What The Hey

Here is the answer to your question (and to some other people's question) why the robbers are not mentioned in Luke's gospel. VPW answered much the same question already in JCOP - Why Four Gospels - p.445. ... Among theologians, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the "synoptic Gospels." They are so called because these Gospels share a common outline of events, in contrast to the Gospel of John. However, in practice this categorization has been used to accentuate alleged discrepencies between John and the other three Gospels. To group the Gospels in this fashion is an unscriptural tool brandished by critics of God's Word to support their theories. [isolating Luke's account apart from the Gospel of John and the other gospel writers would of course support your (and the theologians) opinion regarding the 4 crucified with Jesus Christ. VPW further states ...] No one historical record, Biblical or otherwise, covers every detail regarding a given time period, event, or person. Volumes have been written on the American revolution in the late eighteenth century. Even when these writings are accurate, they may cover the period of the revolution from different viewpoints with different details. This does not necessarily mean they are contradictory; rather, these works often corroborate, augment, supplement, and elucidate one another. The same is true of the four gospels. In John 10:35 Jesus Christ stated that "the scripture cannot be broken." In other words, no scripture is contradictory to another scripture. With this as a guiding principle, one can study the four Gospels to see how accurately they fit with one another. {Footnote # 2. This is in great contrast to many critics who search for and manufacture "contradictions" in attempts to show God's Word does not fit.} [This likewise accounts for a lot of the problems when dealing with heteros-allos]. ... In studying Jesus Christ's earthly life and ministry, one Gospel may give details regarding an event not recorded in another Gospel. [The reason why the robbers are not mention in Luke's gospel.] Too often readers will assume that each Gospel must record all the details, not realizing God had a divine purpose in having four Gospels written which together give the fullness of His revelatation concerning Jesus Christ's life and ministry. If certain details are included in one Gospel but not in another, it is by God's own design and revelation that they were written in that fashion. --------------------------------- I am simply not isolating one Gospel record of the crucifixion from the others when differentiating between the malefactors and the robbers - which of course, the theologians do. But if they insist on isolating the Gospel records from one another, then they have a real problem proving only two were crucified because both theives (or robbers) reviled Jesus according to the records that are given in Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32, while in Luke 23:39 and 40 only one of the malefactors "railed on him [Jesus]" while the other malefactor defended Jesus. The bottom line is: when one isolates the Gospels from one another then one can support just about any doctrinal position they want in regards to the crucifixion. For example: How many different movies have been produced regarding the crucifixion of Jesus Christ? I lost count a long time ago, but every one of them has practically something different to say about it. The last one I saw was produced by Mr. Gibson. Making movies about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ may make a lot of money for Hollywood, but it simply does not make for a lot of good theology. IMO, the only thing coming close to being accurate in: "The Passion of The Christ" would have been the scouraging, and even that point is highly debatable. I know you completely understood what I meant when I said, "The bible does not record what the malefactors did to deserve to be crucified. You completely understood I was refering to the crime the malefactors committed and not something else. The remark is of no higher caliber than Raf purposely quoting me out of context when I said: "There ... are ... four ... lights! [crosses]. He too knows I was refering only to the evil-doers crucified with Jesus Christ and not the total crucified. I have no problem answering genuine concerns and questions people may have (which only seems to be fewer and fewer at GSC). I just don't have the time to give for anyone's patronizing, that's all.

The root word: Kakos, however, is a noun. Kakorgos is translated as malefactor 3 times and evil-doer once. In Luke 23:32, 33 and 39 it is translated as malefactor, where as in 2 Timothy 2:9 it is translated: evil doer. There is another word similar to Kakorgos: "Kakopoios" and it too is translated as malefactor and evil doer, however it is translated as evil doer far more often than Kakourgos. It is translated 4 times as evil doer and as malefactor only once. In John 18:30 Kakopoios is malefactor, but it appears as "evil doer" in 1 Peter 2:12, 14, 3:16, and 4:15. So which of these two words - Kakorgous or Kakopoios, are you going to insist upon being the noun and which one the adjective? The bible does not say what the malefactors did to be crucified. Nor is it comparing the malefactors to the robbers but rather differentiating between them by use of the word heteros - it's not comparing them. As said earlier, every robber is a malefactor or evil-doer, but not every malefactor (evil doer) is a robber. By the use of word heteros, the malefactors that were led out with Jesus were not robbers themselves, but they certainly did do something (other than robbery) that deserved death by crucifixtion. That is what the word heteros establishes. Heteros is not there in Luke 23:32 to compare the malefactors to Jesus Christ, nor is it there to indicate Jesus was a different evil doer or a different malefactor than the two led out with him! The only reason heteros is used is to show the difference between the two led out with Jesus and the "other" two that were brought and crucified later on. But when heteros is combined with allos in regards to the crucifixtion, the Word of God then reveals the order in which the legs of the "others" were broken. That is really all these two different Greek words heteros and allos do regarding the crucifixtion of Jesus. It only establishes that the malefactors were "off another kind" - that they were different than the robbers who were brought and crucified later. Both the robbers railed on Jesus but not the malefactors - only one of the malefactors railed on him. But when both useages - heteros and allos are combined in the record of the crucifixtion, the Word of God also establishes the order in which the legs of the robbers and the malefactors were broken. Even without the contribution of these two different Greek words for "other" [heteros and allos] the Word of God is crystal clear a total of 4 were ultimately crucified along with Jesus Christ. Anyone who cares enough can see it themselves. All one simply needs to do is pay careful attention to the time frame during the crucifixion. They will also see that both robbers were brought later on, and both robbers (not one robber) railed on Jesus. The heteros/allos observation is mainly there as: "icing on the cake". But some people have a difficult and hard enough time handling just the cake part, let alone saying nothing of the 'icing'. There ... are ... FOUR ... lights!!! - (Actually that would be crosses - not lights, Captain Picard!)

