Steve Lortz

Verses 42-45 develop some of the differences between our current bodies and our resurrection bodies; corruption/incorruption, dishonor/glory, weakness/power, natural body/spiritual body. At first glance, this final contrast between natural and spiritual bodies seems like it might provide some evidence for a dichotomy between natural and spiritual realms, but we need to take a closer look. In the first place, the Greek word we usually translate as the English "nature" is "phusis". "Natural" would ordinarily come from "phusikos", from which we get the English word "physical". Physicists were originally called "natural philosophers". The word translated "natural" in the section of the Word of God under examination is not "phusikos", but rather "psuchikos" from which we get the word "psychic". "Psuche" is usually translated "soul", so "psuchikos" might better be translated as "soulish". So the Word of God in I Corinthians 15 is not contrasting a "natural realm" with a "spiritual realm", it is contrasting a soulish, pre-resurrection body with a spiritual, post-resurrection body. Consider the phrase "spiritual body". If we accept the traditional definition of "spirit" as the immaterial essence of a person, and the traditional definition of "body" as the material husk that is left behind when the spirit passes over to the other side (the "spirit realm"), then we are left with an oxymoron. Either the Word of God is wrong, or the traditional definitions are wrong. I'm not prepared to propose a definitive solution, but I have a strong hunch that the classical definition of "body" was much broader in some ways than our own. The final contrast in this part of I Corinthians 15 is the contrast between Adam, out of the earth, made of dust, and Jesus Christ, out of heaven. As he that was made of dust, so also are those made of dust. As the heavenly one, so also are the heavenly ones. As we bore the image of the one made of dust before the resurrection, so also shall we bear the image of the heavenly one after the resurrection. Sometimes we think of "spirit" as the substance of the "spirit realm" in much the same way we think of "dust" as the substance of the "natural realm". If that were true, and "heaven" was the same thing as the "spirit realm", wouldn't it be reasonable to parallel "out of the earth, made of dust" with "out of heaven, made of spirit"? Yet the Word does *not* do this. Hope this gives you some things to think about, Todd. Love, Steve

Todd - I want to address a few things you brought up in response to my post about the absence of a dichotomy of natural/spiritual realms in the Word of God. I didn't write that Pythagoras *invented* the dichotomy, I just said he introduced it into western thinking. Ol' Pyth probably got it from the Egyptians, along with his geometry. The dichotomy of realms view also seems to have been pretty dominant in the region of India for a long time. Swedenborg reintroduced the idea to western thinking in the mid-1700s, but he did it with a "Christian" spin. Some of the spiritualists, like Madam Blavatsky started importing the Hindu variety in the late-1800s, early-1900s. It seems the Hindu variety achieved a certain prominence in popular culture with the Beatles. Maybe that helped prepare the ground for PFAL's attraction to hippie-types in the early '70s. You asked about apparent references to the dichotomy of natural/spiritual realms in the last part of I Corinthians 15. I take it you mean verses 35 through 50 of that chapter. The first thing to notice is that the word "realm" (or "kingdom") doesn't occur anywhere in the section. The context is set in verse 35, "with what body do they [the resurrected] come?". The contrasts here are not regarding two different "realms", they are regarding different (not necessarily just two) types of "bodies". Verses 36-38 compare death and resurrection to the planting of a seed, and the resultant eventual springing forth of a plant from that seed. In our social system, we recognize the continuity of life between the acorn and the oak, but they didn't necessarily recognize that continuity in first century society. We have to view this through *their* understanding. The point Paul is making in 36-38 is that plants, which have one kind of body, come from seeds, which have a different kind of body. When the dead are resurrected, they won't have the same type of body they had before they died (so don't worry about being a "night of the living dead" zombie). In verse 39 Paul contrasts different types of flesh; human, animal, fish, bird. In verses 40 he contrasts earthly bodies with heavenly bodies, and then in verse 41 Paul contrasts the differing "glories" of different heavenly bodies. He lists them; sun, moon and stars. Literally speaking, the heavens are what you see when you go outside and look up. The ancients believed that the sun, moon and stars were gods, so the word "heavens" took on a figurative meaning of "where the gods dwell". The Word of God often uses "heaven" in a figurative sense to indicate the place where God lives. It is not literally in a different realm or cosmos. Plato wrote about a dichotomy between an imperfect sensible realm and a realm of perfect, insensible forms or ideas. When people interpreted the Word of God through Platonist intellectual-filters, they associated Plato's imperfect, sensible realm with the earth, and his perfect realm of ideas with the scriptural "heavens". This is an imperfect... as Mike might say, "5-senses"... association. Taking a break. Love, Steve

