Larry N Moore

This isn’t a court of law. This isn’t a workplace. This is a forum. You are not in any position of authority over anyone here that I know of. We are all adults. No one is required to respond to you at all. (See forum rules). No one has to do anything to your satisfaction at all. Period. End of story. (See forum rules).

Another spot, if you're an adult try to act like one. I wasn't telling or demanding WordWolf should not get frustrated (nor demanding he respond any in fashion other than he wishes) -- it was just a suggestion. Take it or leave it.

As far as "standards of debates/discussions" goes -- If I were to make the claim that unicorns exist shouldn't I be expected to support that assertion or should I just demand that you should believe me?

Lighten up dude!

if it is a problem being off topic then do not answer me and i also apologize, but im courious as to why you think that many woould "fall away" from twi after he died?

true enough it did happen that way.. but why do you think it did?

Pond, it took me awhile to relocate your post. I had forgotten which thread you asked your question in. Silly me. Anyways, I think this thread would be a more appropriate place to continue this line of discussion but, give me some time to think through how I should respond. Thanks.

where WERE you back in the day when I really needed your help?!?

I was probably underneath the table trying to capture any spillage the others made (after having my two cup limit). ;)

Quid pro quo, Clarisse (or Larry in this case.)

WordWolf, normally, in discussions of this sort the burden of proof rests upon the one making the assertion. I mean no offence to you but, you haven't adequately proven your claim (as far as I'm concerned). However, I can appreciate your frustration/exasperation when you spend a great deal of time trying to explain your point of view only to have someone come along and disagree with you – but such is life, would you not agree? But for the sake of hopefully not frustrating you any further I'll include a couple of explanations with regard to this issue – the point being – contrary to what you might think a cursory reading of the Biblical texts does not always lend itself to clarity. If things were always so clear we wouldn't have so many various opinions regarding the meaning of words, phrases, or subjects and neither of us would be discussing this subject now – would we?

http://www.truekingdomofgod.org/bible/gosp...h_marriage.html

JEWISH BETROTHAL (ESPOUSAL) AND MARRIAGE CUSTOMS

In Jewish marriages in Jesus’ day (5 BC to 30 AD) there were very definite rules and a definite pattern required for legal marriages.

1. The parents of the groom would pick a suitable bride for him. (If both parents were dead, a “friend” or other relative would arrange the marriage. Sometimes the parents of the woman would seek a husband for their daughter, but this was very rare.) The bridegroom and bride were not usually asked their consent, and such marriages could be arranged long before either party was ready for marriage.

There were a few stipulations for a suitable bride and groom:

1. Both MUST be Jewish, except in certain specifically prescribed cases.

2. Bride must be unmarried (a virgin or a widow). (By Jesus’ day polygamy was not practiced by Jews.)

3. If the two were related by blood, they could be no closer than first cousins.

4. A suitable groom must prove sufficient means to support a wife and children. For this reason it was not uncommon for men to postpone marriage until after age 30 when they were established in a business or trade, or had received their inheritance. The women usually married quite young, normally as soon as their domestic education had been finished and they had gone through puberty, 16 or 17 years being about average (they went through puberty later than girls do now).

2. The man would pay the father a suitable price for the bride, unless he was marrying a widow.

3. The betrothal (espousal) contract was agreed upon (an oral agreement) and the tokens exchanged (price of the bride given and acceptance tokens received).

4. The marriage ceremony was held, and a marriage feast followed. During the ceremony, rings were usually exchanged. Even from very ancient times, a ring symbolized fidelity.

5. After the betrothal ceremony and feast a period of separation was strictly observed. The length of time was set in the espousal contract, but by Jesus’ time custom dictated the following: in the case of a virgin, the separation was for one year and for a widow it was usually a month. During the separation period, the bride and groom could have no contact and could not speak to each other except through an intermediary called the “friend of the bridegroom.”

