Steve Lortz

Mike - You wrote, "There are two arms of flesh I feel you still have too much respect for. One is the scholarly team that has attempted to reconstruct the original scriptures. The other is your own reasoning ability to work with the tools that scholarly team has provided."

The Word of God says that God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Rationalization of error is not the product of a sound mind. It may be the product of a deceiving mind. It may be the product of a deceived mind. But rationalization of error is *never* the product of a sound mind.

Love,

Steve

mj412 - It appears from what you write that you have drawn lessons from your experiences with demons similar to the lessons I've drawn from my own exposures. I found your post very interesting.

laleo - You wrote, "You mentioned that you found peace with Jesus Christ after reading Matthew 11:28-30. When I read those verses, I see a paradox..."

That's not exactly what happened. I wrote "When I renounced my commitment to the error I had been taught... The noose I had constructed of my own commitment was gone."

The deliverance came when I made the decision to turn away from the foolish commitments I had made, commitmnents to promoting error. I quoted Matthew 11:28-30 in my post to contrast the nature of laboring for the Lord with the nature of laboring for error.

When a person is drawn away from the Word of God by his own over desires, demons can dangle bait in front of that person. If the person goes for the lure, he doesn't actually get what he's going after, he gets his head caught in a figurative noose. The demons keep the bait just beyond reach. The harder the person strives to reach the bait, the tighter the noose becomes.

Laboring for error is working for diminishing returns. The harder you work, the more difficult it becomes. It brings frustration, disappointment and bitterness. It burns a person out. The thing around the persons neck is a noose, not a yoke.

Laboring for the Lord isn't always a cake-walk, but He never puts a task before us that we cannot do, if we pull together with Him. Yoking a pair of oxen together allows them both to pull, and actually get something done.

More later.

Love,

Steve

laleo - You wrote, "Figures of speech are pictures painted with words that create images in the reader's mind which bypass reason to evoke emotion."

That's one valid definition of figures, but it isn't the only one. There are rules of language. For instance, when giving a list with three or more elements, all of the elements are connected by commas, except for the next to the last and the final elements, which are connected with a conjunction.

"The woods were full of dangerous animals; lions, tigers and bears." (You have to imagine this sentence being read in the monotones of a middle-school lit class student.)

To write the sentence "The woods were full of dangerous animals; lions, tigers, bears." would be a violation of the rule, but it is the valid figure of speech "asyndeton" or "no ands". It doesn't draw attention to the danger presented by the particular animals, it just illustrates that there are animals and they are dangerous.

If we were to write "The woods were full of dangerous animals; lions and tigers and bears." this also would violate the rule (picture Judy Garland delivering this line in "The Wizard of Oz" Oh my!). However, this is a use of the figure "polysyndeton" or "many ands". It draws attention to each of the particular animals, and that animal's particular danger.

So, figures of speech can be apparent violations of the rules of grammar, even though they are actually valid uses. The author of the Word (God, if you are so inclined to believe) included figures to draw attention to the things HE wanted emphasized.

Now to the "laws of nature". Physics is a description of human experience stated in the language of mathematics. Newton didn't "discover" gravity. He invented (and/or developed, depending on your point of view) calculus, which he used to describe the "action at a distance" of gravity guiding the motions of the planets. The culture of the time found this very profitable, because calculus could also be used to describe the motion of cannonballs. A useful art indeed!

Newton's laws, which are called "classical" physics, were "deterministic". That is, there was an unbroken chain of cause and effect that linked every entity in the universe into an unalterable, predictable, lock-step dance, from the creation of the universe to its destruction. There was no room under Newtonian mechanics for God to influence anything after He initially set the universe in motion. This gave rise to the theology known as deism that viewed God as a clockmaker who doesn't interfere with the operation of His creation. The occurance of actual miracles became inconceivable. Eventually theologians could declare that "God is dead."

Yet, in the early- to mid-twentieth century, classical physics was displaced by quantum mechanics, which are *not* deterministic. Rather, the new "laws" are probabilistic. When a system changes its quantum state, there is *no* single pre-determined outcome. There is instead a set of possible outcomes with probabilities attached to each. Miracles are not "violations" of the laws of nature. They are instances where systems experience highly improbable outcomes to changes of state.

I believe God causes miracles, apparent violations to the "laws" of nature, in order to draw attention to things in our experience that He wants us to particularly observe; the same way He uses figures of speech, apparent "violations" to the rules of grammar, to draw our attention to particular things in His Word.

I no longer believe that miracles are the result of "spirit-realm laws" superceding "senses-realm laws".

More tomorrow.

Love,

Steve

mj412 - Please, jump in all you want to. I agree, it's a poor excuse to say "devil spirits made me do it".

laleo - You raise a lot of interesting questions. I count six major points I'd like to address. I can't do them all at once though, so I'll tackle them a few at a time until I work through them.