I never said you were wrong - but then you're not entirely correct. Neither is WordWolf. WW is only partially correct in saying heteros means "another of a different kind". Where he is wrong is in stating heteros has nothing to do with a numeric quality or there being "only two". Well, apparently he overlooked this verse when dealing with the word heteros. Luke 22:32 And there were also two other [heteros] malefactors led with him ... The word for other in this verse is not the word allos (more than two) but it is the word heteros, because there were only two malefactors involved - and there were not more than two malefactors led out with Jesus. Here it is heteros to also show the malefactors are "of a different kind". In other words, the malefactors could not have been robbers, as they are heteros "of a different kind" then the duo lestai. While every robber is a malefactor (an evil doer), not every malefactor (evil doer) is a robber. The Word of God does not say what the malefactors did to deserve to be crucified, but we do know they didn't commit robbery because of this word heteros. The two malefactors (duo kakourgoi) are different from the "duo lestai" - the two robbers. The Word of God clearly indicates there were ONLY TWO MALEFACTORS and that there were not more than two that were led out with Jesus. So if the argument you want to make is that heteros has no "numerical quality" (as you and WW seem to be intent on making the arguement heteros has no numeric quality) then one could likewise put forth the argument all four evil doers (or rather that "allos" - that more than two evil doers) were led out with Jesus from Pilate's Hall there in Luke 22:32- and that all FOUR of them were crucified at the same time Jesus was crucified. But we know from other scriptures that this is not the case. The robbers were brought later - and they were brought after they hung up the superscription over Jesus's head. This is only one of many reasons why heteros means there are ONLY TWO!. The mistake is in thinking that heteros MUST mean "only two" in every single situation in the bible as one critic had pointed out. One way to find out if that is true, is simply replace the word "other" with the word "another" and see if the scripture still makes sense gramatically. If it does, in that particular situation then heteros will ALWAYS mean ONLY TWO - not more than two, where as, in other situations it "may be" (not must be) different. I've already shown this to be the case, but in only one example and instance. I did a more in-depth word study on heteros quite some time ago just to check to see if the word heteros was used instead of allos or perhaps some other Greek word that was translated "other". Now if the word "other" happens to be the Greek word heteros and when the word "another" is substituted in its place (and the phrase still makes gramatical sense and keeps its thougth continuity) then HETEROS in that verse will ALWAYS BE ONLY TWO - AND NEVER WILL IT BE MORE THAN TWO in those verses. I have already done this with every verse where heteros appears, as this word seems to be the entire crux of the problem. But this isn't true with allos. Whenever you substitute the word allos with the word "another", then it does not ALWAYS mean ONLY two like it does with heteros - because allos can mean more than two. Now there are times where allos is only two, but whenever it is more than two, you will find that the word another still fits gramatically and that is not the same case as it is with Heteros! But when you do this with the Greek word Heteros and it DOES fit gramatically THAT IS WHERE heteros will ALWAYS be only two and never be more than two. With Heteros it will never, ever mean more than two as it does with allos, when the word "another" is substituted and takes it's place. The argument and the confusion over heteros-allos was all started by a critic when they "assumed" heteros did not mean: "only two". I have pointed out that are some situations in the Word where it does not mean only two, and these are the cases where one CAN NOT substitute the word "another" for 'other' and have the scripture maintain its continuity and still make gramatic sense - it is in those cases where heteros is different. Why bother to substitute the word "other" with 'another'? What's the point? For one thing, the Greek word heteros is also translated as the word: "another" it not singularlly translated as 'other'. (Look it up if you don't believe me.) You will not find the same situation to be true though with the word allos when you substitute allos with "another". Why? Because with allos when you substitute it with the word 'another' - in EVERY case and in EVERY situation the scripture constantly maintains its continuity and likewise makes gramatic sense - but with Heteros - it DOES NOT ALWAYS do that. When and where heteros DOES make gramatic sense though, and maintains thought continuity (when the word "another" is substituted for 'other') that is when HETEROS MEANS ONLY TWO and never MORE THAN TWO. When the word other is replaced with "another" and a scripture doesn't make any gramatical sense or have any thought continuity, that is the only time when heteros is a different story. You got it now? I'm not 1000% sure, but perhaps that is what VPW meant when he said, "Heteros may and is used also as a generic discrimination in some instances..." I don't believe anyone ever got the opportunity to ask him too much about that though. I don't believe the question was even raised for that matter.