6. During the separation period they were considered fully married and any infidelity was considered adultery, which was punishable by death (stoning). The long period in the case of a virgin was two-fold. It gave them time to make sure she could not already be pregnant by another man and it proved their dedication to each other. During this time the man could write the bride a bill of divorce if he found anything “unseemly” in her. (See Lev. 24: 1, 2.) She would then be free to marry another man.

7. At the end of the separation period the bride was bedecked in white finery, jewels, and perfume. The groom, dressed in his best clothes and taking several companions with him, went to the bride’s house and transported her back to his house. At his house a feast was prepared and celebrations continued for one or two weeks.

8. At the end of the celebrations a special canopy was set up in the groom’s chamber and both bride and groom were carried to the nuptial canopy. The friends went home and the marriage was finally consummated. Until the consummation, the bride was always heavily veiled.

9. The details of each marriage were more or less elaborate based on the incomes of the families involved. Married men were excused from military service and all other community duties for the first year of marriage.

http://www.christianessays.freeservers.com/details.htm

Married or espoused.

In Matthew 1 verse 18 Mary is said to be “betrothed” to Joseph, but in verse 19 she is said to be “married” because Joseph is called her “husband”. According to the Rev. James Freeman, a compiler of Bible customs, “Espousal among the Hebrews was something more than what a mere marriage engagement is with us (Westerners). It was considered the beginning of marriage, and was as legally binding as marriage itself. It could not be broken off except by a written bill of divorce.” So Matthew's careful choice of these two different words is precise and accurate, not a mistake.

Based on my understanding of the above, I think the simple explanation is (as Jeaniam and others have suggested) that even though they were married they had not yet consummated (did the horizontal thingy) their marriage. The culture of the times – regarding sexual relationships and marriage – differed quite a lot from ours. It would be a mistake to assume there was no difference and doing so when taking the time to present an exegesis can at times muddy the waters. So, from my perspective, I believe it's more logical to think that according to the cultural customs of the times, Mary was a virgin, even though married to Joseph at the time of Jesus' conception, because they hadn't yet consummated their marriage by doing the "horizontal thingy".

My point (if I haven't already made it clear) is simple – If the Bible was so clear in its rendering we wouldn't have so many various understandings of it. While I can appreciate that you find it simple to understand I also know that what may seem clear to you is not always clear to others. You should understand that notion 'cause you found it necessary to expound on what you find easily understood. Try not to get too frustrated by those who don't readily see things from your perspective – your frustration will only make it more difficult for others to see things your way.

Welcome Larry! May I ask one favor of you though. Can you notate who you are quoting please? Thank you kindly.

Sorry, Chatty. I don't always think of the fact that others are reading this thread when I respond to people. I assume they would know that I'm responding to them, for we usually remember our own words. I'll try to keep your request in mind in the future.

Oh and btw Chatty -- Thanks for the welcome!

The problem is obvious -- you were in charge of refreshments and everyone knows you can't drink without eating potato chips. You forgot to bring something to snack on. Shame on you!

Are the sins we committed, sins others committed against us, and bad things that happened to us in this life remembered in the next one?

I don't see why not.

Jesus, having been resurrected, still retained his memory. Part of what makes us, us is our memories but, I think in the "afterlife" our way of looking at past sins -- either those we've committed or have been committed against our person -- will be from God's perspective. Not that that would make us God but, doesn't it say in 1 Corinthians that we shall know even as we are known? What will we know if we don't have any memories of the past to know about?

<snip> can you see why the LOGICAL conclusion is that the verses support both a virgin

conception and virgin birth, and do NOT support any other possibility?

Actually -- No I can't. Without going over each and every verse you cited I'll just focus on two --

Matthew 1:18 (KJV)

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Your explanation following this verse:

"Mary was engaged to Joseph, and they hadn't been married, honeymooned, or done the

horizontal hula. Naturally, Mary knew this, and Joseph knew this. God Almighty knew this.

Unless anyone was spying on them, that's pretty much everyone who KNEW this."

Then you quoted verse 19:

19 (KJV) And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

How did Joseph go from being engaged to Mary in verse 18 to being her husband in verse 19?