You raised the question, "...if something is invisible how can it exist in the physical world?" Most of the physical world is already invisible. The visible range is only a short segment of the electro-magnetic spectrum. We can use some of our devices, such as the night-vision goggles used by the armed forces, to convert some infrared and some ultraviolet into visible imagery. For the rest of EM phenomena, we have to rely on instrument readings. Much of the material of the universe is locked up in the form of neutrinos. Vast numbers of them are coursing through our bodies even as we type and read. But they interact with "physical" bodies on only extremely rare occassions. It's not hard to imagine creatures composed of invisible physical components organized on the same scale of complexity as our visible physical components.

You also wrote, "...ecstasy or tranquility or terror... these responses do exist in the physical world as a conglomeration of neurotransmitters traveling through our brains... Intelligence too exists in chemical form. Are gods and demons products of our brain chemistry? If not, what forms do they take if they exist in the physical world?"

Back when the Lord was teaching me things in the engineroom lower level, we had a casualty drill where we had to turn off the air conditioning for about 45 minutes or so. The temperature in the upper level got up into the 140s. We were probably in the 120s down in the lower level. Some of the watchstanders in the upper level were heat struck, and had to be taken forward to their bunks. I was only heat exhausted, and stayed on watch until we recovered and the air conditioning came back on line. During the time the air conditioning was off, I became very depressed. When the temperature came back down, my depression passed. The Lord used this experience to teach me that, while some of my feelings are programmable, others are hard-wired.

Since my wife was diagnosed with bipolar mood disorder, we've given a lot of consideration to the role of brain chemistry in mediating our experiences. We have had to do so, because regulating her brain chemistry through medication is what enables her to live as normal a life as she does.(Let me say we both believe that God is going to heal her in His own time. If He chooses to heal her before she falls asleep, that's fine. If not until the gathering together, that's fine, too. He's God. We're not.)

I think our experiences are mediated through the chemistry of our brains because the Word of God associates our identities with our "dust" components. "...dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." It isn't difficult for me to imagine God associating spirits' identities with some other component of their constitutions.

I don't think "gods" and "demons" are just figments of our own brain chemistry. I *do* believe they have independent existences, but they have to interact with us primarily through our minds, rather than directly through our senses.

All for now. More later. Thanks!

Love,

Steve

CoolWaters - I think you are "getting" me. I've found the best assessments of what "demons" can and cannot do to be described in the writings of Jacques Vallee, "Messengers of Deception", "Passport to Magonia", etc.

What the Word of God calls "demons" have appeared throughout human history in disguises that are comfortable to the dominant culture. In the first century they were called "demons", and were not necessarily regarded as evil. In fact, Graeco-Roman depictions of demons are nearly identical with present day illustrations of "angels". The red suits, tails and horns didn't come until the middle ages.

They have also presented themselves as ancestral spirits, elemental spirits, animal spirits, the djinn, the fairy folk, saints, Mary, archtypes of the collective unconscious, and a multitude of other apparitions. Today, they frequently appear as space aliens, the inhabitants of ufos.

I know the leader of one TWI splinter group who is teaching things in opposition to what's clearly written in the Word. He claims that the Holy Spirit is teaching him. If he isn't just lying to sound more impressive, and he really *is* getting help from a spirit, that spirit is a demon palming itself off as the Holy Spirit.

If we don't ground our understanding of spiritual matters in the same Word of God as Jesus Christ did, we are leaving ourselves open to being deceived and snared.

As far as ectoplasm goes, it has almost always been cheesecloth manipulated by a "medium". Wierwille taught many of the things he did about "devil spirits" and their "hookey-pook" because he had been taken in himself by "spiritual" frauds.

Love,

Steve

CoolWaters - You asked, "So there is not a spiritual realm and a physical realm? Is that what you are saying?

Essentially, yes, to both questions.

I believe that there *are* normally invisible intelligences who try to influence human decisions, but I don't think this requires the existence of a seperate "spirit realm".

From John 14:30 we learn that demons are limited in space. From Daniel 10:13 we learn that angels also are limited in space. From the truth that the mystery was not known until it was first revealed to Paul, we learn that demons and angels are limited in time. I think angels and demons both inhabit the same space/time continuum that we do.

True, they appear to have access to some "laws" of physics that we don't yet understand, but that doesn't mean they aren't subject to the same physics as ourselves.

We were taught that there are two seperate "realms", the physical and the spiritual, and that the laws of the spiritual supercede the laws of the physical. I no longer believe that to be the case. Just as figures of speech are legitimate uses, even though they appear to violate the laws of grammar, I believe miracles are physically legitimate, even though they appear to violate classical physics.

Angels are able to pull off some astounding things because they are working at the direction of, and with power provided by the Creator. Demons try to appear spectacular, but when you look at what they can actually do, they are pretty much blowhards. Even the demonic power to inflict sickness is over rated. If they were so hot at it, why didn't they just kill off the whole human race a long time ago?