Well remarkably, it's both yes and no to this one. There are times in the Word where number is an issue, and then there are times where it is not. I'll get into this later. I do recall a while back there was a intense debate regarding these Greek words heteros/allos. It ensued simply based on the fact VPW stated in TWW (p237) heteros means “the other” or second of two when and where there are only two - and allos means when there can me more than two. From these definitions provided in TWW, one easily jumps to the conclusion that it must always be this way, yet from my study of PFAL and the PFAL collaterals, this is and was not the complete and sole definition the bible student is given for these two Greek Words. Maybe Mike can shed more light on this, but as far as I am aware - the definitions given for heteros and allos appear in at least 3 of the PFAL collaterals: specifically in TWW (on p237), in RTHST (p174), and in JCOP (starting on p165). Each collateral gives the student a little more depth and insight on the meanings of these two different Greek words for "other". Essentially this is all VPW gives for these definitions in TWW and what is also stated on p174 of RTHST. However it is in JCOP where VPW brings up the issue where heteros means “another of a different kind” (on p165) and where allos means “of the same kind”. (p166) When adding these descriptions to these two different Greek words for other, it adds more intricacy to their meanings. Essentially what you would ultimately end up with (according to VPW's defintions for allos and heteros) would be: Allos – means “the other” or second of two when and where there may be more - when the other is of the same kind. Heteros – means “the other” or second of two when and where there are only two - when the other is of a different kind. But one of the first things that needs clarification is: VPW never said for allos there must always be more than two and for heteros there must always be only two. What VPW said was, for allos there may be (not must be) more. Naturally this would imply there could be situations when allos means only two and there may be situations where there are more. May be does not mean - must be, and even I had to get this straight in my understanding. I can understand why Heteros is a bit more difficult to grasp, - because VPW stated for heteros there can only be two involved where the word heteros is translated ‘other’. That is how I initially got the idea myself that it “must always be” this way. But then, I was reading into what VPW said thinking there must always be only two involved in every situation when the word heteros is used in the bible for ‘other’. Likewise you’ve probably had the same reasoning yourself and also concluded the same thing. Well, I was wrong in my understanding of both definitions for allos and heteros, because initially I believed it absolutely had to be – that it must be (not that it may be) this way for both these two words: allos and heteros. FOR MANY PEOPLE: THIS IS THE ENTIRE SUM of the HETEREOS - ALLOS debate. It is all based on this one dimensional thinking of these two different Greek words for "other". But this still doesn’t answer the more important question; that is: “Just how does the bible student know when it is more than two when allos is given, and when does one know when there are only two involved for heteros? After all, VPW said it “may be” this way, not that it “must be” – remember? I recall one critic who wanted to prove VPW was wrong in saying "heteros" does not always mean "only two". As scriptural proof, they pointed out to you Matthew 12:45. In Matthew 12:45 – it says: seven other (heteros) spirits. Seven is certainly more than only two, right? They used this scripture to prove to you there is an "error in PFAL" (which truthfully doesn't exist to begin with) because VPW NEVER said heteros is ALWAYS translated like this. The reason why VPW is correct, is because likewise, there are also scriptures in the bible where heteros does mean: only two. For example: Matthew 6:24: it says: serving two masters – God and mammon – he will hate the one and love the ‘other’. Now here the Greek word for other is: heteros. God and mammon are only two, they are not more than two. With this misunderstanding out of the way, we can go on to: “Just how does one know when heteros is referring to ‘other’ when there is more than two, and when it is referring to the ‘other’ of only two whenever it appears in the scriptures? The word Heteros can be translated as ‘other’ in the bible, but there are also places where heteros is translated another. And this is part of the answer. The times in God’s Word where heteros appears as ‘other’ and when and where only two are involved, the bible student can take the word ‘other’ (remove the article ‘the’ first) and replace it with the English word “another”. By removing the article “the” and ‘other’, and replacing it with word “another” the scripture will still make grammatical sense in English. On the "other" hand (pardon the pun) one can’t do the same thing when and where heteros involves more than two. Here is an example: One can’t have seven “another” spirits (heteros as it appears there in Matthew 12:45) but one can certainly hold to the one, and despise “another” (heteros as it appears in Matthew 6:24). If one is having difficulty determining whether or not heteros means only two or if there can be more than two - just apply this simple test. I am not saying that this is the one and only test one can apply to determine the proper usage of heteros in the bible, but I have found that it does work remarkably well. This simple test also works very well when dealing with the "others" crucified with Jesus. It is also rather enlightening when applied.

