple; if it takes zero time, then everyone experiences it at the same time.
But we grads have been taught different in PFAL, only we often don’t remember it all. Some parts we do remember, often the parts that line up with the common cultural teaching on this topic, but many details get lost in the shuffle, either to memory or to not absorbing them in the first times we went through the material.
Here’s what Dr wrote in the last chapter of GMWD, “The Final Victory,” on pages 227,228:
“The great hope of the Christian Church is the return of Christ and our gathering together unto him. There are aspects of Christ’s return which we find most clearly explained by God’s rightly-divided Word. In order to understand the coming of Christ, we must also understand “the mechanics” of his coming. Jesus’ first coming began with his conception and birth and ended with his ascension, over thirty years later. There were many significant phases and events during this time. In this, the second coming is similar: it will also cover a period of time and encompass several significant phases and events.
“There are four basic events included in the times of the end, when Christ returns. This is their order: (1) Christ’s coming for the Church, the Body of Christ, to gather them together and meet them in the air; (2) the events of the Book of Revelation with Christ’s coming with the Church; (3) the first and second resurrections; and finally, (4) the very end, the final point [telos], when death is destroyed and all things are subdued to God. Having this background, we can now turn to the Word of God and see its clarity.”
I’m advocating that we pay closer attention to these paragraphs, and to the many more that are written in PFAL. When we do, many more details will emerge that are not part of the common cultural picture of the Second Coming.
Have you ever noticed how few scriptures we have on OUR gathering together? You supplied two scriptures that pertain not to us but to others. The scriptures that teach us about our gathering together are rather slim in number and detail. I’m convinced that PFAL supplies more detail on these events that affect us because it’s now time for those events to take place. I’m convinced that PFAL will show us more.
In the Old Testament the mystery, the great secret that was later revealed to Paul, was kept a tight secret by God for strategic purposes. (Or is it tactical? I could never get those two words straight.) God kept it a secret to trick the devil into helping Him, in a sense.
I believe, and it’s because I was shown these things when I came back to PFAL, that God had (and has) other secrets up his sleeve, and this is why the Epistles have so little about our gathering together. When we spoke in tongues we were speaking divine secrets, as 1 Corinthians 14:2 describes “...in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.” As we master PFAL these secrets are revealed. This is why PFAL was given and this is why we were told to master it.
The people who are bugging me for answers here need to go to written PFAL and spend time looking deeper into what we were taught there. Much treasure there awaits to be discovered.
Late Edit: The very first word in this post was just corrected from "Unusually" to "Usually."
You wrote: “Mike... are you ever going to give a simple answer to my simple questiongs?”
Truth is simple, but clearing away error for simple answers to be received can be quite complicated, especially on this topic. So, the real question here is are YOU ever going to sit down and work WITH me on the error clearing process so that this subject can be discussed properly.
I will give you an answer to this latest question of yours, assuming you refuse my proposal above.
The answer is: No, probably never. Not while you're committed to interrupting and badgering.
***
You wrote: “Or are you just going to continue to "rant on"? If so, it doesn't help your credibility with anyone... not just me.”
I’m daring to take on some super sacred cows in religion. I don’t consider it ranting that I’m doing. I consider it hacking a rough trail through a dense forest. It may be rough now, but it will make it possible for others to build it into a road later.
***
You wrote: “If your credibility is lacking your message won't be believed. It's really very simple.”
Only to a simpleton.
For you to assert that other people here are going to turn around, take note, and start to believe me because I give you simplistic answers must make it very difficult for you to hold a straight face. I can see you bursting into guffaws right after you wrote that last sentence. I joined you when I read it. I’m only just now wiping my eyes.
***
You wrote: “I'm really trying to help you here... else your message falls upon deaf ears...”
ENOUGH! I can’t take it any more. My sides are splitting.
You and I both know perfectly well that there's little hope any help you offer will sway posters here.
If you REALLY want to help me (smirk) the most effective way is get your books open and celebrate the treasure with me as you re-discover it. We can do it in private so you don’t even have to think about saving face here.
Now since you don’t really want to help me win converts and can’t either, if you WOULD like to beef up the conversation (half smirk), instead of totally shutting me down, then how about YOU answering MY questions to you that are above.
In Post #6, after the previous thread's RECAP, there are about 8 questions, and Post #9 has two in the middle, excluding the other trivial ones. They generated a response by templelady and then a longer post of details by me. Please don’t make me fashion a paste-job from them to deal with your future badgering.
ALL I CAN SAY IT "GOOD GRAVY"... as usual, me in bold:
Tom,
You wrote: “Mike... are you ever going to give a simple answer to my simple questiongs?”
Truth is simple, but clearing away error for simple answers to be received can be quite complicated, especially on this topic. So, the real question here is are YOU ever going to sit down and work WITH me on the error clearing process so that this subject can be discussed properly.
Mike, why not just give the answers? If I (we) don't understand them, I (we) will let you know. Instead of you 'deciding' that I (we) are not capable of understanding.
I will give you an answer to this latest question of yours, assuming you refuse my proposal above.
The answer is: No, probably never. Not while you're committed to interrupting and badgering.
***
You wrote: “Or are you just going to continue to "rant on"? If so, it doesn't help your credibility with anyone... not just me.”
