All Activity

To clarify my vision for this subforum: Think about each thread as an invitation to current members of TWI to explore their doctrines and teachings. Imagine you're now in TWI and you stumble onto GSC. Bunch of so-and-sos. The Word is the really important thing. So you work your way down to doctrinal. Lots of critical discussions about various issues but what do these clowns think of what we teach at TWI? So on this one, we start threads with ideas that are TWI catch phrases. I started with Private Interpretation, and explained why it does not mean what TWI thinks it means. What are the ramifications of that? Floor's open. Someone with more time might want to start a thread on The Four Crucified. Why does TWI teach it, and do you still believe it? If not, why not? "No Errors or Contradictions." Is that a Biblical position to take? [Spoiler alert, in the Bible, there's no such thing as a Bible, so no]. The Bible is the Word and Will of God? The Venn Diagram of The Bible, God's Word and God's Will should not be a perfect circle. Discuss. So I hope that clarifies things.

The Way International teaches that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation," meaning readers should allow the text to interpret itself rather than use their reasoning skills to decipher what the text really means. Division in the church comes from one group or more "privately interpreting" various scriptures about any number of topics (John 1:1, water baptism, etc). Instead of "letting loose" on our own, we should let the Bible speak for itself. The proof text is II Peter 1:20. The ironic problem with this is that II Peter 1:20 is not talking about the meaning of scripture. It's talking about the origin. When Peter says no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, he's not talking about deciphering the meaning of the words. He's talking about the scripture prophecies being "God's Word." That's why the next verse says how holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (ignore the caps if that makes you happy. Not the point). So if you allow scripture to interpret itself in its verse and context, you find that II Peter 1:20 is not talking about "private interpretation" in the manner that The Way uses that term. The funny thing is, I do not have a problem with the principle of letting scripture interpret itself and bringing as little of yourself into it as possible. The author of the document is not you. It is not fair to inject your experience and presupposition into a text to decipher the author's meaning. You have to discern the author's meaning to the best of your ability. For the Bible, this opens a HUGE can of worms because everyone starts with presuppositions. The Way starts with the presupposition that the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God. It is not correct to say "The Bible contains God's Word." It is correct to say "The Bible IS God's Word." That means under that presupposition, you are compelled to conclude the Bible has one author (many writers, but one author) and that its message on all issues is coherent. The Bible is not allowed to contradict itself, and what Paul says about a subject (say, speaking in tongues) has to be harmonious with what Luke wrote in Acts, regardless of the appearance that they contradict each other on their face (Paul says no one understands a tongues speaker, Acts has hundreds of people seeming to understand a dozen tongues speakers). So we propose explanations: Acts was an anomaly. Paul was generalizing about the norm. Without the presupposition of harmony due to a single Divine author, you could just as easily conclude Paul and Luke simply disagreed, or that one (or the other) was simply wrong. Is it "private interpretation" to use logic and reason to infer logical, reasonable explanations for apparent contradictions? Or is that allowing the scripture to interpret itself? I would argue the latter. To sum up, we could go off in a million directions on this topic, but the bottom line is that VPW, and by extension The Way International, got II Peter 1:20 wrong. It is not about the meaning of scripture. It's about the inspiration behind it. Verse 21 should be read in unison with verse 20, as both are addressing the same subject. Thoughts?

Sorry. "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain." George

No Donovan fans here? It's Catch The Wind. FREE POST!

George?

Ben Chaplin Tim Blake Nelson Jared Leto

I'd prefer not to. I'd rather see threads on The Four Crucified, all scripture interprets itself, JCING, The Law of Believing, tithing, etc

Could be useful. Are you going to shift some of the threads from About The Way?

All right, let's move this on. Proof 1: X = 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 +1/4 + 1/5 +1/6 +.... ln2 = 1 - 1/2 +1/3 - 1/4 +1/5 -1/6 ... X-ln2 = (1-1) + (1/2 - (-1/2)) + (1/3 -1/3) + (1/4 - (-1/4)) + (1/5 -1/5) + (1/6 - (-1/6)) +... = 0 + 1 + 0 + 1/2 + 0 + 1/3 +... = 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + ... = X If X = X-ln2, then X is infinite Proof 2: 1 > 1/2 1/2 = 1/2 1/3 + 1/4 > 1/2 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 +1/8 > 1/2 next eight terms > 1/2 next sixteen terms > 1/2 X is the sum of an infinite number of terms all greater than 1/2, so X is infinite. I figured out the first proof myself, back in high school. A math teacher showed me the other one. FREE POST George

No sunshine, but another element of nature is involved.

Christopher Lee The Man with the Golden Gun Britt Ekland George

Correct. "Beam me up, Scotty" was never said, but "Beam me up" occurred often. In the other series, it was usually "Energize." George

Correct. And I've heard it on the radio (on an oldies station). George

That's me. Secret agent. Busted! Now, look at all I have to lose. Warm friendships. Insight into 4 crucified. Alas, couldn't fool you.

I don't mind calling you out...you sound like an 'innie' posing as an 'outie' lol...what you couldn't join and post as an imposter for longer than a month ?? Sure, see you at the Rock...I need a fresh reminder of how delusional people can 'manifest' hypocrisy...

Running Scared Jimmy Smits Star Wars Episode 3-Revenge of the Sith For those who saw "Running Scared" and wonder who he was, he played Detective Tony Montoya, one of the 2 young detectives that were undercover. "Croissant?" "Nice car. What do you call it, 'the Chicken-Mobile'?"

Appears to be "Star Trek." (The Original Series.)

It does. The only artist I know who did a broadcast of this song was DANNY AIELLO. He was on Saturday Night Live- which was indeed broadcast. The song was "CHUBBY CLEMENTINE." So, a cover of Bobby Darin's song.

Just so I can say I asked, Cream with "Sunshine Of Your Love"????

Greetings all. This sub forum is an experiment. It occurred to me that there was no specific place to discuss the doctrines of TWI as distinct from the practices and history. So THIS forum is specifically to discuss what TWI teaches and whether it is Biblically accurate. That's it. Please stick to that. I'm talking to you, fellow unbelievers. We get it. You think it's all bunk. No need to repeat it every thread. All are welcome to discuss whether Christians should tithe or go beyond. All are welcome to discuss whether the law of believing makes scriptural sense. But if you're going to go on every thread and ... You get the picture. Just don't. Thx

In the chilly hours and minutes Of uncertainty, I want to be In the warm hold of your loving mind.

waysider's turn.

I misremembered. It wasn't about the plural, it was about the singular. I think Quayle thought potato should have an e at the end. There are some references which consider potatoe acceptable, but the vast majority consider it a misspelling. George

I believe we're teetering on the verge of politics, but to set the record straight: The "potato" thing was bout correcting someone's spelling of the plural of potato. One was Quayle; the other, I think, was someone in middle school. One said potatoes, the other said potatos. The former was correct. The Jack Kennedy thing was during the Vice-Presidential debate with Lloyd Bentsen in 1988. Dukakis-Bentsen lost to Bush-Quayle by a whopping 420-111 electoral votes. George

I'll give it a couple more days. If no one has it by then, I'll let you know what I've got. George