Actually it is this very thing which has gotten the VPW critics all worked up. It's not really an issue over whether or not VPW properly cited his sources and likewise footnoted them. How very ironic! The critics who charge VPW with not properly citing sources and proper footnoting (plagiarsim) have already proven they have no interest or concern regarding the footnotes already present in the PFAL series and collaterals. If they were really concerned about the footnotes in the PFAL series, the footnotes would only make it harder for them to misrepresent VPW and his position. The footnotes present in PFAL only makes it harder for one to misquote VPW and take him out of context. Here's proof Dr. Wordwolf: A good example is the four crucified with Jesus. It is difficult to disprove this position when one closely scrutinizes all the scriptures that deal with those crucified with Jesus Christ. By careful scrutiny of the scriptures one easily recognizes two malefactors were led out with Jesus from the Praetorium. Sometime afterward, two robbers (it says theives in the KJV) were brought and crucified along with Jesus and the two malefactors when they hung up the superscription over Jesus Christ's head. The debate the critics make against this position hinges on the meanings of the Greek words for "other" - the Greek Words specifically being: heteros and allos. VPW gives the definitions of these Greek words in TWW on p237 as such: Allos – means “the other” or second of two when and where there may be more. Heteros – means “the other” or second of two when and where there are only two A problem arises when a student finds where the Greek word heteros has been used, but in some cases there are scriptures where heteros was used and more than two are involved - not "only" two according to the definition that VPW provided in TWW. Here is a prime example of "lazy scholarship" - not necessarily so much on VPW's part but rather on the part of the PFAL student. VPW NEVER said heteros MUST always indicate there are only two. That's a definition of heteros being read into the definition of heteros given by VPW by the lazy student. If we look at the footnote of heteros in RTHS today (p174) VPW states: "Heteros may and is used also as a generic discrimination in some instances, but not in this Corinthian section where heteros always means “another” in respect to two parties. While VPW did define heteros as meaning "only two" he did not give the student the definiton that heteros must always mean and be only two. This is readily seen in the footnote when VPW states heteros may and is also used as a generic discrimination ... yet the critics don't bother with this part of the footnote. They have built an entire argument against the four crucified on the premise that heteros MUST always mean "only two". A more masterful PFAL student can see from this footnote in RTHS this is NOT the only definition for heteros. Even VPW himself recognized this, although many of his "apprentice" students completely missed it. Now they think they think they are more masterful at rightly dividing the Word than VPW - they got to start another thread about all the errors in PFAL, eh? They were also given the vehicle for rightly dividing the word, but it's not VPW's fault if you're just someone who let the tires go flat. As far as accusations of plagarism - IMO it makes more sense to do away with copyright infringement and all the legal wranglings that accompany it in favor of "compulsory licensing". The music and recording industry already recognize this. Compulsory licensing takes away the control of the copyright owner; as a copyright owner has no right to refuse, restrict or interfere with a license's statutory rights under the license agreement. It simply pays the owner their just compensation. Napster had started a good thing if you ask me.

It doesn't takes revelation as much as it takes the proper training. Anyone who has been properly trained can pretty much accomplish the same thing. For example, CES has a much better work of disproving the doctrine of the Trinity in their book "One God and One Lord" than the original book "JCING" published by TWI. I agree. Without VPW's initial contribution, CES's book: "One God & One Lord" would likely never have made manuscript form, much less would we see a book that even made it to press - or a book ex-TWI members would ever consider purchasing and owning. I am sure you heard VPW say his ministry was to raise up leaders and teachers who were better qualified than him in many ways. But what many find questionable though I believe is whether or not that goal was accomplished. Perhaps to some degree it has been, while to another degree it has completely gone the opposite direction. It all depends largely on the particular individual or the particular group of individuals and exactly what their particular desires happen to be, you see. The only reason why some people believe it has gone completely the opposite direction is because (as aptly said in episode IV of Star Wars) all this pointless bikering is getting us no-where. The VPW antagonists and their: "Sermon on Mount Plagarism" makes up a small portion of all that "pointless bickering getting us nowhere" and is the main reason why some people are still stuck in the same lousy episode of "TWI-Wars".