I’m daring to take on some super sacred cows in religion. I don’t consider it ranting that I’m doing. I consider it hacking a rough trail through a dense forest. It may be rough now, but it will make it possible for others to build it into a road later.
Oh... so you're just laying the groundwork for those that will follow with your message? Is that why you don't care whether or not your credibility is lacking? Those "others" that will come "to build it into a road later" will be burdened by your lack of credibility. Folks who are around later will be naturally/spiritually skeptical of those "others" "later" because they'll recall you and your lack of credibility.
***
You wrote: “If your credibility is lacking your message won't be believed. It's really very simple.”
Only to a simpleton.
How nice of you to notice.
I suppose I probably should have said "If your credibility is lacking it makes your message very hard to believe."
For you to assert that other people here are going to turn around, take note, and start to believe me because I give you simplistic answers must make it very difficult for you to hold a straight face. I can see you bursting into guffaws right after you wrote that last sentence. I joined you when I read it. I’m only just now wiping my eyes.
ummm Mike... that's not what I asserted... but I do "assert" that you would have a far greater chance of having your message accepted/believed if you had credibility... unless you're only looking to convert those who will blindly follow you... (which makes pickings at GSC pretty shallow I'd think).
***
You wrote: “I'm really trying to help you here... else your message falls upon deaf ears...”
ENOUGH! I can’t take it any more. My sides are splitting.
You and I both know perfectly well that there's little hope any help you offer will sway posters here.
Mike, I'm not trying to "sway posters here" but you are. IF you had credibility and deportment you would stand a far greater chance of having someone "hear" your message than your current persona that comes across as a mean arrogant bitter know it all who acts in a very unchristianlike manner... and I've tried to help you in the past on your deportment and now I'm trying to help you on your credibility. It's that simple really.
If you REALLY want to help me (smirk) the most effective way is get your books open and celebrate the treasure with me as you re-discover it. We can do it in private so you don’t even have to think about saving face here.
I'm not really into "saving face"... if I err, I err... it happens, there's nothing to do but move on... but I while I thank you for the invitation to "private" dealings with you I'm afraid I'll have to respectfully decline.
Now since you don’t really want to help me win converts and can’t either, if you WOULD like to beef up the conversation (half smirk), instead of totally shutting me down, then how about YOU answering MY questions to you that are above.
Let me see if I can get this right... before you'll even consider answering any of my questions ABOUT STATEMENTS MADE BY YOU ON THESE THREADS I have to answer some questions that you dreamed up to see whether or not I'm worthy of an answer? Mike, do you see where some folks might get the impression that you're a mean arrogant bitter know it all who acts in a very unchristianlike manner?
It's this type of demeanor that really limits the receptibility of your message. Folks can't get past you to get to your message... it really is a sad thing and that's why I've been trying to help you.
In Post #6, after the previous thread's RECAP, there are about 8 questions, and Post #9 has two in the middle, excluding the other trivial ones. They generated a response by templelady and then a longer post of details by me. Please don’t make me fashion a paste-job from them to deal with your future badgering.
I've got no idea (really) what you're getting at here Mike. I suppose you can call it badgering if you wish. I'm really just trying to get you to answer questions about outlandish statements you've made and continue to make... but you won't answer... but that doesn't mean that I still don't have the questions... you could solve it all by just answering... because I (and I'm betting others) am beginning to think that the answer is really "I just made it all up"...but you could change that by simply answering.
In all that, supposedly, the reader isn't supposed to notice that Mike completely dodged Tom's question, and pretended this was HIS question. ......
Tom's question - Mike's question - back and forth then back and forth once again. Who cares who asked who what question when all your doing is pitting two parties against each other. Neither one OWNS the question because neither one OWNS the answer.
... your current persona that comes across as a mean arrogant bitter know it all who acts in a very unchristianlike manner ...
In contrast to the "so-called Chistian" manner I constanlty witness from "so-called Christians" thinking that they "OWN" ALL the answers to ALL the questions, (a situation in which it makes it easy for one to accuse someone of plagarism I imagine) I tend to find the unchristian manner rather refreshing much more often. At least the non-christian is humble enough to admit they don't know all the answers anymore than they know all the questions. But then, isn't that exactly the one whom Jesus Christ came to seek and give His life for to begin with?
So the long and the short of you answer to my post is that we know that
1) two of those scriptures are not applicable, and we know
2) that the interpretation of them is incorrect
because VPW says so in PFAL
Mike, don't you see that you can't prove the truth of PFAL from PFAL. YOU can't prove the truth of anything by its existence. You prove truth by OUTSIDE corroborating evidence
You wrote: “...1) two of those scriptures are not applicable...”
Not entirely. It’s just in the TIMING of them that I would differ from you.
They apply to a later time and a different group of people.
They are still very useful and applicable in that context.
***
You wrote: “...2) that the interpretation of them is incorrect because VPW says so in PFAL”
Not entirely. I’d put it: “the interpretation of them is incorrect because God says so in PFAL, which was delivered to us by VPW, his team of editors and researchers, and the many others who had gathered various truths and even received revelations before VPW.
***
You wrote: “Mike, don't you see that you can't prove the truth of PFAL from PFAL. YOU can't prove the truth of anything by its existence. You prove truth by OUTSIDE corroborating evidence”
I agree. That’s why I don’t try to prove it.
