waysider

Final judgement?? Wow! That sounds so final and, well, judgmental. You say you created the website for your own private use while you are on the road. What kind of person creates a website to be used exclusively by themself? I ain't buying it. But, wait, there's more. I see the site now encourages the visitor to refer to GSC. What's up with that? Will you need to remind yourself, next time you're on the road?

We don't know who or what you are? Well, for starters, we know you're someone who came to this site and deceptively misrepresented yourself. How am I doing?

OOPS!

How do we know Jesus didn't speak in tongues? Speaking in tongues predates the time of Christ.

"Nobody held a gun to your head." Ahhh. The old gun to the head trick. Because there is really no way to control people other than holding a gun to their head. /s

Exactly.

Deleted by poster.

Aren't you the same guy who questioned why VPW and The Way seem to so often find their way into these discussions? Have you ever questioned whether using those *keys* in PFAL is even a valid approach to understanding the Bible? Hint: It's not. Edit: Sorry, WW. I didn't see you had posted. You said it better than I could.

rrobs What methodology or system do you use when you read the Bible? Do you simply read it and take it at face value or do you use some sort of protocol?

Why not try to convey it in your own words?

Sometimes the journey is more important than the destination.

There is nothing in that verse that even remotely suggests the bible is divided into separate compartments. Without going into further detail, i might suggest some other discussions that have taken place of that very same word that has been translated as dispensation in that verse. I'm not very good at searches but there is a search window at the top.

Maybe I've failed to convey the significance of adhering to dispensations/administrations. Dispensationalism is a concept that promotes the idea of different sections of the bible being walled off from other sections. That's the essence of saying "Such and such a directive doesn't apply to me because it was addressed to a different administration." It's quite handy in explaining why the Old Testament seems to contradict the New Testament. The problem, of course, is that it has no basis in scripture. If it does, could you be so kind as to show it to me?

rrob In the realm of critical thinking, this is what is known as a straw man. A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition...SOURCE No one said nothing has changed since Adam and Eve or that everything is just the same.

rrobs No one is attacking you. Disagree with some of your points? Sure. But, not attacking you. Do you not realize that what you assume to be "the word" is really just someone's private interpretation of it? Sometimes you can spend years, even decades, thinking you understand a verse or section of scripture, only to find you were mistaken about it's meaning. It's just simply not possible to "know that you know that you know". Learning is an adventure. You can never be quite sure where it will lead you.

You can say it if you want to. Me? I'll pass because, quite frankly, it doesn't.

That's a huuuuge assumption, especially when you factor in chronology. Remember...the gospels were written quite a bit AFTER the epistles. At any rate, the audience would have been limited and you can't know what depth of understanding someone might have come away with.

I can only speak for myself on this point: I've heard more than enough "teachings" to last me a couple lifetimes. But, anyway, who's wound up? Certainly not me. The simple fact is, all this stuff is inextricably interwoven. If you heard something in, let's say, PFAL, what would be the point in avoiding the name of the class? Likewise, if you heard something that was taught by VPW, what would be the point in avoiding where you heard it? That sounds counterproductive to me. You don't do that with secular subjects, do you? I mean, if you're discussing the inner workings of an aircraft powerplant, it's perfectly fine to cite the source of your information, is it not?

Fine, I'll rephrase my response. The organization we aligned ourselves with was completely dependent on John Nelson Darby's dispensationalism, which we knew to be called administrations. Better?

Who knows what they understood? It's not like they were in a situation where information was readily available.

Truth be told, (it's just an expression.) Wierwille rarely taught ANYTHING about Jesus. The concept of nine manifestation that Wierwille taught was borrowed from another source. Bullinger maybe? I don't remember. I do know, however, all the definitions of the *manifestations*, which can be found in the Advanced Class syllabus, did not originate with Wierwille. He copied those from an uncited source, almost word-for-word.

Except...There was no book of Romans at the time the epistle to the Corinthians was written. Most scholars feel Romans was one of the last letters written, perhaps even the very last. Would the Corinthians have even had access to it if, indeed, it did exist at that time? There was no canon or consolidated form of the epistles until centuries later. The concept that proposes the epistles follow a "doctrine/reproof/correction" sequence as they appear in modern Bibles is a man made concept. To make matters even more complicated, the gospels were written well AFTER the Pauline epistles. The idea of the new testament being written in a chronological order is completely man made. Much of what we thought we learned during our time spent in The Way was completely dependent on accepting Darby's dispensationalism, which Wierwille relabeled administrations. That seems like an easy question, yet it has no easy answer.

All nine all the time. Hey. That's pretty good. It's nine more then VPW operated. The most I ever saw him do was repeat the old "Lo Shanta La Macka See Tay" shtick. Does anyone have any evidence VPW operated all nine...or even one? I'd love to hear about the evidence. edit: VPW teaching how to operate "all nine all the time" is like a homeless guy teaching how to achieve financial success... except, there really is such a thing as financial success.

Are you comparing yourself to Paul? I'm sure you probably didn't mean it like that, but that's how it sounds. Anyway, Paul's not here, so it's a non-issue. BTW, for anyone still interested in the original topic, it's important to note that Are The Dead Alive Now? is also a product of plagiarism. For this one, Wierwille combined Bullinger's The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State? and King Saul and the Witch of Endor, which is currently out of print HERE is a discussion we had some time ago.. And, of course, if you combine Bullinger's How To Enjoy The Bible, Figures of Speech in The Bible, along with portions of BG Leonard's class (which Wierwille absconded after forcing his way into it when it was offered in Canada.) and Stile's book, being discussed here, you have almost the entire PFAL class, as well as large portions of the Intermediate and Advanced classes.. "The Word, like it hasn't been known since the first century!"...VPW (My mommy told me it's not nice to lie.)

Or Peter Parker and that Spidey Dude.