You certainly have to be and must be joking - right? What I am about to say will likely rub you the wrong way, especially when you are someone affiliated with the media. Only the gullible could believe the media has the gospel on everything, and those inside the media and the 'so called know' are the custodians of "Truth". The funny thing is, nobody has seen a single retraction printed on the front page of any paper the media has ever publshed right after their lie had made it into the headline the previous day. The gullible are those who believe the media has made and put forth a valid argument, but all that's been accomplished is the printing and the presentation of reams and volumes of biases based SOLEY on the petty squabblings of men. Those inside the media have never solved a thing. The war continues because the media loves to print reams and distorted volumes of prejudices to constantly fuel the bonfire of people's confusion. Afterall, that's what puts the almighty $ into their pocketbook so why change? The media has hardly contributed anything or resolved a single thing for the benefit of man. I would not call that amusing. In fact I find and call it rather tragic. Oh well. I'm sure you'll have a "snappy come-back" for me. It's to be expected after I cut off your right arm with my "Truth-Saber!" Oh OUCHHH! I'm sure it must sting and hurt a lot.

I find your lack of faith ... "disturbing". :blink: (Darth Vader choke hold.)

Good. Gooooood my young apprentice! Wield your PFAL-Saber and cut off another part the body. Mark and avoid and strike him down. Kill him! Do it! Good - Goood!! No need to feel shame. After all it’s only natural. He cut of your right arm - you wanted revenge. He was much too powerful to keep alive anyway. Do you want to kill me? Ohhhhhhhhhh - I know you would! I can sense your anger as you continually reflect on and remember the sins and frailties of VPW and all the ministry leaders who have failed you. It gives you focus. It makes you strooooooonger in the dark side of The Way! Hmmmmmmm, I sense something – there’s a presence here that I have not felt in a long time. Could it be a PFAL grad? So my old PFAL apprentice has now become the PFAL Master! The FORCE of the light side of PFAL is STROOOONG with you Master Mike! Very well then. If you will not be persuaded to join the DARK SIDE of TWI, then I’m afraid young Mike Skywalker – you must -- die. DIE!~~~~DIE!! ~~~~~(sizzle) ~~~~ Yes I realize I am over-dramatizing. But it’s not like we all can’t sense the blue lightning streaming from the fingers pointed at Mike by those who have joined: “the TWI dark side”. Reading their remarks is like watching an old cheesy ‘70’s sci-fi flick and just about as entertaining. It truly has become the metaphor for some people’s lives. The reason it’s so popular I imagine. Oh well, C’est la vie. Another episode of TWI-WARS has begun and people are still stuck in the previous episode. No thanks. I’ll pass on the stale (TWI) popcorn being tossed at each other seeing how it's permeated this thread like all the rest.

So the only reason some people are still involved is because they believe that the Return of the Jedi is going to happen? Well hey - if the dark side gets you cool looking yellow eyes and a purple lightsaber , I'd go over!

Because it was a part of the old testament law, just as circumcision was. Peter could just have easily said, Can any man forbid circumcision there in Acts 10:47 as he did water. When reading the book of Acts one MUST remember the book of Acts is not a doctrinal epistle written to the church to establish church doctrine. The book of Acts was written to show us the transition between the Gospels and the Epistles. The book of Acts shows us the practices, functions, works and actions of God in the believers in the first century. It also shows us how God intervened (on a number of occassions) to correct the early believers wrong practices and actions. The first century believers did not get everything right - doctrinally speaking. To assume the early Christians did do everything right would to be blind to God's intevention in their lives in many cases. We see God's intervention in the lives of these early believers to correct their actions because they did not clearly understand that Jesus Christ was the end of the law. This is one of the reasons why they kept many legalistic practices, such as water baptism, and circumcision, and not eating things common or unclean. It was Peter who stated, Can any man forbid water. Why did he say that? Because Peter was Judean, and being Judean he was still being bound to many Jewish traditions and to the law. He even discipled himself to not eating anything considered to be common or unclean as well as water baptism. We recognize this in the book of Acts in chapter 10, and also how God had intervened in Peters life to correct his thinking and eventually his actions in Acts 11 regarding both these practices. (God also intervened in Pauls life when he was headed to Jerusalem and that wasn't God's will.) In v. 11 and 12 of Acts 10, Peter ... saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the corners, and let down to earth. Later on he retells this vision to those of the circumcision in Acts 11. Acts 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creaping things, and fowls of the air. To Peter this vision represented unclean animals that were forbidden as food sources by Judean tradition and the law of Moses. Acts 10:13, 14 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. Pretty funny. Here we recognize Peter is calling God his Lord, but at the exact same time he said in essence. "No Lord, I'm not going to do what your telling me to do here." We see at this particular point in time Peter had disciplined himself to Judean law (not to the will of the Lord though) so he could truthfully declare that he had never eaten anything that was considered common or unclean. This is the reason why Peter also stated, "Can any man forbid water." Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. We see God's intervention here in Acts to enlighten Peter's understanding. Acts 10:16 says this was done not only once, but it was done three times - but the vessel was received up again into heaven. But we also see here that Peter never got around to rising, killing and eating here in this record, did he. Why? Because God never forced Himself on Peter to: 'rise, kill and eat'. Likewise, He won't force someone into NOT being water baptised either, and He still won't force someone into doing what is right. No, God never forced Peter into acting properly. But we do know now from this record that Peter started to doubt his Jewish traditions on account of and because of this particular vision that God gave him. Acts 10:17 says: Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean... Peter doubted, meaning he started to consider deeply which was necessary for him to eventually believe the lesson that was within this startling vision. It is interesting to note it was this vision that not only caused Peter to question his Jewish tradition about eating things called common or unclean, but eventually caused him to doubt water baptism. We see this in Acts 11:16. (This record is where Peter is recounting to the circumcision the vision that God gave to him earlier in Acts 10). Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said John indeed baptised with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Why did Peter say this to the Jews instead of saying to them, Can any man forbid water like he did earlier on? Because in Acts 11:15 the gift of Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the Word, and Acts 10:46 it says... they heard them speak with tounges and magnify God. In Acts 11:14 this happened before there was any 'water baptism' because here in this record Peter is only unfolding to these Jews by undeniable evidence of how God moved to bring the new birth into manifestation... in Acts 11: 14 it says, who shall tell thee words, (not water) whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. It wasn't 'water baptism' that convinced these Jews the Gentiles received the holy spirit, it was the evidence of 'speaking in tounges'. All the water in the world would never have convice these hardened Judeans that the Gentiles had also received the holy spirit. Even prior to this record, Peter wouldn't have even touched, let alone eaten anything considered common or unclean. Here these Jews were questioning Peter why he went in to men who were uncircumcised, and also why he ate with them. (Maybe it had something to do with the vision the Lord gave to him in Act 10 earlier?) So what was it that convinced these Jews in Acts 11 that the Gentiles were saved and had received the Holy Ghost? Was it Peter relaying to these Judeans about the Gentiles "Can any man forbid baptismal water? No, it was only this one thing - they (the Gentiles) had spoken in tounges. Then in Acts 11:15 it says, it happened to them also as it did on us ... AS he was speaking to those of the circumcision. WHERE'S THE COMMAND OF WATER TO THESE OF THE CIRCUMCISION? Once these Judeans heard this testimony of how the Gentiles spoke in tounges, they were convinced beyond a doubt. That is why Acts 11:16 records Peter remembering the Lord's commandment - and it was not a command to be baptised in water, but rather the commandment of the LORD to be baptised with the Holy Ghost. We also see from this record that Peter here himself is just now getting around to remembering the Lords commandment.