Demons are con men, grifters, swindlers, scam artists. And here is one of their most widespread, dare I say "ubiquitous", scams. They tell a person that there is a seperate spiritual realm, or astral plane, or dreamtime, or heaven, or shamanistic "other world", and that the laws of this spirit realm supercede the laws of the natural realm. If a person could learn the "laws" of the spirit realm, then he would be able to manipulate things and events in the natural realm. The demons present themselves as guides to the spirit realm. As long as a person is willing to believe and obey the "spirit guides", they will continue to string that person along, tantalizing him with promises that are somehow never quite fulfilled.

I speak from first hand experience.

Deliverance from the demons came when I admitted that God is God, and I am not. I called on God to help me in the name of Jesus Christ, and He delivered me. It has taken a long time for me to overcome magical thinking, though. Wierwille didn't help, with his "christianized" law-of-believing sorcery.

All for now.

Love,

Steve

dizzydog - Cool handle. Sometimes my nieces still call me "Uncle Dog", even though they're all grown up now! Concerning Mike you wrote, "His sole purpose is to have his ego fed by seeing his endless words posted on the internet and the subsequent negative attention he garners with his contrary positions."

I don't think that is the case. I think Mike has been misled into believing that if he can recruit enough "OLGs" to "master" PFAL, our "believing" will reach some critical mass, and the Way will be supernaturally restored to its former glory days. He has demonstrated a lot of guts and commitment. Unfortunately, it is his commitment to error that will eventually strangle him. If he doesn't turn back to truth, he will wind up as frustrated, disappointed, burnt out and bitter as Wierwille himself wound up.

Love,

Steve

P.S. - I'll be off-line for a few days

E.W. - OOFDAH!?!

Love,

Steve

Mike - You wrote, "...I think you are ignoring Paul's use of the spiritual physical dichotomy in I Corinthians 15 and many other places."

I take it you are referring to I Corinthians 15: 44&46,

44 "It is sown a natural ['psuchikos'= 'soulish'] body; it is raised a spiritual ['pneumatikos' = 'spiritual'] body. There is a natural ['psuchikos' = 'soulish'] body, and there is a spiritual ['pneumatikos' = 'spiritual'] body."

46 "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual ['pneumatikos' = 'spiritual'], but that which is natural ['psuchikos' = 'soulish']; and afterward that which is spiritual ['pneumatikos' = 'spiritual']."

The word translated "natural" in these verses is "psuchikos" ("soulish") rather than "phusikos" ("physical"). Paul is *not* making use of a "spiritual physical dichotomy" in I Corinthians 15. He is contrasting the pre-resurrection "soulish" body with the post-resurrection "spiritual" body. The pre-resurrection body is "soulish" because it is possible to become a "dead soul". It is *not* possible to become a "dead spirit" in the sense of the resurrection spirit, therefore the post-resurrection body is "spiritual". Spirit is not the substance of some mystical, other "realm".

Regarding Plato's theory that there is a senses "kosmos aisthetos" and an invisible "kosmos noetos", Mike, you wrote, "They were Greek people he [Paul] addressed. They thought that way."

Unfortunately for your thesis, the predominant cosmology at the time Paul wrote was Stoicism, not Platonism. According to Stoic cosmology there is only one unitary cosmos. Spirit was considered to be the element air set in motion through its combination with the element fire. The predominant Graeco-Roman worldview at the time Paul wrote did *not* consider spirit to be the substance of some mystical, other "realm". Platonism didn't begin to overtake Stoicism until the catastrophes of the third century struck the population of the Roman empire, two hundred years *after* Paul wrote.

You also wrote, "God didn't mind that paradigm one bit at all, and God didn't give Paul revelation to fight against it. Why are you?"

I sat still and stayed quiet while Wierwille fed me a pack of lies and led me into a trap. I sat still and stayed quiet while the leaders of CES fed me a pack of lies and led me into a trap. I sat still and stayed quiet while Dan Toccini fed me a pack of lies and led me into a trap. I sat still and stayed quiet while Dale Sides fed me a pack of lies and led me into a trap. I'll be cursed if I sit still and stay quiet anymore (Jeremiah 17:5).

I trusted those men. I made their fleshly rationalizations of error my arm. As a result, my heart departed far from the Lord. My life, instead of becoming more powerful and "abundant", became exceedingly miserable.

I am not engaging you, Mike, because I think you are deliberately, maliciously trying to entrap people. I don't think that's the case at all. You had some wonderful times while you were involved with the Way. You saw God work in your own life, and you were able to help other people turn to God so He could work in their lives, too. I can identify with you there. Similar things happened to me. I know your desire to replicate those wonderful experiences, but I don't think we can make it happen by replicating PFAL or the Way.

Some person told you that PFAL was God-breathed and we could bring back the good old days by "mastering" it. You trusted that person, Mike, but that person was lying. Apparently, about five years ago, you committed yourself to avoid considering any "data" that contradicted the lie. Since then your own commitment has forced you to resort to fleshly rationalizations. You have made flesh your arm.