If PFAL is not God-breathed, then what I say falls to pieces.
But if it is, then think on this.
How could any outside testimony/evidence verify it?
If it’s of God then nothing can be looked to that’s bigger than it.
We cannot say with logical integrity: “PFAL is true, because I looked at something outside it that ALREADY has established veracity, and this outside testimony/evidence vouches for PFAL.” If this were said, it would be a contradiction.
Here’s a more simple (but crude) example of this contradiction.
“I know this guy is the absolute King of our land, ruler over all, because this OTHER guy says so.”
In this contradictory sentence the OTHER guy is really ruler over all, and not the first.
I don’t try to prove PFAL because only God can do that.
Dr told us to literally do something very specific at the end of his life, just like he told us at the end of the class to do literally what he asked us to specifically do down to the most minute detail.
We all did what he told us to do at the end of the class and we all received.
None of us did what he told us to do at the end of his life class and we all lost.
When we become the first batch grads to LITERALLY do what he told us to do at the end of his life down to the most minute detail, and take up the meek mastery of written PFAL, then we will see that PFAL is of God.
The outside agent will be God Who does the proving.
***
Here are the exact words Dr spoke to us at the end of the class
and they apply well to what he told us to do at the end of his life.
They were all filled -- nobody got missed, just nobody. And, in my classes on Power For Abundant Living, nobody ever gets missed, because, if you're in this class, you've heard the Word, you've believed God's Word, God is always faithful. And nobody ever misses, if you'll do exactly what I tell you to do, right down to the minute detail.
It's like, in I Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 13. Remember where the Apostle Paul said: "I thank my God, that, when you received the Word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the Word of God."
Now, if you'll be as honest with God as that Word of God says, you too can walk into the greatness of the manifestation of the power of God.
But, if you think this is just V.P. Wierwille talking, you'll never get it.
But if you know that what I am saying - It's V.P. Wierwille saying it, but these are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is utilizing and speaking to you through my ministry and my life, then you too will manifest forth the greatness of the power of God.
If you will literally do what I tell you and ask you to do, and show you why, then you can walk into the greatness of this power, like all the rest of us have, and manifest forth the greatness of this abundance of God, the wonderful power of God.
If you can’t understand the questions I asked you in those earlier posts, or if you simply don’t want to deal with them, then you either won’t be able to understand the answers I give you to your questions or you'll not want to accept them.
The reason I can say this is because I specifically designed those questions to you to track closely with the issues you are asking me about. Since you seem unable or unwilling to deal with the issues in my questions, then you will be similarly disposed to deal with my answers.
Because you seem unable or unwilling to deal with the issues I feel that we must start with the basics, and build a foundation for understanding these things. To really do that we must dive headlong into the PFAL texts. It is THIS that I really wish to communicate to you and to readers. Those who do not want to do this are free to do so, but I’m also free to not care what they think about me.
Look at it this way, Tom, the questions I asked you are hints. Work with them.
"If PFAL is not God-breathed, then what I say falls to pieces.
But if it is, then think on this.
How could any outside testimony/evidence verify it?
If it's of God then nothing can be looked to that's bigger than it. "
Later Mike posts:
"When we become the first batch grads to LITERALLY do what he told us to do at the end of his life down to the most minute detail, and take up the meek mastery of written PFAL, then we will see that PFAL is of God."
How would you know Mike? You haven't done it yourself. You have drawn a conclusion without doing exactly what you say must be done in order to reach that conclusion. Your conclusion is irrational.
You have not taken up "the meek mastery of PFAL". You have instead taken up the not so meek mastery of irrational thought. The only parts of PFAL you have taken up to master are the ones you have irrationally misconstrued and foisted unintended meanings upon.
Your words "fall to pieces" not becasue PFAL is not God-breathed, but because they are contridictory, irrational and show no sembalance of sound reasoning.
You wrote: “You have not taken up 'the meek mastery of PFAL'. You have instead taken up the not so meek mastery of irrational thought. The only parts of PFAL you have taken up to master are the ones you have irrationally misconstrued and foisted unintended meanings upon.”
But how would you know this is the case since you have, like all the other brains from TWI (including all leadership, current and splintered, intellectually gifted or not) have STEADFASTLY REFUSED to take up the meek mastery of all of written PFAL especially to the inclusion of the magazine articles. Instead you all have allowed your initially partial understanding of PFAL to leak out for over 20 years and you have ploughed it over with a myriad of contradictory information for much of that time.
Like I say to all the others who have accused me of distorting PFAL,
it’s the distortion of PFAL that you hold in your mind that I knowingly, willingly, and vigorously violate.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
104
50
72
59
Popular Days
May 5
39
May 3
38
Apr 4
34
Apr 3
28
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 104 posts
templelady 50 posts
Tom Strange 72 posts
dmiller 59 posts
Popular Days
May 5 2006
39 posts
May 3 2006
38 posts
Apr 4 2006
34 posts
Apr 3 2006
28 posts
Modaustin
The topic: PFAL
The rules:
1. No profanity.
2. No threats.
3. No following posters to other threads to emphasize your point. If you want to argue with Mike, please do it HERE, on THIS thread. Don't drag the argument out to other threads by baiting him, then complaining to us when he replies.