The key word of course is the word "espoused" which in our culture means one thing but, in the culture of that time meant another. I won't bore you with the details 'cause it really doesn't matter. Just going on common sense alone in reading verse 18 it should arrest your attention that if Mary was found with child BEFORE they were engaged you would have to ask yourself two questions -- 1) Who discovered she was pregnant? and 2) If the answer logically was Joseph based on the context then -- Why would Joseph marry her only to consider divorcing her? I'll await patiently your answer to these two questions and on how you reconcile verse 19 with verse 18 making your explanations more sensible.

Who are they, after all, to say the MOG could have done a better job on John 1?

I agree with your point here. Long before VP died -- actually before he stepped down as President of TWI -- I was saying that when he died many would "fall away" from TWI. I just wasn't sure how long it would take.

But, I suppose this line of discussion is off-topic and so I apologize.

You underestimate me Larry, common mistake.

No one is to be underestimated.

That which is in me is also conceived of the Holy Spirit.

I don't know you well enuf to underestimate you. All I can do is go on what you say in these forums. If I mistakenly misunderstand you I'll be more than happy if you clear up any misconceptions I might have. If what you say makes sense to me I'll be more than eager to apologize for my mistake.

Promote an idea, but not twi, wierwille, lcm etc.

I agree -- and that "idea" was/should have been -- Jesus Christ and salvation through him. Somewhere along the path that idea became lost in the promotion of TWI. Never did sit well with me and probably explains why I never was very successful at starting PFAL classes.

You'll get FASTER responses right after you start PAYING for them.

:lol Touche!

can one review discussions of a CONTRARY view and CHANGE ONE'S MIND?

Only if you happen to be John Kerry. ;)

That's important to LEARNING and expanding beyond the straitjackets of any group's theology....

It's much easier if you don't attach yourself to any group at all. You have no vested interest in supporting your group's theology.

I think we agree on many points.

You think you can find the answers in the bible you have more to learn then you think.

Actually, I think if you're going to have Biblical discussions it behooves you to at least know what the Bible says. Whether we find answers therein or not it's always a good place to start.

My apologies if I assumed you were promoting his works when you are not.

Accepted. These days I don't even promote Christianity but, I'm not opposed to having a discussion on that subject (or on TWI). I've pretty much come to the point in my life where I really don't care what people believe or don't believe.

your second sentence, um, Yes, the slave owner thinks differently than the slave. twi, the fruit of wierwille's life, prefers to run peoples thoughts and lives, (here an old free will discussion can be pulled up). Introducing people to wierwilles books gives more power to twi because wierwille will be seen as theologian, or good source on understanding the word. That gives twi credibility and thus power, rightfully earned or not. That helps hold the "innies" in, because their ministry is still wonderful. But why worry about them?

I don't suppose the thought occurred to you that there's a flip-side to this coin. If TWI was (as many claim) opposed to exploring the writings/teachings of others then can it not be said that those who oppose the exploration of VP/TWI writings have the same mind-set as those who were/are followers of TWI?

True freedom is being able to read the writings of anyone and have the ability to think through what's taught and make up your own mind.

Whadayathink?

I think you have a very healthy way of looking at it. However, I wouldn't feel shame for what you did or didn't do.

So why promote Wierwille's works?

How do you arrive at the conclusion that I AM promoting his works? Would you prefer simple validation/affirmation that what you think is what anyone else should think or would rather be challenged on what you think?

*sigh*

I'll lay it out again in plain English in a bit.

Cool! But could you lay it out a little more plainer. I didn't see your answer to my post herein. :)

Jesus grew up in thought he was anyone OTHER than Joseph and Mary's son.

Then could you explain (plainly) what John 8: 41 means when they said: "We be not born of fornication."

But what idea of Wierwille's is an original?

Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

If you look at any person's teaching you might discover that much of it was built on the foundation of other's work or thinking. Much of orthodox Christianity owes a debt of gratitude to the philosophy of Aristotle.