The truth of the matter is a number of biblical scholars have already recognized the corruption of Christian baptism through pagan "water-worship" and "baptismal regeneration." Various forms of baptism, and the doctrine of baptismal regeneration were common characteristics of pagan religions before the birth of Jesus Christ. We have the testimonies from Jambilicus, Virgil, Ovid, Herodotus, Juvenal and others. The reverence for water, and faith in its spiritual cleansing efficacy arose from the pagan ideology that it was permeated by the divine essence. It had the ability and "supernatural power" to enlighten, cleanse and purify the soul, without regard to the spiritual state of the baptismal candidate. This doctrine of baptismal regeneration was transferred to Christianity even before the close of the second century, and through it the early church was rapidly filled with with baptized, but unconverted pagans. (Further proof will follow near the end of this post). The following are the words of Jambilicus: Another oracle from Jamblicus states: Jambilicus states that the baths were a part of the preparation for being thus inspired. The same combination is shown by Virgil in the following: One can eaisly see the concept of spiritual purity by or through baptismal water did not originate in Christianity. It was a pagan concept that water produced spiritual purity, and it was a concept that was expressed in many forms and in many ways. Water baptism is nothing but the "paganism surviving in Christianity" today. Greatly influencing Christianity was the Mitharic and Gnostic baptisms, the concept that baptism remmitted sins. To show how early Christianity became corrupted by these pagan influnces, consider the following extracts which are from the grand Gnostic text-book. It also serves to show how the same notions, (and probably forms) were transferred to the service of Gnosticism." 'Baptism — Remitting Sins.' — (Pistis-Sophia) (298). As stated earlier, spiritual purity through water baptism was largely a pagan concept, and it was a concept that was expressed in many forms and in many ways. It came across and influenced many other cultures and religions other than Christianity. In addition to the Mithraic and Gnostic baptism was also witnessed the baptism in blood, baptism at death and for the dead, baptism linked with serpent-worship, the sacred Nile, water-worship in India, the modern Buddhistic baptism, baptism among the Hindus, water-worship in Nortern Europe and Mexico, water that secured immunity from disease, Greecian water-worship, in addition to the influence the Greek mysteries had on corrupting Christianity. All this would be too much to get to in one single post. However I think this will do it for now.

We all thought these were VPW's quotations? I imagine we'll start hearing about how VPW plagarized Einstein next.