4. No moderator alerts. If you find this thread upsets you or makes you uncomfortable in any way, please exit immediately, and join in on any number of our other doctrinal discussions in this forum. All other discussions will follow our usual forum rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hmmm. What can be said/ re-said/ hashed/ and re-hashed that hasn't been gone over before??
(Making popcorn, and selling front row tickets here!)
:blink: :B) :blink:
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Oh -- if PFAL means
Prosyletizing
For
A
Living ---
I should wait, and see what transpires. ;)
Mea culpa!! ---- (why am I always saying that!!???) :D
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Uh-oh!!! Just saw the other *ultimate* thread is closed!!
Tom Strange -- you Thread Killer -- you!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well I’m done unpacking, now that we’ve moved into this new thread.
Let’s let the readers in on what happened before.
RECAPPING THE PREVIOUS THREAD
On the Round One thread of this PFAL series titled “The Official, the Ultimate, the Amazing PFAL Thread, Come Back to PFAL, but watch for the land mines” in Post #1009, just before it reached such a large size that it was locked down (probably to prevent slowing down the server’s hard drive from the weight), Tom Strange had asked me a question after pasting in some lines where he quoted me.
That thread’s last page can be found here:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...00entry228278
Tom Strange wrote over there in that thread’s Post #1009 the following:
So then you're talking "spiritually" here???
Mike 2/2/04, 12:17am.
"When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand
and teaching you from it."
Mike 2/3/04 5:22am.
"Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman.
Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL.
He told me so."
Vickles 2/3/04, 7:51pm.
"So, Mike, you weren't kidding about JC coming with a PFAL book in his hand."
Mike, 2/3/04, 7:53pm.
"Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once."
...you haven't actually physically seen him? just spiritually???”
Then I responded to Tom in that thread’s last Post #1011 with:
What do you mean by “...just spiritually”???
Is that like “merely spiritually”?
Is there something lacking with spiritually?
Is there something less than “actual” with spiritually?
I think we got a lot of background work to do.
***
Let me ask YOU a question to get you prepared for some answers.
When you see Jesus, how will you know FOR SURE that it’s him, the REAL him and not a counterfeit?
You wouldn’t want to bend the knee and swear loyalty to the wrong god accidentally.
Have you ever thought this through deeply?
I used to do this all the time in the 60’s. I saw all kinds of things then. From those experiences I would say the counterfeit is much more possible than most people think.
This is related to your questions to me, because how are you going to tell if what I saw was counterfeit or not?
What criteria can be used to discern the real Jesus? Finger prints? Iris scan? DNA?
One guy I know used touching the holes in his hands feet and the gash in his side to tell, but he got scolded for that.
How much thought have you put into things like this? I’m serious.
Before I’m allowed to bring you on a tour of the limits of the universe, I have to make sure you can take it. It’s a liability issue. My hands are tied by insurance regulations. You have to be fit to survive the ride, doncha know.
In an unorthodox translation (hence the name of this thread) Tom Strange’s response to me was then transferred over to this “Round 2” thread and can be seen in Post #1 above.
So now I’m ready to continue the discussion.
********************************************************************
********************************************************************
********************************************************************
********************************************************************
Tom Strange,
Not so fast.
If you don’t know whether “actually” physically seeing isn’t better than spiritually seeing, then why did you phrase it the way you did with “actually”?
If you don’t know whether physically seeing isn’t better than “just” spiritually seeing, then why did you phrase it the way you did with “just”?
You’re going to have to answer my questions better than that or I’m going to have to make a paste-up rubber stamp for you until you do.
***
I’m not sure I understand this from your last post:
“The way you phrased it earlier didn't really make any distinction between the two...”
“It” what?
“Earlier” where?
Which “two”
I deal with a lot of parameters and references here, so please expand this sentence out so I understand it.
***
You wrote: “I'll ask you the same question back: What proof do you have that what you saw was not the counterfeit? Like you claim to have seen in the 60's? How do you know it wasn't just another one of those?”
No, no, Tom. I’m the one asking questions here. I need to gage how much background you need to understand my answer. You’re distancing yourself even farther from me by answering my questions with a question or your own.
***
Here’s a set of questions you didn’t even touch. You just brushed them off as unimportant and ok to ignore. If that’s an example of how you’ve dealt with these kinds of thoughts in the past then you’re not going to get any more answers from me than Pontius Pilate got from Jesus. And don’t distract me from the issue by accusing me of comparing myself with Jesus, again. That’ll just delay your answers even more.
Here are the questions you thought you could shove under the rug:
When you see Jesus, how will you know FOR SURE that it’s him, the REAL him and not a counterfeit?
What criteria can be used to discern the real Jesus? Finger prints? Iris scan? DNA?
One guy I know used touching the holes in his hands feet and the gash in his side to tell, but he got scolded for that. WHY?
How much thought have you put into things like this?
I have a large file waiting to get into posting form on this subject as soon as people here are ready. maybe that’s why I blurted out some of the things you’ve latched onto. I just need to have people interested in them for the right reasons, not for nailing me to a wall.