You say that an implied Christ is at the heart of everything you are trying to communicate, and I trust that is your genuine belief. But the Word of God tells us that "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks". From the things coming out of your "mouth", I would judge that the words of Wierwille dominate in your heart over the words of the Lord. Is your heart truly where you think it is?

When demons decide to go after a person, they do so by dangling a "carrot" in front of that person's nose. They know what we want, and they promise that we can have it if we just trust them and do what they ask. So, when a person falls for their line and starts doing what they ask, that person finds out that the carrot has moved. "You didn't believe hard enough." "You have not yet achieved sufficient mastery."

As the person strives harder and harder to reach the carrot, it becomes more and more addictive. The noose becomes tighter and tighter around his neck, because of his own pulling.

My life became exceedingly miserable because the harder I pulled, the heavier the yoke became. But that wasn't a good indicator for the position of my heart.

Matthew 11:28 "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

When I renounced my commitment to the errors I had been taught... and taught myself..., God in His mercy and grace allowed me to turn my heart back to Him through Jesus Christ the Lord. The noose I had constructed of my own commitment was gone.

You posed the question, Mike, "God didn't mind that paradigm one bit at all, and God didn't give Paul revelation to fight against it. Why are you?" I hope you now see better why I fight against error.

Love,

Steve

P.S. - How can you be certain, Mike, that God *didn't* give me revelation to fight this paradigm?

(edited to add P.S. - Steve)

[This message was edited by Steve Lortz on May 13, 2003 at 15:42.]

CoolWaters - The body/soul/spirit thing *was* fundamental to PFAL. I no longer believe it to be compatible with things taught in the Word of God. I don't believe the Word of God uses "spirit" to refer to the substance of some mystical, other "realm".

Mike - You are right that VP's teaching about the natural realm/spiritual realm dichotomy was ubiquitous and hidden. However, I believe it was an error, and the more I learn about things, the more convinced of that I become. The idea of a natural realm/spiritual realm dichotomy doesn't come from the Word of God. It comes from Pythagoras by way of Plato's human reasoning. It entered into Christian thinking through neoplatonism, most notably Augustine's. The version Wierwille taught was also strongly influenced by Victorian spiritualism.

Love,

Steve

P.S. - If we read back through this thread, I think we'll see that my posts have been more consistently on topic than many of the others, and my posts have been the result of intelligent reflection, not knee-jerk emotional responses.

CoolWaters - You wrote, "...it is confusing to me when one gets to the epistles and it is declared that one is 'dead' until one has 'spirit'."

I take it you are referring to Ephesians 2 which says in part, "And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins... But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace are ye saved; ) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."

This passage of Scripture doesn't declare that one is literally dead until one has spirit. It uses a figure to contrast being "dead" in trespasses and sins with being "alive" ("quickened") in Christ.

The "spirit of man" is literally the air moving in and out of your lungs through your nostrils and/or mouth. If your spirit left you, that is, if you breathed out and didn't breath back in, you would become a dead soul.

The literal meaning of the word "spirit" is "air in motion" or "wind". Breathing is so closely associated with being alive that the word "spirit" took on a figurative sense of "life" or "life as evidenced by motion". The "spirit of man" is literally his breath. The spirit of God is figuratively "God's life as evidenced by motion".

Love,

Steve

CoolWaters - To the best of my present understanding a living human being consists of a body (dust) animated by spirit (breath). This living combination of body and breath is called a "living soul" in Genesis 2:7.

When the spirit (breath) departs from a person, that living soul is transformed into a dead soul (Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6, 19:13; Hag. 2:13), or what we would call a corpse.

Where other systems associate a person's identity with his "spirit" component, the Word of God associates a person's identity with his "dust" component. "...for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return", Genesis 3:19. That's why the Word of God declares in so many places that there is no consciousness in death.

The hope that the Word of God puts forward for escaping death is the resurrection detailed in Ezekiel 37:1-14. In that passage of scripture, Israel's bodies come together at the command of the Son of man, but they do not live again until the Son of man commands the spirit of God to come into them.

Dead people, according to the Word of God, do not have an invisible existence in an invisible "realm". They are unconscious in the grave awaiting the resurrection.

I hope this helps answer your question.

Love,

Steve

Back to Wierwille's ubiquitously hidden error.

The one incontrovertible problem of human experience is that people die. The Word of God puts forward resurrection of the whole person from the dead as the solution to this problem. The adversary has always put forward the false solution, "Ye shall not surely die."

In nearly all cultures, demonic sources have taught that the real person is not the body, but an invisible something that goes to an invisible place when the visible "body" dies. As for European thought life, and its descendents, the concept of an "immortal soul" was introduced by the Pythagoreans. Plato expanded and formalized Pythagorean teachings about the duality of visible and invisible "realms".

I recently found a book by F.E. Peters titled "Greek Philosophical Terms", wherein I learned some of the following items.

