penworks

James, Would you mind telling us how you translated Matt. 27:46 and why you might have decided on your translation of that verse? It reads like this in the KJV: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Thanks, Pen

Well, this is an interesting point and has been hashed out on other threads here. Maybe what I have to say doesn't fit in here, maybe it belongs in the Doctrinal forum, who knows? Anyway, as you say, verses contained in the Bible, like VP's favorite II Timothy 3:16, mentions "doctrine," but I think it's important to remember that this is a verse within a particular book, II Timothy, and that book is within a larger book we've called The Bible. II Timothy does not say anything about "The Bible" nor name any particular books of the Bible in that verse. So it doesn't tell us there what "doctrine" is referring to. The people that letter was written to probably had a good idea, though, and at the time I suspect it referred to what to believe about Jesus. IMO, VP read into the text (applied his own interpretation) when he said that the word "doctrine" referred to the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. This is different than saying what the word "doctrine" means. Yes, it may mean "right belief" but it doesn't say what that belief is supposed to be. This is the sort of thinking I call "lumpy thinking." He quoted one verse here another there, and applied whatever it said to the whole lump called The Bible. This violated one of his own principles of research, namely taking things out of context. I think it is improbable that any of the writers of any of these books in the Bible could have said anything about the whole lump. The books were collected and put together in various combinations (canons) after they were written. For me it's been important to realize that Bibles are anthologies and we have various combinations of different books that came to be considered Scripture. I think it's common sense to point out that each book was written in its own location and time period, etc. and not linked to the other books until much later. In some cases, some writers of some of those documents didn't even know other books existed or would be written. IMO, this is an area that shows how ignorant we were kept about the history of the text, etc. This is a major field to know about if we're going to talk about doctrine, IMO. For me, it required a radical shift in how I thought about the Bible. Anyway, so we know that there are verses that contain the word "doctrine", for instance, but I haven't seen where "doctrine" is defined as "these 66 books of The Bible." So we ask what is doctrine? Here's one definition: Definition of doctrine. So, just some food for thought...perhaps it is of some use...if not, file it in file #13. Cheers, Pen

This is astonishing. A post was made about this lawsuit awhile ago: Check here: Lawsuit about Way's Aramaic Interlinear

A post was made about this lawsuit awhile ago: Check here: Lawsuit about Way's Aramaic Interlinear

If you click here, an edited version is in print. BTW his reference to "Aramaic" near the end is quick and vague with little explanation. Eli Eli in print

For those interested, Ken Br*wn's response to this can be found here: Ken Brown's response

I remember this account. VP told us about all this during our in-rez 1971-73. In our Corps there was one daughter of a Piqua couple who no longer stood with VP, but she had latched onto the ministry herself, having heard the PFAL tapes growing up. Somehow she got convinced she should go in the Corps after she finished college and she did... she's still in TWI today.

Perhaps it's time for a CRIME report review. Although this is an old thread, I believe it relates to this topic. It might help any innies sitting on the fence... Lawsuit

I think this plays a major role in denial of any sort. I know it did for me before I came to terms with the issues I faced leading up to my decision to quit the research team. Breaking denial requires change and sometimes that means EXTENSIVE changes in one's life. Plus I had to admit I'd been fooled, I'd kept my head in the sand, I had been duped due to my ignorance, etc. That's a bitter pill to swallow... Unless and until a person faces an issue that affects them PERSONALLY so that they come to a cross roads and have to choose to do something to eleviate the pain they face, it may not be possible for them to break away. For instance, I remember a conversation I had in 1986 with someone I worked with who now is one of the top VPs and teaches part of the new class at HQ. I thought he was a good guy and would be willing to call a spade a spade. So when I tried to explain why I was resigning from research, why I thought LCM had MAJOR problems, that VP's research had holes in it (he knew this already), etc., he looked at me as if I were possessed but at least was polite about it. He said, "I need some time to think about this." He ended up staying at HQ and now he's rewarded with his big job - apparently nothing happened that affected him very personally so all I can imagine is that he must have rationalized the abuses of VPW and LCM somehow. Humans have convenient ways of doing that. I wonder whether he ever thinks about that conversation...maybe he's reading this now...I hold him partly responsible for perpetuating the cult - he could have opted out, he was smart, he was kind-hearted. Now I think he's let himself be blinded and he has been used. Sometimes some people are willing to put up with a lot of human failures, crimes, and abuses if they think what they're teaching - the doctrine - is THE TRUTH. In my view, there is no "Truth" worth that price.