***
You see, Tom, I have to not only test your preparedness and help fill in the gaps of your understanding to answer you, but I also have to protect myself from a trick. Why would I suspect a trick from a trickster like you? Oh, I don’t know. ...call it experience? ...call it observation? Don’t you think I ought to protect myself from you just picking up new material for another paste-job? You need to convince me that you want to learn from my answer and not just use it against me, like you have been SO PRONE to do, doncha know?
You got some convincing to do.
***
So, go ahead. Start thinking about your answers.
You got some preparation to do.
It may take some intense thinking to answer my questions, especially if you haven’t intensely thought these questions through on your own for years and decades. You can’t show up as a kindergarten student and demand to be taught calculus. You have to jump through some hoops to get ready for the strong stuff.
***
Maybe we ought to go back and read the “Ubiquitously Hidden Teaching of VPW” thread and see what your grades look like there. Did you pay any attention in that class on the big difference between physical and spiritual, or were you busy throwing spitballs?
I want to answer your questions, but I’d like to think you’re asking me for your learning and not prepping for a fresh paste-job.
***
Hey! I can answer one. I’m in a generous mood.
Mike 2/3/04 5:22am. "Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL. He told me so."
I don’t remember most of your quotes, because I am constantly dealing with so many things here that fleeting one-time statements fade from my memory pretty fast. I think I remember this one though. It looks like the one WW got his shorts in a bunch over a few months ago. It was hilarious, because this is just a typo... I think.
Actually, the quote doesn’t look to be quite right. I thought there was an object of a preposition involved, where I simply thought antecedent nouns didn’t count, or something like that.
The “He” in the last sentence is supposed to refer back to Dr and not Jesus Christ. I know this from the word “spokesman.” One of the 22 “thus saith” statements is Dr claim in the Introduction of JCNG that Jesus Christ appointed him as his spokesman. It was Dr who told me that Jesus Christ appointed Dr as his spokesman.
When WW went into orbit over this I was amazed at how much effort he exerted over a simple typo. Attitude counts, Tom, so pay attention! WW’s attitude was so stinky that I just let him rant. I’ve kept my mouth shut in your recent paste-jobs regarding this one item to see if he jumps on it again, but he’s leaving me alone lately, and I’ve even detected an increase of civility emerging in some of his posts to me.
(By the way, you guys and a few others look like you have a tag-team going on me. When one gets tired, another jumps in to keep the heat on me. It’s another source of amusement for me, pondering if it’s true... er... I mean factual.)
Anyway, you’ve exhibited some civility toward me in recent weeks so I decided to throw you a bone here.
Still, I could swear there was an object of a preposition involved where I made my typo or grammar mistake. Maybe it was another one. I have way too much on my plate to chase all these things down, especially for people who don’t want to learn and just razz me and impede my progress.
You wouldn’t happen to know what thread it was on do you? If you’re going to do paste-jobs then supplying the source (and not merely the date) is the proper thing to do. Letting others know where it came from allows them to check out the whole context for themselves. Surely you can see this... unless fully informing readers is a low priority and merely influencing them is your real intention.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
That's OK Mike... I'll just "assume" that you "saw" Jesus spiritually because he couldn't have been here physically cuz I heard veepee say that he's only coming back once... and I don't remember veepee saying that it was "to see Mike"... so if you don't want to tell us, that's your business... I'm sure others are curious as well...
And you just keep on throwing out your stuff... I'll just keep on asking you about it... you keep on complaining about the fact that I "bog you down" with my questions, my wanting explanations... did you ever think that there wouldn't be any "bogging" questions without "bogging" declarations by you?
So... either be prepared to be asked questions or don't make up crazy stuff to post... either way it's in your court...
Know what I mean?
OH... and I think those latest quotes of mine were from the "Open Letter to Brady" thread IIRC... and I assure you that I'm not in any sort of club who's purpose it is to tag-team you... that's just your paranoia showing through again...
Carry on with the plan of the day...
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I had a strong eree feeling you thought I was paranoid.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
But Tom!
What about the questions I had for you?
I still think they’re important, and I’ll just have to repeat them if or when you do your next paste-job.
I wouldn’t discount, either, the physical aspect totally. To do so reveals two hidden assumptions you and many others make regarding the Return of Christ.
The first hidden assumption is that there is total synchronization in seeing Christ, that we all see him at the same time. The second is that we’ll see him physically. I think these need to be thought through as part of that theological make-over Dr called for TWICE in his final contribution to the Way Magazine. Remember I quoted those two places from that last issue?
Both his main article and his Our Times article warned of dark clouds over us, and both also urged us to re-think everything we believed.
Where did we come up with the idea that the Gathering Together would be a synchronous event for us all?
Where did we come up with the idea that the Gathering Together would be seeing him physically?
Then add to these theology make-over questions the ones I challenged you with above.
Do you want to walk away from all these greater issues things
just because you think I claimed to have seen him "only" or "merely" spiritually?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
1 Thessalonians 4
[16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
[17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
[18] Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
How can we Meet the Lord in the air if we can't see him?
We which are alive the dead..rise first , what suggests this is not at the same time??
Matthew 24
[30] And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Direct from Christ himself
Shall Appear
All the tribes of the earth
Revelation 1
[7] Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Every eye shall see him
all kindreds
What was it about the Number three--wasn't it that Three establishes it??
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I noticed Mr "I-Dont-Going-Around-Insulting-People"
wasted no time on the new thread insulting me.