If, however, what he set out to do was provide a logical and Biblically sound explanation of what John 1 is trying to communicate, he did not succeed (in my opinion).

I suppose the true measure of success would be determined not by sampling just one (your) opinion but to ask everyone who read the book what they thought. Unless the vast majority of members of TWI were being dishonest, I'd say the majority of them thought he succeeded in what he set out to do. Now, it would be easy to say that the vast majority were brainwashed into accepting anything VP did or set out to do was successful and while that may be true it would still follow that he succeeded if he felt he had a following which blindly followed wherever he led them. I suppose it's just a matter of how you look at it and define success.

Well, this isn't the place to get into a "what does John 1 say" discussion:

Excuse me, while I naively try to figure out where things belong. I'm just an old fart, who sometimes takes a little longer than young bucks in trying to keep things in their proper place. :)

I was merely pointing out that Wierwille's explanation of it doesn't do the job he set out to do, and I offer that as my opinion.

I can see your point but, if one thinks about what "he set out to do" I think it can be argued that he succeeded. The book was primarily meant for the eyes of members of TWI (in my opinion) and most accepted what he presented therein as true. But what many didn't do -- which was often the case -- was to bother checking out the validity of things stated in the book.

If you believe JCING and want a stronger book to explain it than Wierwille's, then I recommend the CES book and the Buzzard book (Google "Christianity's self-inflicted wound" and you should find it easily).

Thanks for your recommendation.

I also recommend becoming familiar with the counterarguments to those books. While you may not agree with them, they will help you better understand what people believe and why.

I've been there, done that. Thanks anyways.

I would also recommend getting on the mailing list for Glad Tidings, which is put out by the group once known as Christian Biblical Counsel (I've lost track of what their name is now). Sean F, the son of a well-known TWI minister, has been writing some interesting pieces on the subject lately.

I'll check it out. I use to be on the mailing list of CES but for some reason (maybe my lack of financial support) I no longer receive their mailings.

and it provides a tortured explanation of the first chapter of John's gospel that no one merely reading the Bible, in any language, can draw from the words alone.

Although you may be right (opinions can carry that weight) I nevertheless find it equally amusing how anyone can say that Jesus is God from just a cursory reading of John 1. In my opinion (which usually doesn't carry much weight in some circles) to draw the conclusion that Jesus is God from just that short section while ignoring many unambiguous verses which seem to support just the opposite is somehow an exercise of separating one's mind from reason. An example of gymnastics that are of Olympic status.

The best thing I can say about JCING is that it inspired the CES book.

:) That's fair enuf. I haven't read CES's book on the subject. Would you recommend it? I have read a few of their other books -- in particular "Don't Blame God" and found it although interesting and informative nevertheless not error free.

I lose sleep over these statements.

That is indeed unfortunate but, I don't know how I can avoid saying what I think (in response to you) and soothe your troubled mind. I'm just trying to be honest with you.

Twi will never die.

The TWI that I knew and enjoyed being a member of died long before I ever left it. As to what they are doing now I have very little knowledge of and much less concern for. However, I can't help thinking about Solomon when thinking about this -- although Solomon was said to be the wisest among all men he also was one of the biggest idolaters. God must have seen more of the good in Solomon than the bad to have placed him in such a prominent position in the Bible.

Only if you discard both the Matthew and Luke accounts, both of which say Joseph and

Mary did NOT dance the horizontal until after Jesus was born.

WordWolf, try as much as I might I can't discover how you came to this conclusion. In fact this statement seems to contradict other comments you made in the same post (which I drew this from). Although Matthew (I'll have to recheck Luke) doesn't actually say one way or the other that Joseph and Mary had sex prior to the birth of Jesus I don't see why (based on the context) one could not logically assume they did. Although I was always puzzled as to why Jesus was considered a bastard child by members of the community he grew up in. You would think that the family would have kept their mouths shut about Mary's condition and just let everyone think that Jesus was actually Joseph's son. I never really ferreted out my thoughts on this matter 'cause it really wasn't all that important to me.