waysider

I'll use what he expressed in public forums, such as the PFAL class, as the basis of my assertion, as only a few of us here were privy to what he expressed in private conversations.

That quote was made by Penworks.

You're free to think that if you want...It's not what he said, though.

Julie Newmar was the original.

I'm curious why you don't classify Bullinger, Kenyon and Stiles as theological works.

I'll leave you with this article, as well. HERE

While I accept that you sincerely believe this to be the case, it simply does not reflect reality. Wierwille made a VERY BIG deal out of promoting the idea that God was giving him, by way of personal revelation, information that had been hidden for 2,000 years. He went into detail about how God had spoken to him in an audible voice, how he had taken all his Biblical materials to the dump and relied solely on the Bible and divine inspiration to arrive at the conclusions he presented in PFAL. .This is, for the most part, what he actually said, not my personal interpretation.He made this point quite clear in the opening sessions of PFAL. Anyone who still has access to the materials can verify this for themselves quite easily. It's unfortunate you refuse to accept this but the choice, of course, is yours.

Rolling Stone had THIS article. I found it interesting.

This is the stuff people who didn't participate in the various in-residence programs don't understand. If you were Joe B. Lever, attending a local twig in Hoopyville, U.S.A., you went home when fellowship was over.Period. Done. Rinse and repeat when it's time for the next fellowship meeting. If you were in one of these programs, you were already home. It was 24 hours a day, no clocking in and clocking out.

"but...but...but...we're replicating the first century church." ummmm...ok...soooo...they lived in communes in the first century?

Jesus, The Missing Years

Reminds me of THIS.

I have to say it's a bit premature to label this conversation as dead. As to being "hot", it doesn't really matter which forum it lands in. If the subject is worth discussing, people will discuss it regardless of where it's located. Now, as a side note, there is an incident in Billy Graham's book that talks about practicing his preaching techniques on the trees. This same incident was attributed to VPW by Uncle (but, not my uncle) Harry in one of The Way's books. I don't recall the specifics off-hand.

I fixed that for you.

You have to understand, T-Bone, these scientists were top polygraph experts.

You mean THIS guy? You sure know how to pick 'em, that's for sure.

You put yourself in the box , Mike, when you make unsubstantiated, outlandish claims. If you want to stick to the issues, you only need to address them honestly, in a logical fashion.

I tried to hit "like" multiple times but it won't let me.

Go Fish!

Hahaha! Just kidding. The idea that someone would confuse the lock-box with personal confidence is beyond absurd. It's obscene.

Hey, Mike, did you know "lock-box" comes from an old Aramaic phrase that can be literally translated "sweep it under the carpet."? Don't tell anyone, though, it'll just be our own little secret

Just an IMHO here: I believe Wierwille's "all sins are equal" was really a preemptive ploy on his part to silence any dissidents . It certainly explains the lock-box and "not thinking evil of your brothers and sisters in Christ"...like a "You're just as guilty as me." sort of thing.

In PFAL, VPW presented the following course of logic: "Life of the flesh is in the blood"...Leviticus 1. This component is supplied by the male via the sperm. (In the case of divine conception, supplied by God) 2. Blood does not cross the placenta. (Preventing contamination by Mary's human blood) Thus, Christ's blood was pure, as it represented only the divine component. Well, that all sounds very concise and neatly packaged. The problem, though, is that it is grossly incorrect on both counts. *Blood is composed of components supplied by both the male and female. *Blood can, in fact, in certain circumstances, cross the placenta.

Mike, this is simply your opinion. If it's "true", as you say, please provide some documentation to that effect.

Are you your own grandpa now? Yeah, I can answer a question with a question, too. How about that? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now back to the point. You made this claim. "...very few profound, significant thing can ever be proved. Most proofs are of small and/or relatively insignificant things." Now use some sound logic to demonstrate its accuracy. Otherwise, you're simply showing me you lack the necessary skills to present a valid argument. edit. By the way, it's not a *thesis*. It's an opinion.