======
Ok, we were discussing a few of Mike's greatest hits here...
======
Mike 2/2/04, 12:17am.
"When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand
and teaching you from it."
Mike 2/3/04 5:22am.
"Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman.
Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL.
He told me so."
Vickles 2/3/04, 7:51pm.
"So, Mike, you weren't kidding about JC coming with a PFAL book in his hand."
Mike, 2/3/04, 7:53pm.
"Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once."
======
Now, Tom Strange asked him about these "more than once"
times Mike has claimed to see Jesus.
Mike asked what Jesus looked like when Mike saw him.
Mike then went into a lengthy obfuscation where he did
everything BUT describe what Jesus looked like,
and talked a lot about the "spiritual" versus the
"physical".
So-while refusing to say so outright-
which should be trademarked by Mike, who always hated
answering questions directly-
Mike INSINUATED-SUGGESTED-
that those times he saw Jesus it was some sort of
"spiritual" seeing of him,
and he didn't actually lay eyes on him in any
conventional fashion, not even a normal vision.
Tom also asked how Mike-who won't say HOW he saw
Jesus-knows he saw the REAL Jesus and not some sort
of counterfeit.
Mike's reply was typical Mike.
Mike pretended Tom never asked him, and instead
challenged Tom to tell how HE would identify Jesus
if he saw him.
In all that, supposedly, the reader isn't supposed to notice that Mikecompletely dodged Tom's question, and pretended this was HIS
question. Most people can see the difference, however.
Then, of course, came another round of dodging.
This was Mike pretending that Tom's question wasn't under
discussion already, and that Tom was dodging MIKE's
question, rather than the other way around.
Here he goes again...
You, of course, note that ALL of that was STILL to avoidanswering Tom's question.
Then comes the famous "I meant to do that" also from
the classic Mike playbook.
Aaand, more reasons why he won't answer the question...
Here's what Tom occasionally refers to as Mike requiringhis approval so that we have access to his advanced
abilities.
I previously claimed I didn't see them per se,
and it looks like Mike's proven me wrong on that one...
Here's Mike pretending to answer Tom by addressing what
Tom didn't ask him...
Here's Mike's "non-insults" of me while I'm just going aboutmy own business.
Notice how Mike objects to others "attacking" him,
but is swift to use derogatory terms in reference to me?
Not even something of substance, just insults.
The reader's supposed to not notice that he's using
an ad hominem attack rather than substance,
to hide the weakness of his "case."
And here's another...
Generously answering what Tom didn't ask him...Hey- he never actually got around to answering it.....
Unless his entire answer was the matter of the preposition,
which we DID discuss once.
(Making this an old answer to a question nobody's asking him now.)
So, here's what Mike said originally:
"Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL.
He told me so."
Here's what Mike's later claimed he meant, in an incomplete answer...
"Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Dr told me so.
Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL."
So far, Mike refused to explain the "Jesus Christ is VERY interested
in PFAL" part, as in "how does Mike justify this statement?"
But the first part was explained as
"I know vpw was appointed as Jesus Christ's spokesman,
because when I read the PFAL books, I see vpw saying
that Jesus Christ appointed him his spokesman."
As to JC being "VERY interested in PFAL",
that statement's still unexplained...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WW,
"As to JC being 'VERY interested in PFAL'" is the easiest to explain.
PFAL is the Word of God.
Jesus Christ is the Word of God.
There's cause for Jesus Christ taking interest right there.
And it makes perfect sense WHEN one believes that PFAL is God-breathed.
PFAL is the mind of Christ when it's assimilated in us.
PFAL is the means by which we recognize Jesus Christ.
That's why I said he is VERY interested in PFAL.
It's the means by which we become like him.
And there's more, but that's the simple-to-explain-to-an-antagonistic-audience part.
***
Here's another simple angle on Jesus Christ being interested in PFAL.
If he appointed Dr his spokesman, then PFAL is from the mind of Christ.
I know you and others want an answer that doesn't depend on believing PFAL,
but you can't always get what you wa-ant.
***
I didn't mean to insult you, in fact I mentioned that you seemed to be mellowing out a little, at times, and being more civil towards me than in previous years. I just thought it was funny how you miss what I say and latch onto trivialities, both due to an overzealous goal of snuffing out my message.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
templelady,
Usually when I ask grads about the common assumption that everything happens in sync to everyone and everyone sees Christ at the same time, the answer I get is from I Corinthians 15:52 where it says “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump....” The logic then is simple; if it takes zero time, then everyone experiences it at the same time.
But we grads have been taught different in PFAL, only we often don’t remember it all. Some parts we do remember, often the parts that line up with the common cultural teaching on this topic, but many details get lost in the shuffle, either to memory or to not absorbing them in the first times we went through the material.
Here’s what Dr wrote in the last chapter of GMWD, “The Final Victory,” on pages 227,228:
“The great hope of the Christian Church is the return of Christ and our gathering together unto him. There are aspects of Christ’s return which we find most clearly explained by God’s rightly-divided Word. In order to understand the coming of Christ, we must also understand “the mechanics” of his coming. Jesus’ first coming began with his conception and birth and ended with his ascension, over thirty years later. There were many significant phases and events during this time. In this, the second coming is similar: it will also cover a period of time and encompass several significant phases and events.