Platonic philosophy, though it was in existence during the time in which the New Testament was written, did not come to dominate the culture until about the third Christian century. According to Platonism, there are two "kosmoi", the "kosmos aisthetos" or "senses universe", and the "kosmos noetos" or "intelligible universe".

The senses universe presents us with "opinion" only, while the intelligible universe presents us with "true knowledge". It's interesting to note that, while the Greek philosophers used the word "episteme" to denote "true knowledge", they used the word "doxa" to indicate "opinion". The word "doxa" appears frequently in the Word of God, where it is usually translated into the English as "glory".

So here are a few exercises:

Go to a concordance and find the uses of the word "kosmos". Does the Word of God indicate that there is a "senses kosmos" and a "spiritual kosmos"?

The Greek word for "sense" as in "senses world" is "aistheterion". Look it up. Does the Word of God indicate that the senses are always unreliable?

According to Plato, the senses world presents us with "doxa" only, not truth. How does this square with God's use of "doxa" in His Word?

According to Plato, the intelligible world presents us with "episteme" or true knowledge, which can be arrived at only through human reasoning. How does this compare with the treatment God gives "knowledge" in His Word?

Did the things Plato taught line up with what God revealed in His Word?

Did the things Wierwille taught line up with what God revealed in His Word?

Love,

Steve

Mike - I asked, "How can a person distinguish between information that is coming from the holy spirit and information that is coming from demonic sources?"

You replied in part, "...Solving this detection problem would be a great boon, wouldn't it!... Jesus Christ received revelation from the devil in the wilderness... Because he had mastered God's written Word he recognized that these revelations were from the wrong source and rejected them."

After quoting Isaiah 9:16&17 and Jeremiah 23:9-16, I wrote, "The Word of God doesn't say that the people erred because they had not mastered revelation. It says the *leaders* caused them to err. And it doesn't except any. The Way didn't implode because the followers didn't master PFAL. The Way collapsed because its leaders (including Wierwille) taught their followers by example to practice hypocrisy, to do evil, and to speak folly.

"Our hearts were broken because the Way became full of adulterers whose pleasant places were dried up, whose course was evil, and whose force was not right. Because the leaders, from Wierwille on down, were hypocrites.

"God found wickedness in the Way, and He is bringing it down. God saw folly in the Way because the leaders, including Wierwille, committed adultery, and walked in lies. They strengthened the hands of evildoers, and they still haven't returned from their wickedness. God is going to make them eat crow, because from *them* hypocrisy has gone throughout the Way.

"God tells us not to listen to them, or to 'master' their writings. Those things make us worthless because Wierwille and his imitators spoke visions out of their own hearts, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.

"If a spirit being is encouraging you, Mike, to abandon the Word of God that Jesus quoted from, and to adhere to the words of an adulterous hypocrite, that being is a demon masquerading as holy spirit."

Rather than pursuing serious dialogue, Mike, which would possibly have forced you to confront truths uncomfortable for your position, *you* decided to take offence instead.

Love,

Steve

I agree that our discussion in the last few posts would be more appropriate on the deeper do-do thread. I think Wierwille was partially right about the soul "going nowhere" upon death, but for all the wrong reasons. I think what Wierwille taught was a number of actual errors compounded, but none of them are easily demonstrable, which cuts across Rafael's stated purposes for this thread.

All for tonight.

Love,

Steve

God bless you, Jerry! I'm feeling a little down tonight. I don't know if it's because I need to go bring my blood sugar up, or because my wife is leaving tomorrow on a trip that's going to last a little over three weeks. I don't agree with your interpretation of Ecclesiates, but I don't feel like hashing it out tonight.

I do think the OT makes a strong distinction between "soul" and "spirit" in most places, mainly in the fact that "soul" seems to be able to die, while "spirit" does not. There are a number of verses that escape interpretation according to my present understanding, which is one of the reasons I'm being a lot more tentative about this than I was about "administrations".

One of the passages of Scripture that has heavily influenced my thinking is Ezekiel 37:1-14. I never payed much attention to this passage until about a year-and-a-half or two years ago. I didn't think it could apply to me since I'm obviously part of the Church, and since the existence of the Church was the great ***MYSTERY***, nothing in the OT could apply to *me*!

But... since improving my understanding of what the "new testament" is, and what Paul was writing about when he referred to the mystery first revealed to him, I'm seeing a lot of ties between the OT and the NT that I never saw before.

I currently think Ezekiel 37:1-14 is a description of the resurrection, and what we call the "gathering together", since we now know that not all shall die, but we shall all be changed. I think the spirit described in Ezekiel 37 was the spirit Jesus was referring to in John 3:5-8. I no longer believe, necessarily, that we were literally "born again" when we received the spirit that was first shed forth on the day of Pentecost. I think we were figuratively "born again" because the Pentecost spirit is our earnest (or "down payment", or "option") of receiving the spirit of the "new birth" at the time of the gathering together.