I recall at one time if you wanted to go WOW you had to write a 200 or 300 word essay (something like that - a 2 page deal at least) to be completed along with your WOW application. Whether or not an essay was ever considered in the screening process for one to go out WOW I would say was probably not very likely. There was this big push in TWI (circa 1977) to get 4000+ people to go out WOW. TWI came pretty close to that amount, (just under 4000 in 1977) but really never made it to 4000+ WOW's. The big push to get 4000+ people to go out WOW caused leadership to become less descrete in who should/shouldn't go WOW IMO. On the other hand I personally know someone who was not allowed to go out WOW a second time. He tried to go out WOW another year (he caused his first WOW family too many problems) so he was told he needed to grow more in the Word before he would be considered for the WOW program again. When he was told this by his twig leader, he immediately ran out of the house screaming up and down the street:LEADERSHIP IS WRONG!! I think everybody in the neighborhood two blocks away could hear him screaming at the top of his lungs and shouting profanities. I bet all the neighbors were pretty confused just what the heck all the commotion was about. I recall it very well because it was late in the evening and it nearly woke everybody in the neighborhood up. What is even more remarkable is the twig leader was completely astonished there was actually somebody in his twig who was very upset that they weren't allowed to go out WOW, when all the other "twiggies" in his twig didn't even want to consider it or give it a second thought.

Remarkable this is one of the few things where WW and I agree. I cant say for sure it was always like that in TWI (specifically during the FOG years) but eventually it ended up being either LCM's way or the highway.

The only thing I'd have to say is, "Don't look to "Holly-wierd" for any assistance to help you along in your quest for biblical truth."

Actually no, I was not wrong about sos, but neither was Mark. The problem is there are two words - sos, one with a long vowel and one with a short vowel, but these two words sure have different meanings. I was refering to and referencing "sos" (the short vowel) which is Strongs # 4674. However Mark was refering to sos (with the long vowel). So that is where the difference is. The distinction between these two words sos (the one with the short and the long vowel) was not indicated in the original post. So lets be clear if we are refering to sos with the long vowel or the one with the short vowel. (You will notice the Greek letters for "o" are different in the spelling of these two words.)I don't recall if VPW ever made the claim that zoe was directly related to sos or sozo. I do and can see where there could be a relationship here as it is intersting to note that the Greek word zoe is most ofen used when refering to eternal life in contrast to and rather than "breath life" or any of the other words in the Greek that is used for life. I am refering to the Greek words, such as: "bios-life" (a manner or period of life) or agoge- (a course of life), to name a couple examples. Here are the references for zoe when zoe is refering to "eternal life" in contrast to some other "life". Matt. 7:14, 18:8, 19:16,17,29, 25:46. Mark 9:43, 10:17,30. Luke 1:75, 10:25, 12:15, 18:18,30. John 1:4, 3:15,36 4:14,36, 5:24,26,29,40, 6:27,33,35,40,47,48,51,5,54,63,68, 8:12, 10:10,28, 11:25, 12:25,50, 14:6, 17:2,3, 20:31. Acts 2:28, 3:13, 5:20, 8:33, 11:18, 13:46,48, 17:25 Rom. 2:7, 5:10,17,18,21, 6:4,22,23, 7:10, 8:2,6,10,38, 11:15 1 Co. 3:22, 15:10 2 Co. 2:16, 4:10,12, 5:4 Gal. 6:8 Eph. 4:18 Phil. 1:20, 2:16, 4:3 Col. 3:3,4 1 Ti. 1:16, 4:8, 6:12,19 2 Ti. 1:1,10 Titus 1:2, 3:7 Heb. 7:3,16 1 Pe. 3:7,10 2 Pe. 1:3 1 Jo. 1:1,2, 2:25, 3:14,15, 5:11,12,13,16,20 Jude 21 Rev. 2:7,10, 3:5, 11:11, 13:8, 17:8, 20:12,15, 21:6,27, 22:1,2,14,17 and 19. The above references were taken from Youngs Analytical, but one can also look them up in Strongs if they want, which is Strongs# 2222. Strongs 2222 The remark about Strong's Concordance being put together with the intent to discredit VPW was rather ignorant. It is akin to some of the ignorant remarks I have heard made in an attempt to discredit the Youngs Analytical Concordance - for some unknown reason or another. Such remarks usually come from those who do not know how to use either resource very well. Those who do know how to use both resources hardly find anything that is contradictory between them. If anything, they only complement one another when both resources are used correctly.

I don't recall addressing WW specifically (or anybody else in particular) to do their own research in my previous post. The remark I made was intended to be taken as an admonition (not an accusation no one was) that one should do the biblical research for themselves rather than relying solely on what somebody else said they have "studied" biblically.

He is being a "real man". Haven't you heard this before and don'tcha know - truth need's no defense!