In his early postings on this thread Mike defined it's topic as Wierwille's ubiquitously hidden teaching, the idea that there is a "dichotomy of realms: the Natural/Factual Realm versus the Spiritual/True Realm". I have entitled this post "The Ubiquitously Hidden *Error* of VPW". The idea that there is a "dichotomy of realms" *is* ubiquitous because it pervades just about all of Wierwille's thinking on spiritual matters. It is also hidden because it seems so obviously true that it is never questioned. It is never demonstrated from the Word of God. It's "truth" is simply taken for granted. It is also an error. The Word of God never asserts that there is a "dichotomy of realms". The idea that there are two realms, the material and the spiritual, was first put forward in western thinking by Pythagoras in the early days of Greek philosophy. It was developed and championed by Plato. It was furthered in various schools of Platonic philosophy, but it didn't become dominant until Stoicism failed to satisfy questions raised by the terrible catastrophes that hit the Roman empire in the third century. The writings that compose the Word of God are not Platonic, as can be seen by comparing them with the writings of Philo, an Alexandrian of the Jewish diaspora, who tried to reconcile the Jewish Scriptures with Platonism a few decades before Paul wrote. There is no hint in the Word of God that there are natural or spiritual "realms". "Spirit" is contrasted with "flesh", not "the senses"; and spirit and flesh don't exist in different "realms", they both subsist within the same unitary cosmos. The phrases "sense-knowledge" and "senses-realm" do not appear in the Word of God. They *do* however appear in the writings of the neo-Platonists. Augustine was a neo-Platonist before he became a Christian, and Platonic dualism carried over into his theological writings. The idea of a material/spiritual, sense knowledge/true dichotomy is one of the greatest tatterations to which our understanding of the Word of God has been subjected. The Church's view of the universe lost credibility during the Enlightenment. The Natural/Spiritual dichotomy was brought back into western thinking by the religious writings of Emmanuel Swedenborg in the mid-1700s. His writings inspired people like Ralph Waldo Emerson on the more scholarly side, and the pioneers of spiritualism on the "never give a sucker an even break" side. The evidence suggests that Wierwille picked up his view of the spirit "realm" from some pretty questionable sources. In the PFAL class VPW mentioned "Mr. Fletcher". Mr. Fletcher was the supposed "spirit guide" of Arthur Ford, a popular spiritualistic medium of the early- to mid-20th century. The truth that Ford used deceitful tricks to hoax his audiences has been exposed. I remember hearing about "apports" and "psychic surgery" in the advanced class. Both of these things have also been exposed as clever tricks. It seems Wierwille trusted the deceitfulness of his five senses to the detriment of his understanding of truly spiritual matters. I find it more and more difficult to conceive that Wierwille actually believed the strange amalgam that constitutes PFAL. Love, Steve

Re: Jerry's comments on "All Scripture Interprets Itself" Not to mention all the times in the Scriptures themselves where they have to be interpreted for various people, such as; the class Ezra ran, the road to Emmaus, the Ethiopian eunoch, etc., etc. Love, Steve

Ex10 - According to my post of Feb. 12, 2003, 13:39, on LarryP's "Picky Picky Picky: What's up with Martindale's robe?" thread, I have already been studying your correspondence course on cluelessness in my WC... er...AC closet. I believe God has revealed to you the mystery of cluelessness as it has not been known since around 1:30 pm. Or did you forget? And I am UNANIMOUS in that! Love, Steve [This message was edited by Steve Lortz on February 12, 2003 at 18:55.] [This message was edited by Steve Lortz on February 12, 2003 at 18:56.]

As Popeye might say, "It's disgustipatin'!" Love, Steve

Rafael - I'm happy to discuss my thinking with you, but it's my policy to keep the conversation public. I decided on this policy even before I became active on the internet, because I found that some religious leaders will say one thing in private, and a different thing in public. Reflecting on some of your own recent experiences may give you some insight into the wisdom of this policy. I'm looking forward to further dialogue with you! Love, Steve

Rafael - If you've got any questions about how I view the verses in Romans 11, feel free to ask. I won't dodge 'em. Love, Steve

We, too, could have rewarding, well-paid careers in the fast-paced, exciting world of auto repair... er, uh, ...the exciting, fast-paced world of the prevailing Word... if we would only go back to master PFAL. I wish you could read it in the *original*! Send a private e-mail right now for service that will beggar your imagination! Love, Steve

Do you realize that more people have voted that they think Smeagol/Gollum is the best-looking guy in Middle Earth than have voted "yes" to hearing any more of Wierwille's arcane maunderings? Love, Steve [This message was edited by Steve Lortz on February 06, 2003 at 20:40.] [This message was edited by Steve Lortz on February 06, 2003 at 20:40.]