All for now. I am certainly thankful for your fellowship in this quest for understanding. It's nice to converse with sane people on this board from time to time :-)

Love,

Steve

Mike - In a previous post I wrote, "How can a person distinguish between information that is coming from the holy spirit and information that is coming from demonic sources? Or in other words, how can a person detect counterfeit manifestations of the spirit?

You replied in part, "This question of yours is at the heart of why things went so wrong in TVT and the meltdown and the early splinters, when so many good and powerful people had holy spirit and a lot of knowledge, yet were powerless to handle it. Solving this detection problem would sure be a boon, wouldn't it!"

You also wrote, "Jesus Christ received revelation from the devil in the wilderness... Because he had mastered God's written Word he recognized that these revelations were from the wrong source and rejected them."

You have solved the detection problem, Mike. If we compare a person's or spirit's words with the Word of God that Jesus quoted, and those words don't line up, then the source of those words is ultimately demonic.

Back in '87, when I was trying to make sense out of what was going on in TWI the Lord pointed out to me two passages of the Word of God,

Isaiah 9:16 "For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.

17 "Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for everyone is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still."

Jeremiah 23:9 "My heart within me is broken because of the prophets; all my bones shake; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine hath overcome, because of the Lord, and because of the words of his holiness.

10 "For the land is full of adulterers; for because of swearing the land mourneth; the pleasant places of the wilderness are dried up, and their course is evil, and their force is not right.

11 "For both prophet and priest are profane [hypocrites]; yea, in my house have I found their wickedness, saith the Lord.

12 "Wherefore their way shall be unto them as slippery ways in the darkness: they shall be driven on, and fall therein: for I will bring evil upon them, even the year of their visitation, saith the Lord.

13 "And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal and caused my people Israel to err.

14 "I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorah.

15 "Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts concerning the prophets; Behold, I will feed them with wormwood, and make them drink the water of gall: for from the prophets of Jerusalem is profaneness [hypocrisy] gone forth into all the land.

16 "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord."

The Word of God doesn't say that the people erred because they had not mastered revelation. It says the *leaders* caused them to err. And it doesn't except any. The Way didn't implode because the followers didn't master PFAL. The Way collapsed because it's leaders (including Wierwille) taught their followers by example to practice hypocrisy, to do evil, and to speak folly.

Our hearts were broken because the Way became full of adulterers, whose pleasant places dried up, whose course was evil, and whose force was not right. Because the leaders, from Wierwille on down, were hypocrites.

God found wickedness in the Way, and He is bringing it down. God saw folly in the Way because the leaders, including Wierwille, committed adultery, and walked in lies. They strengthened the hands of evildoers, and they still haven't returned from their wickedness. God is going to make them eat crow, because from *them* hypocrisy has gone throughout the Way.

God tells us we are not to listen to them, or to "master" their writings. Those things make us worthless because Wierwille and his imitators spoke visions out of their own hearts, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.

If a spirit being is encouraging you, Mike, to abandon the Word of God that Jesus Christ quoted from, and to adhere to the words of an adulterous hypocrite, that being is a demon masquerading as holy spirit.

That demon has had a chokehold on your thinking ever since the day five years ago when you decided to close your mind to truth.

It's not too late. That demon will have to leave you if you turn back to truth.

Love,

Steve

Have fun, Jerry! I'm looking forward to reading the fruits of your mulling.

Love,

Steve

Mike - Thanks for responding to my questions, and thanks for admitting that you don't have answers for all of them. I believe our style of interacting is improving, even though we don't agree.

You asked, "What are you going to do about this? Do you see a contradiction? Or a book less than what you'd expect God to bring forth?"

Shortly after leaving TWI in 1987, I began re-examing PFAL, asking the questions I was so subtly discouraged from asking while involved. I would read the material, or listen to the tape, and ask three questions: what did he say? what does that mean? and how does that line up with other things I know about the Word of God?

I came to the conclusion that some things were right, and some things were just wrong; some things Wierwille taught lined up with the Word of God, and some did not. That is still my conclusion.

I believed in a natural/spiritual duality since my teens in the '60s, about fifteen years before encountering TWI and PFAL. I only began to question whether that duality was Biblical about two years ago, when I read a book called "The Origins of Stoic Cosmology".

Stoicism was the dominant Graeco-Roman philosophy during the time the New Testament was written, and its cosmology incorporated what we might call "natural" and "spiritual" activity into a single, unitary cosmos, rather than a dualistic one split into natural and spiritual "realms".

Now I know that Stoicism doesn't line up 100% with the Word of God, but it got me to wondering whether the Word of God necessarily supports a Platonic, dualistic view of the universe. As far as I have been able to discern, the Word can be better interpreted to support a unitary cosmology.

When I went back and re-examined Wierwille's passage on the natural and spiritual "realms", it just raised more questions than it answered, questions to which I have found better answers elsewhere.

You gave the following loose definitions for the two "realms": natural realm... all that the 5-senses can detect and interact with; spiritual realm... all that can be detected and interacted by way of manifestations of the spirit. Here is another honest question: How can a person distinguish between information that is coming from the holy spirit and information that is coming from demonic sources? Or in other words, how can a person detect counterfeit manifestations of the spirit?