“There are four basic events included in the times of the end, when Christ returns. This is their order: (1) Christ’s coming for the Church, the Body of Christ, to gather them together and meet them in the air; (2) the events of the Book of Revelation with Christ’s coming with the Church; (3) the first and second resurrections; and finally, (4) the very end, the final point [telos], when death is destroyed and all things are subdued to God. Having this background, we can now turn to the Word of God and see its clarity.”
I’m advocating that we pay closer attention to these paragraphs, and to the many more that are written in PFAL. When we do, many more details will emerge that are not part of the common cultural picture of the Second Coming.
Have you ever noticed how few scriptures we have on OUR gathering together? You supplied two scriptures that pertain not to us but to others. The scriptures that teach us about our gathering together are rather slim in number and detail. I’m convinced that PFAL supplies more detail on these events that affect us because it’s now time for those events to take place. I’m convinced that PFAL will show us more.
In the Old Testament the mystery, the great secret that was later revealed to Paul, was kept a tight secret by God for strategic purposes. (Or is it tactical? I could never get those two words straight.) God kept it a secret to trick the devil into helping Him, in a sense.
I believe, and it’s because I was shown these things when I came back to PFAL, that God had (and has) other secrets up his sleeve, and this is why the Epistles have so little about our gathering together. When we spoke in tongues we were speaking divine secrets, as 1 Corinthians 14:2 describes “...in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.” As we master PFAL these secrets are revealed. This is why PFAL was given and this is why we were told to master it.
The people who are bugging me for answers here need to go to written PFAL and spend time looking deeper into what we were taught there. Much treasure there awaits to be discovered.
Late Edit: The very first word in this post was just corrected from "Unusually" to "Usually."
It was all the fault of my spell checker.
BAD spell checker!
(swat) BAD spell checker!
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Death is being promoted here on this thread
on this forum
physical suicidal death
i have followed this from the time he started this
i know what i'm talking about
his new administration teaching
that is in the archives will confirm the same
and it will surface again
i hope noone is believing this stuff
moderators-i'm reporting my own post
you guys know that i've seen some things you may have missed
of course it's your call and your forum
if you don't ban mike, i don't know what will happen
but i felt i had to say it, so it's said
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CM,
April Fools Day!
Right?
Am I right? I hope I'm right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CM,
Could we PM a little? Or talk by phone?
I hurt for you to see you so intense this way.
I think you got me wrong, and maybe we can fix it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike... are you ever going to give a simple answer to my simple questiongs?
Or are you just going to continue to "rant on"? If so, it doesn't help your credibility with anyone... not just me.
If your credibility is lacking your message won't be believed. It's really very simple.
I'm really trying to help you here... else your message falls upon deaf ears...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
You wrote: “Mike... are you ever going to give a simple answer to my simple questiongs?”
Truth is simple, but clearing away error for simple answers to be received can be quite complicated, especially on this topic. So, the real question here is are YOU ever going to sit down and work WITH me on the error clearing process so that this subject can be discussed properly.
I will give you an answer to this latest question of yours, assuming you refuse my proposal above.
The answer is: No, probably never. Not while you're committed to interrupting and badgering.
***
You wrote: “Or are you just going to continue to "rant on"? If so, it doesn't help your credibility with anyone... not just me.”
I’m daring to take on some super sacred cows in religion. I don’t consider it ranting that I’m doing. I consider it hacking a rough trail through a dense forest. It may be rough now, but it will make it possible for others to build it into a road later.
***
You wrote: “If your credibility is lacking your message won't be believed. It's really very simple.”
Only to a simpleton.
For you to assert that other people here are going to turn around, take note, and start to believe me because I give you simplistic answers must make it very difficult for you to hold a straight face. I can see you bursting into guffaws right after you wrote that last sentence. I joined you when I read it. I’m only just now wiping my eyes.
***
You wrote: “I'm really trying to help you here... else your message falls upon deaf ears...”
ENOUGH! I can’t take it any more. My sides are splitting.
You and I both know perfectly well that there's little hope any help you offer will sway posters here.
If you REALLY want to help me (smirk) the most effective way is get your books open and celebrate the treasure with me as you re-discover it. We can do it in private so you don’t even have to think about saving face here.
Now since you don’t really want to help me win converts and can’t either, if you WOULD like to beef up the conversation (half smirk), instead of totally shutting me down, then how about YOU answering MY questions to you that are above.
In Post #6, after the previous thread's RECAP, there are about 8 questions, and Post #9 has two in the middle, excluding the other trivial ones. They generated a response by templelady and then a longer post of details by me. Please don’t make me fashion a paste-job from them to deal with your future badgering.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
ALL I CAN SAY IT "GOOD GRAVY"... as usual, me in bold:
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
In contrast to the "so-called Chistian" manner I constanlty witness from "so-called Christians" thinking that they "OWN" ALL the answers to ALL the questions, (a situation in which it makes it easy for one to accuse someone of plagarism I imagine) I tend to find the unchristian manner rather refreshing much more often. At least the non-christian is humble enough to admit they don't know all the answers anymore than they know all the questions. But then, isn't that exactly the one whom Jesus Christ came to seek and give His life for to begin with?