Well VPW was correct then. In the KJV the Greek word "sozo" is translated:heal (3 times) make whole (9 times) preserve (1 time) save (92 times) be whole (2 times) do well (1 time) save one self (1 time) such as should be saved (1 time) Anyone who has a concordance (even a Youngs) can easily see the majority of the time (92 times) sozo is translated as: save, but then it is also translated: "heal" and "be whole", etc. There is a relationship between these words seeing sozo is also translated as: save, heal, be whole, preserve, etc. The Greek word "zoe" appears in John 10:10 where there it is translated: life. (zoe is translated: life - 133 times, life-time - once). Pneuma (most often translated: spirit - w/breath 151 times, with the word "Holy" 131 times) is also translated: "life" and it only appears once in: Rev 13:15. With a little research one can see there is a correlation between the words life and spirit just by looking into how these words are being translated. VPW did not "invent it" nor dream up the relationship between spirit and life. Just do your own research and see it for yourself. I disagree with the poster who said that sos is related to sozo and/or zoe. The word sos is not related just by looking into how these words are being translated. The word sos is translated: thine own (3 times) thy {thine} (18 times) As a noun: that is thine (2 times) thy friends (1 time) thy goods (1 time) Where does one draw the conclusion that sos (seeing how it is translated) is even remotely related to either Greek word: sozo or zoe when one stops to consider how those word are translated? Just from this simple word study (and I will say it is not an intense one or a deep study at that) anyone can see there is no relationship or correlation between the word sos and the words sozo or zoe. I will agree however, and one might possibly draw the conclusion that the Greek word "soter" is a closer relationship to sozo (but even that might be a stretch as the verb form would be closer) as "soter" is translated: saviour (1 time- with a lower case s) Saviour (23 times) The verb form "soteria" and "soterios" are related to soter as these words are translated: health, salvation, saving, that we should be saved, with soterios being translated: "that bringeth salvation". But these words (soter, soteria, soterios) have no relationship with the word sos. The Greek word "sos" and soter, soteria, soterious simply have no relationship beween them. Do your own research and quit listening to those who just want to discredit everything VPW ever wrote/said. Most of them don't know/understand what they are talking about. <_<

I recall it was advertized in The Wag Mag. along with "The Hope of Glory, In Search of the Light" by David Craley (sp?). That was the book (witness) of someone overcoming being gay. Anyone still have that one? I threw that book out a long time ago, and it was not necessarily because of the books contents. :blink: :wacko: :blink:

Dororthy Owens -- Wasnt she the 'etiquette' lady of TWI?

The law of believing has nothing to do with "mind power". It doesn't have anything to do with: "believing in the promises of God and His willingness to perform them" either, although for the Christian even I would like to think it should be that way, but very often it is not. If the law of believing rested solely on: "the promises of God and His willingness to perform them" then God's will would always be done. There are many instances where His will won't be done. Why? Because man has free will and God can never overstep a man's free will. Of course, in the same manner, man can never overstep God's will. God wills one to be prosperous and be in health, but it is clearly evident not everyone is prosperous and/or healthy. While prosperity and health could be one's desire, it may not be one's will. As ludicrous as it might sound, there are people who desire prosperity and health but it is something not within their will, and there is a difference between one having the desire for something and one having the will for something. Here is some food for thought for you 'biblical researchers'. Why did Jesus commend the centurion for having 'great faith', while he pretty much reproved his own disciples for having 'little faith'. The record of both accounts are in Mathew 8. The record of the centurion having great faith begins in v.5 and the disciples having little faith starts in v.23. I don't think the centurion was the one hanging out with Jesus all the time, but his disciples likely were. Shouldn't it have been the disciples who had the greater faith since they were the ones hanging out with the Lord, listening to the promises of God and His willingness to perform them, etc. etc., etc.? The question is, Why did Jesus rebuke his disciples in that record for having "little faith", while at other times he commended those having "little faith"? I don't think it had much to do with "the size, the quantity, whom someone hung with, etc, etc." or anything else. It probably had a lot more to do with as to what they had to say about something as opposed to what they didn't say though.

Mark 11:22,23: ------------ And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. For verily I saith unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. ------------- Here is something the 'biblical researchers' (are there any left?) should reconsider. What is it that is being emphasized in the above verse, is it believing or is it speaking? The way I read it, believing is only mentioned once in that verse but speaking is mentioned three times. So according to God's Word, which would you say is greater - someone doing the believing, or someone doing the speaking? I came to the conclusion the reason the law of believing does not work for some (the reason there is no law of believing for them) is because that is what they say about it. They say it often and have said it a lot. Therefore they will receive whatever they presently have to say about it, and true to form they also have whatsoever they have said. I recall the emphasis of the teaching in TWI was mostly on the believer having to 'believe' for something to get results, but not much (if anything) was it ever shown or taught to the belever the emphasis is not on what one believes - positive or negative, but rather on what they confess - what they have to say about it. There is the "SOURCE" for the law of believing. YOU will have whatsoever you say. But then I imagine, someone who was probably above you in TWI had something entirely different they wanted to say about it too - didn't they?