Love,

Steve

For everyone's benefit, my last named rhymes with "sports" when properly pronounced. It's Germanic, not Hispanic. Don't feel bad about getting it wrong. I've had to correct people all my life, especially in high school and the Navy. I'm used to it. And it's even more difficult on the internet, where we can't hear peoples' actual voices and the way they pronounce things.

When CES first came across the writings of Anthony Buzzard, we all pronounced it "boozeARD" because we thought it sounded silly to call somebody "buzzard". But when we met Anthony face to face, we found out he was a relative of the naturalist that buzzards were named after. So it *was* just "buzzard".

Mike - Regarding the possibly salacious material you intend to post, you wrote, "...especially if it distracts the participants from the more subtle issues I want to point out." Are you going to post the possibly salacious material on this thread or on another? If you intend to post it on this thread, then I would presume that the subtilties of the natural/spiritual dichotomy need be mastered before progressing to the possibly salacious subtilties.

As you can see from the questions I posted above, I don't understand what Wierwille meant when he wrote about natural and spiritual "realms". There are probably others in the same boat. Is it wise to post your possibly salacious material before you have led us into mastery of the natural/spiritual dichotomy?

Love,

Steve

Hi, Mike!

Just for a change Of pace, I'd like for you to address some questions pertaining to the topic of this thread, i.e., Wierwille's Ubiquitously Hidden Teaching, which I still view as Wierwille's ubiquitously hidden error. Here is a passage from PFAL ("The Bible Tells Me So", pp 23-24) that you say I, as a certifiable OLG, should "master".

"...We have been so schooled to revere the knowledge that comes to us through our five senses that we fail to recognize the truth that comes from the higher realm, the spiritual, where the Word of God, and not reason, has first place. Both realms or worlds are here: the natural world is factual; the spiritual world is true. As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supercedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the kingdom of God; so, there is a natural and a supernatural or spiritual world..."

What did Wierwille mean when he used the word "realm"? I looked it up in the concordance, and it only occurs seven times in the Word of God, always in the OT, mostly in Daniel. There, "realm" is translated from words that literally mean "kingdom".

In the passage quoted, Wierwille wrote, "Both realms or worlds are here." When Wierwille paralleled the words "realm" and "world", was he really making the meaning any clearer? If so, how? The concordance lists over ten different words in the Word of God translated as "world", all with differing meanings. None of them are ever translated "kingdom". It seems to me that Wierwille, by paralleling "realm" and "world", only confused the issue by multiplying irrelevant definitions.

When he wrote that "both realms or worlds are here", what did he mean by "here"? Did he mean that the natural "realm" and the spiritual "realm" are both co-terminal in space? In time? In space and time? Existentially or metaphorically? Did he mean New Knoxville, Ohio? What did he mean by "here"?

Wierwille wrote "As there are four kingdoms in this world..." and lists "...the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man, and the Kingdom of God..." I assume from Wierwille's parallel of "realm" and "world" in a previous sentence, and by his uses of "kingdom(s)" and "world" in the sentence under examination, that the phrase "this world" is referring to either the natural or the spiritual "realm". Because Wierwille included the kingdoms of plants, animals and men, I further take it that "this world" means the natural "realm" in this sentence.

If that's the case, then what are we to make of Wierwille's inclusion of "the Kingdom of God" in the natural "realm"? Is the Kingdom of God dependent on the senses and man's reason?

On April 14,2003, 14:53, you wrote, "...eventually the god who was given the 5 senses realm to control will see his [a person performing 5-senses service] weak spots and destroy."

I take it you believe "the god who was given the 5 senses realm" to be the adversary, based on the use of "world" in the KJV translation of II Corinthians 4:4, and Wierwille's parallel use of "realm" and "world".

"This world" is literally "this age" in the Greek. We are told in a number of places in the Word of God that "this age" is going to come to an end at the appearing of the Lord. Will the natural "realm" come to an end at the appearing of the Lord?

If the statement that the adversary is the "god of this world" means that the adversary controls the "senses realm", and if the Kingdom of God is "in this world", doesn't that put the Devil in charge of the Kingdom of God?

Regarding Wierwille's four kingdoms in the natural "realm" he wrote, "As... one supercedes the other... so, there is a natural world and a... spiritual world." How do the four kingdoms Wierwille listed "supercede the other"? One way the animal kingdom supercedes the plant kingdom is that all animals live by eating plants, the herbivores directly, and the carnivores indirectly. Human beings supercede both plants and animals because humans survive by eating both. Do beings of the spiritual "realm" survive by eating humans? Supercede... how?

Love, Steve

P.S. - If you're truly concerned about how people are going to respond to sexually salacious material, then don't post sexually salacious material.

Jerry - you also wrote, "Further--I say, Furthermore, Mr. Lortz, Ecclesiastes 11:5 reiterates that this is something of a mystery. The Bible doesn't reveal all there is to know about soul life."