Is the Florida media going to force this poll into a re-count? Where are the pregnant Chads, and how did they get that way? Love, Steve

I can't wait to see the special effects WETA comes up with for the scene where the BLESPA TROLL inspects Indy's papers anally. They ought to top the fight with the balrog at the beginning of "The Two Towers". Hold it. That would be Industrial Light & Magic. Never mind... Love, Steve

Jerry - I'm presently pondering how to begin a thread I'll start posting in a few days time. The thread will be "Implications of PFAL Errors", or "Deeper Errors in PFAL", or something like that. Rafael has done an admirable job of doing what he set out to do, without becoming bogged down, or distracted onto some doctrinal tangent. I regard interpretational errors as being "actual", even though that particular aspect of "actuality" was outside Rafael's scope for this thread. One of the things I want to do is to examine the actual, specific rhetorical techniques Wierwille used to deceive our thinking. Another is to address Wierwille's errors of omission. Another is to examine errors that came into our thinking, not so much a result of Wierwille's analysis, but as a result of his plagiarism. We may get into detailed examinations of dispensationalism, the divinity of Jesus Christ, etc., but it might be best to spin off subsidiary threads regarding specific subjects in order to keep the "mother" thread on topic. I also believe there are topics, such as the "speaking in tongues" that you brought up, Jerry, where there is much truth admixed with some error. I think it's important for us to examine issues like that, as well. Just some thoughts. I'm looking forward to getting the dialogue rolling. Love, Stev

My wife persuaded me to come in out of the cold and put my pants back on... but my face is *still* blue, though, OKAY!?! :-) I'm taking this week off from engaging in the debate, but I'm continuing to follow the discussion. I'm thinking through how to approach some of the deeper errors, those too interpretational to suit Rafael's purposes on the thread. One thing that occurs to me is that we could also compile a list of Wierwille's bogus teaching practices. Things like circular definitions, using words in certain ways before giving the definitions in order to make his definitions look more substantial than they actually are, building elaborate arguments and then presenting non-sequitur conclusions, cherry-picking verses, etc., etc., etc. Just a thought. Back to hibernative rumination. Love, Steve

Rafael - I understand your purpose for starting this thread, and agree with your assessment of my particular contributions. I think Wierwille both preached and taught as he presented PFAL. I think he preached some profoundly right things. When people took those things to heart and turned to God through Jesus Christ, I think we got some tremendously powerful results... from *God*! At the same time, I think Wierwille taught some profoundly erroneous doctrines. As I "renewed my mind" to the doctrine of PFAL, my heart was gradually turned away from God. Only God's mercy and grace have preserved me from reaping the full harvest of the errors I cultivated. I think I'm going to take about a week off from this in order to rest and regroup, then start a thread or two in the doctrine section. I'm looking forward to putting my head together with troubledwine to compare notes on some of the things we're thinking. Love, Steve

Congratulations, Rafael! The work you have done here, coupled with the work Jerry Barrax did on his "PFAL Review" thread, reminds me of news photos of the German people rising up to tear down the Berlin wall, piece by piece, dancing and celebrating on top of the wreckage. It makes me want to paint half my face blue, climb up on top of the PFAL rubble, turn my backside toward New Knoxville, bend over, flip my kilt up, and bellow "FREEEDOMMMM!!!!!" That's MY gut feeling! Love, Steve