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
So the long and the short of you answer to my post is that we know that
1) two of those scriptures are not applicable, and we know
2) that the interpretation of them is incorrect
because VPW says so in PFAL
Mike, don't you see that you can't prove the truth of PFAL from PFAL. YOU can't prove the truth of anything by its existence. You prove truth by OUTSIDE corroborating evidence
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
templelady,
You wrote: “...1) two of those scriptures are not applicable...”
Not entirely. It’s just in the TIMING of them that I would differ from you.
They apply to a later time and a different group of people.
They are still very useful and applicable in that context.
***
You wrote: “...2) that the interpretation of them is incorrect because VPW says so in PFAL”
Not entirely. I’d put it: “the interpretation of them is incorrect because God says so in PFAL, which was delivered to us by VPW, his team of editors and researchers, and the many others who had gathered various truths and even received revelations before VPW.
***
You wrote: “Mike, don't you see that you can't prove the truth of PFAL from PFAL. YOU can't prove the truth of anything by its existence. You prove truth by OUTSIDE corroborating evidence”
I agree. That’s why I don’t try to prove it.
If PFAL is not God-breathed, then what I say falls to pieces.
But if it is, then think on this.
How could any outside testimony/evidence verify it?
If it’s of God then nothing can be looked to that’s bigger than it.
We cannot say with logical integrity: “PFAL is true, because I looked at something outside it that ALREADY has established veracity, and this outside testimony/evidence vouches for PFAL.” If this were said, it would be a contradiction.
Here’s a more simple (but crude) example of this contradiction.
“I know this guy is the absolute King of our land, ruler over all, because this OTHER guy says so.”
In this contradictory sentence the OTHER guy is really ruler over all, and not the first.
I don’t try to prove PFAL because only God can do that.
Dr told us to literally do something very specific at the end of his life, just like he told us at the end of the class to do literally what he asked us to specifically do down to the most minute detail.
We all did what he told us to do at the end of the class and we all received.
None of us did what he told us to do at the end of his life class and we all lost.
When we become the first batch grads to LITERALLY do what he told us to do at the end of his life down to the most minute detail, and take up the meek mastery of written PFAL, then we will see that PFAL is of God.
The outside agent will be God Who does the proving.
***
Here are the exact words Dr spoke to us at the end of the class
and they apply well to what he told us to do at the end of his life.
They were all filled -- nobody got missed, just nobody. And, in my classes on Power For Abundant Living, nobody ever gets missed, because, if you're in this class, you've heard the Word, you've believed God's Word, God is always faithful. And nobody ever misses, if you'll do exactly what I tell you to do, right down to the minute detail.
It's like, in I Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 13. Remember where the Apostle Paul said: "I thank my God, that, when you received the Word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the Word of God."
Now, if you'll be as honest with God as that Word of God says, you too can walk into the greatness of the manifestation of the power of God.
But, if you think this is just V.P. Wierwille talking, you'll never get it.
But if you know that what I am saying - It's V.P. Wierwille saying it, but these are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is utilizing and speaking to you through my ministry and my life, then you too will manifest forth the greatness of the power of God.
If you will literally do what I tell you and ask you to do, and show you why, then you can walk into the greatness of this power, like all the rest of us have, and manifest forth the greatness of this abundance of God, the wonderful power of God.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
It’s not a matter of worthiness.
If you can’t understand the questions I asked you in those earlier posts, or if you simply don’t want to deal with them, then you either won’t be able to understand the answers I give you to your questions or you'll not want to accept them.
The reason I can say this is because I specifically designed those questions to you to track closely with the issues you are asking me about. Since you seem unable or unwilling to deal with the issues in my questions, then you will be similarly disposed to deal with my answers.
Because you seem unable or unwilling to deal with the issues I feel that we must start with the basics, and build a foundation for understanding these things. To really do that we must dive headlong into the PFAL texts. It is THIS that I really wish to communicate to you and to readers. Those who do not want to do this are free to do so, but I’m also free to not care what they think about me.
Look at it this way, Tom, the questions I asked you are hints. Work with them.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike Posted:
Later Mike posts:
How would you know Mike? You haven't done it yourself. You have drawn a conclusion without doing exactly what you say must be done in order to reach that conclusion. Your conclusion is irrational.
You have not taken up "the meek mastery of PFAL". You have instead taken up the not so meek mastery of irrational thought. The only parts of PFAL you have taken up to master are the ones you have irrationally misconstrued and foisted unintended meanings upon.
Your words "fall to pieces" not becasue PFAL is not God-breathed, but because they are contridictory, irrational and show no sembalance of sound reasoning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
You wrote: “You have not taken up 'the meek mastery of PFAL'. You have instead taken up the not so meek mastery of irrational thought. The only parts of PFAL you have taken up to master are the ones you have irrationally misconstrued and foisted unintended meanings upon.”
But how would you know this is the case since you have, like all the other brains from TWI (including all leadership, current and splintered, intellectually gifted or not) have STEADFASTLY REFUSED to take up the meek mastery of all of written PFAL especially to the inclusion of the magazine articles. Instead you all have allowed your initially partial understanding of PFAL to leak out for over 20 years and you have ploughed it over with a myriad of contradictory information for much of that time.
Like I say to all the others who have accused me of distorting PFAL,
it’s the distortion of PFAL that you hold in your mind that I knowingly, willingly, and vigorously violate.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.