First of all--I say, first of all, Mr. Barrax, are you taking diction lessons from Foghorn Leghorn? :-)

Next, the word "nephesh" ("soul") doesn't occur in Ecclesiastes 11:5. The word translated "spirit" there is "ruach". Speaking of which, let's read Ecclesiastes 11:4 and 5 together,

4 "He that observeth the wind ['ruach' = 'wind' or 'spirit'] shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap.

5 "As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit ['ruach' = 'wind' or 'spirit'], nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all."

Nuff said? I am thoroughly enjoying this, and looking forward to comments from all.

Love,

Steve

Jerry - Referring to Ecclesiastes 3:19 and 20, you wrote, "The very next verse places a distinction between them in that men and animals both return to dust, but human souls go back to God and animals' don't."

Neither here nor in Ecclesiastes 12:7 does the word "nephesh" ("soul") occur. We are reading about "ruach" ("wind", or "spirit", or "breath", or "air in motion").

Ecclesiates 3:21 is not making a statement about where "souls" go. It is asking a question which was answered in the two previous verses, both humans and animals "have all one breath ['ruach' = 'wind' or 'spirit']. When they die, all the dust returns to dust; all the spirit returns to God, Who gave it.

Here's another point that Wierwille muddified. In PFAL Wierwille declared that soul is "that which makes you *you*". Wierwille associated identity, and hence consciousness, with the "soul" component of his three-part man. The Bible seems to associate identity, and hence consciousness, with the "dust" component of the two-part living soul.

Love,

Steve

Jerry - You asked, "...what term would you use to describe the gift God put on Moses (by which he prophesied) and how does that differ from nephesh?"

Were you referring to the incidents related in Numbers 11:16-29? The word "spirit" in this section (verses 17, 25 twice, 26 and 29) is consistently translated from "ruach", which is "wind" or "air in motion". As far as I can see, the word "nephesh", or "soul" doesn't occur in the section at all.

Since the presence of spirit (as "breath") is so closely associated with life, I believe the word "spirit" took on the figurative sense of "life". I think the phrase "spirit of God" could be taken to mean "the life of God as evidenced by movement".

It is interesting to note also, that speech cannot normally be produced without breathing. Speech could be seen as a function of "spirit". Hence, an association between "spirit" and prophecy. Perhaps that's why II Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is "God-breathed" ("theopneustos").

How does that differ from "nephesh"? Living "nephesh" indicates a whole being, composed of a body animated by spirit. The spirit is evidenced by "breath". Without breath, the being becomes a dead nephesh, or corpse.

Love,

Steve

Jerry - I always enjoy dialoguing with you. My wife and I occassionally attend services at the local Christian rescue mission. They are the best I know locally for the practical application of Christianity, since they operate where the "rubber meets the road". But I can't discuss the finer points of theology with them. Different members of the body have different functions. Like I said, I always enjoy dialoguing with you.

You wrote, "You mentioned that the word 'spirit' is used to refer to air in motion and connected it with an occurance of nephesh in Genesis 2:7, but you say they're not synonymous."

I can see that I've made my exposition of Genesis 2:7 too brief. The verse says, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath ['neshamah'] of life ['chaiyim']; and man became a living ['chai'] soul ['nephesh']."

To me, this verse appears to say; man = dust, dust + "neshamah chaiyim" (breath of life) = "nephesh chai" (living soul).

Though they look a little bit alike, "neshamah" (breath) and "nephesh" (soul) are not the same.

Now "neshamah" is not the word "ruach" ("wind" or "spirit"), but we find the phase "breath of life" in other places, like Genesis 7:15: "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath ['ruach' = 'wind' or 'spirit'] of life ['chaiyim']."

And again in Genesis 7:21 and 22; "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath ['ruach' = 'wind' or 'spirit'] of life ['chaiyim'], of all that was in the dry land, died."

The way I understand the use of "neshamah" in Genesis 2:7 is this; while all breath ("neshamah" = "air moving into and out from a body") is spirit ("ruach" = "air in motion"), not all spirit ("ruach" = "air in motion") is breath ("neshamah" = "air moving into and out from a body").

That's why I formulated my understanding of Genesis 2:7 as "man = dust, dust + breath (spirit) = living soul"

A living soul is a two-part being. It has two components; "dust", or what we might call "body", and "spirit". If God has not breathed spirit into a body, that body does not become a living soul (see Ezekiel 37:1-14). When a living being's spirit departs (when it stops breathing), that being becomes a "dead soul" (see Leviticus 21:11; Numbers 6:6, 19:13; Haggai 2:13; in these verses "nephesh" or "soul" is actually translated in the KJV as "body"!?!).

So... the word "nephesh" *does* occur in Genesis 2:7, but that doesn't mean "soul" is synonymous with "breath of life" ("neshamah" or "ruach") or "spirit".

Taking a break. More later.

Love,

Steve