#4 - When I posted my second piece on this error, I said the level of detail was going to be mid-range. I left out the figure of speech analysis (as well as most of the Greek) to keep my post from being so long it would put people to sleep. I consider this to be high-end detail, so I'm going to have to charge twice my original price. Believe me, it's worth every cent! On page 146 of FSUB Bullinger used II Timothy 3:16 as an example of "asyndeton", or "no ands" (You get the cigar, Zix). This is what Bullinger had to say: "2 Tim. iii. 16,17.-'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable -for doctrine, -for reproof, -for correction, -for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.' "Here we are hurried on, and not asked to stop and consider each of the four things for which all Scripture is profitable: but we are asked especially to dwell on the *object* of it: viz., thoroughly to furnish: the man of God for all the circumstances in which he may be placed." Bullinger's analysis says that the figure throws emphasis on "thoroughly to furnish", not "instruction in righteousness". Furthermore, he wrote, "...we are... not asked to stop and consider each of the four things for which all Scripture is profitable." This suggests to me that the use of asyndeton indicates we are not to try to tease apart the four things. This impression is further strengthened by the singularity of the subject, "all scripture". Yet on page 1660 of the "Companion Bible" Bullinger's passion for structure appears to have overcome his passion for figures of speech. There he set forth the idea that Romans, Ephesians and Thessalonians are profitable for doctrine; Corinthians and Philippians are profitable for reproof; while Galatians and Colossians are profitable for correction. In order to make this structure work, distributing 4 profits among 7 epistles, Bullinger first reduced the number of profits from 4 to 3 by writing that "Doctrine and Instruction" are the same thing. But that still doesn't work out evenly, 3 profits among 7 epistles. So in the entry for Thessalonians he wrote, "...No 'reproof'. No 'correction'." Bullinger contradicted his figure of speech analysis with his structure analysis. I don't think Bullinger's structure analysis is justified by what's actually written in Paul's epistles to the churches. What good is this "key" for "resolving apparent contradictions"? In seven years involvement with TWI, the only time I ever heard this principle invoked was when a person justifying Marindale's sexual predation (this was back in '87, for all you late comers) said that the injunctions against fornication and adultery in Corinthians didn't count, because those books "weren't for doctrine"! Hah! Double hah!! I think Wierwille wanted to plagiarize Bullinger's structure analysis because it looked so cool, and sooo *learn-ed*. But he couldn't use Bullinger's method of reducing 4 profits to 3, because Wierwille also taught in other places that different words mean absolutely different things. So he plagiarized and twisted Berry's translation as I demonstrated in one of my previous posts on this particular actual error. That's also why I think Wierwille's error regarding II Timothy 3:16 was thought through, deliberate, and not inadvertant. All for now. Love, Steve

Good post, Jerry. That's genuine testimony, not claptrap TWI "witnessing". Love, Steve

Dartanian3m wrote, "I know that Mark Graeser or John Lynn would be willing to be the friend to you that you have offered to be to those here." But only if you agree with them. Been there, done that, threw away the T-shirt. They don't rape people, but their "friendship" is just as shallow as the old TWI "friendship". Love, Steve

Rafael - You wrote, "I'm not ignoring your post. I'm just overwhelmed by it." I'm overwhelmed by it, too. That's why I brought it up here. I know I ain't gonna find any instant answer on this one. That's also why I'm questioning how appropriate it is for this particular thread. Everybody else, even Mike - Can any of you remember or find any place in Wierwille's writings where he gives an explicit, non-circular definition of the simple word "spirit"? Love, Steve

Erick - You wrote, "Everyone rails on me saying that I am defending and justifying VPWs errors." Have *I* railed on you saying those things? I respect the passion you are feeling, but sometimes people in the throes of passion need to take reality checks. I do it, and have to help my wife do it, all the time. I have some *really big* axes to grind here, but I'm not "spiritually oppressed and enslaved by bitterness". There are some people here who might seem to fall into that catagory, and some of them are hasty and harsh in their speech. But don't lose your perspective on their account. Other posters like alphakat and Catcup are working through passions every bit as valid as your own. I have benefited from many of your posts in the past, and am glad you are here, working along your own path to freedom, sharing your experiences with us. Please don't leave, or close your mind to the experiences of others. Love, Stev [This message was edited by Steve Lortz on January 29, 2003 at 10:23.]

A brief "Mike" comment before launching into the meat of this post. As I was following up on some of the things troubledwine has posted, I came across the following paragraph (PFAL, p 230): "For years I read around the Word of God with the writers of outside works being centers of reference for me. Soon I suffered from a common disease called mental confusion because equally great men regarding the same verse of Scripture would contradict each other. When I began to consider the process of learning, I finally came to the conclusion that instead of spending my life in confusion with men's opinions I would accept one center of reference for truth which was outside myself, and that was the Word of God." Apparently Mike has decided to follow the example of his hero... only Mike has accepted the word of Wierwille rather than the Word of God as his center of reference. Wierwille's paragraph reveals something interesting. He didn't judge the validity of a man's opinion by comparing that opinion with what's written in the Bible. He judged a man's opinion by the greatness of the man. Wierwille mistook eisegesis for exegesis. He mistook *his own* opinion, the opinion of a *man*, for the Word of God. His assessment of the validity of his own interpretations were not based on how well they accorded with what is written, but on his own assessment of his own greatness. By cutting himself off from all opinions except his own, Wierwille abandoned the kind of checks and balances against error that many people here at Greasespot are working to develop. Wierwille traded mental *confusion* for mental *delusion*, another common disease, and IMO, so has Mike. Now back to our regularly scheduled program. Some things have been simmering in my mind for about a year-and-a-half now, but troubledwine's posts questioning what Wierwille wrote about "made, formed, created" have brought my thinking to a boil. I couldn't get to sleep for half the night last night. I went to bed four times but I couldn't quiet my mind enough to go to sleep, even after eating a big batch of turkey lunchmeat for the L-tryptophane (sp?). I kept getting back up to search something out in the Bible, or PFAL, or "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" (RHST). My gut feeling is that nearly the entire section of PFAL entitled "The New Birth" can be demonstrated to be an actual error, but not in accordance with the rules Rafael has set down for this thread. The whole issue hinges on the definition of "spirit", and I haven't been able to find any place in Wierwille's writings where he explicitly defined the word. From some of the ways Wierwille used "spirit", it seems he viewed it in a Platonic sense as the substance of the ideal realm. I no longer regard that view to be biblical. I think the Bible uses "spirit" ("ruach" in the OT, "pneuma" in the NT) first, in its literal sense of "wind" or "air in motion", and second, in a figurative sense of "life", as evidenced by the air moving in and out of living things (animal, human, demon, angel, god). I base this opinion on the uses of "ruach" in Ezekiel 37. On page 232 of PFAL Wierwille wrote, "Are those three words 'spirit,' 'soul' and 'body' synonymous? They are no more synonymous than are *created*, *formed* and *made*. *Body* means *body*, *soul* means *soul*, and *spirit* means *spirit*." Wierwille's definitions of "body", "soul" and "spirit" are as purely circular as definitions can be. A circular definition is one that defines a word in terms of itself. Most circular definitions are disguised by using synonyms. It is not possible to create definitions more purely circular than those given here by Wierwille. Circular definitions are not valid in logic, because they fail to "define" or "limit the meanings of" words, but circular definitions are very valuable in rhetoric (the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience), because they enable the speaker or writer to use a word any way he wants to, without the possibility of being pinned down to a specific meaning. On pages 12-15 of RHST Wierwille defined "the Holy Spirit" as "God, THE GIVER"; and "holy spirit" as "power from on high"; but he still didn't define the word "spirit" itself. As we saw from PFAL page 232, we can't say for sure what "body", "soul" and "spirit" meant to Wierwille, but we can be certain he said they meant different things. Yet on page 234 of RHST (5th edition) Wierwille wrote the following: "Meaning soul life. The person himself, that which makes a man a living being; the natural life common to all man. It is also breath life (Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59). All men have 'soul life' which is *pneuma* or spirit, called 'the spirit of man,' but not all men have eternal life, *pneuma*, holy spirit." (RHST, Appendix II, "Usage of the Word *Pneuma* or *Pneuma Hagion", 3.) In PFAL Wierwille denied the possibility that "spirit" and "soul" are synonyms. In RHST he used them as synonyms. I think the implications of this actual error go far beyond those of any other error posted so far, in discrediting the validity of many things Wierwille taught in PFAL. So far in fact, that I think they go beyond the parameters of this thread. If somebody else can point out a place where Wierwille explicitly defined the word "spirit", then I might have to say, "Never mind." Thanks for entertaining this possible derailment, Rafael! Love, Stev

Hey! Check out the pin up of Smeagol/Gollum that Rafael posted on page 10 of the "Actual Errors in PFAL" thread. You don't have to read all the junk, just scroll down the page till you find the picture. How could anyone resist HIM? Love, Steve

The picture of Smeagol/Gollum reading "PFAL" is just too precioussss!!!!!! I laughed out loud in the library! Love, Steve

I spent six years in the nuclear Navy, messing around with reactors and radioactive stuff. Invisible stuff that could kill us. We had two manuals, each about four or five inches thick. Everything we did, we were required to do "in verbatim compliance with posted procedure", because we were dealing with invisible, deadly, counter-intuitive things (sort of like spirits in many ways). That's where I learned hermaneutics, long before I was exposed to PFAL. My wife has been diagnosed with bipolar mood disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, and a little bit of obsessive compulsive disorder. Much of my daily routine is concerned with monitoring and preventing her from acting on her "gut feelings". I'll take good calculations over gut feelings any day of the week. Love, Steve