In case anyone is wondering, here are two posts I believe Ken is referencing, although he didn't state which post it is - BTW I am not trying to represent him: Posts #238 and 240 on the following page. http://www.greasespo...s/page__st__220

Yeah, but it was sort of funny. I had started going back to college anyhow, so the mindless tasks for part of the day were welcome...

Hi Ken, If you're referring to anything I may have said, I did not intend to be unkind. If my words came across that way, I apologize. For those of you reading here, Ken and I worked together in the research room at HQ from 1984-86. Charlene

Here's a bit on the topic of using arts for TWI outreach: Way Mag July/Aug 81, Pg. 21 God's Word Moves Out Through the Arts by Elena Whiteside "The goal of the Word in Fine Arts is to preserve and retain the knowledge of the Mystery by ingraining it in the arts – the arts having the greatest potential of outreach of all human activities-thus contributing to the move of God's Word over the world."

Guess some of us left shedding the belief system which included this "protection of the household of faith," but I imagine it would be unnerving for some. It certainly was a habit ingrained due to the heavy indoctrination over so many years. I remember thinking, though, as I resigned from research (1986) that I would be my own "cause" from then on and invest my money in my education and family. If I could financially help anyone else I met, great. For a variety of reasons, I could not bring myself to give a nickel to anyone saying they taught anything about God.

I wonder whether they still have the car wash? After I resigned from research in 1986, I was put on the Multi-services team and washed cars for awhile. I remember one day Rosie and Donna returned from a shopping trip in Dayton (or somewhere nearby) and their car was brought in. It was spotless, I remember, but we had to clean it anyway... I vacuumed out the carpet in the back seat and thought how ironic all this was...cleaning a clean car...what a waste of time and effort...and a waste of the believers ABS.

This reminds me of what happened during my in-rez years ('71-'73), when three women in my Corps during our second year were allowed to spend their 4-hour daily work assignment painting and drawing, using rooms in the Way Cultural Center in New Breman, which was an old church. There also was a recording studio there for the musicians around at that time. The art produced by my Corps sisters was not Bible-oriented, as I recall, but portraits, still life paintings of fruit, etc. Although these weren't used in "moving the Word" I remember VP commenting how the spirit of Christ in these artists is what produced the art and because the art was produced by believers standing on The Word (his interpretation of the Bible, mostly plagarised etc.) it was a witness to the glory of God and the "greatness of His Word" (the vague phrase used as hype for VP's classes). Looking back, I feel VP used people and their art to glorify his organization, taking credit for the quality of their art, as if these people weren't talented before they took PFAL!

For those interested, here is a link to Amazon's page on the book on Fundamentalism by James Barr, which I quoted in my article. I was using his list of hallmarks of fundamentalism. If you go to this page, scroll down to see some reviews of his ideas, in particular his view on inerrancy which I happen to agree with, although I'm sure others won't... Inerrancy per James Barr

Do you want to tell us what you think "the even hotter and more troubling aspects of it" are?

Thank you everyone for addressing my question(s). I appreciate the time and efforts you put into your posts. All this discussion helps me rethink how to refine my thoughts on the issues... Cheers!

Okay, in my view, inerrancy of a document, which is made up of words, would mean it is without error or contradiction. Perhaps what this discussion is getting at is that VPW's view of inerrancy is not what the general population of Evangelicals thinks. Is that what you're trying to say? Here's what the Baptist's web site says about scripture at: http://www.sbc.net/a...asicbeliefs.asp The Scriptures The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. Is this the view of most Evangelicals? The Baptists I referred to in my previous post who did not sign the inerrancy "loyaly oath" that was shoved at them by the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1980s are still Christians. So there must be something about inerrancy that did not jive with them, but didn't prohibit them from still being Christians. I venture to say there are Christians in other denominations that don't buy into an error-free Bible, either. I'm just trying to figure out why some Christians like those in TWI make such an issue out of it and defend it and others do not.

Can someone here please explain why the tenent of biblical inerrancy is so important to Evangelical Christians and not important to so many other Christians? BTW, Workman, the Baptist Convention you mentioned at one time in the 1980s kicked out any minister who would not sign a document stating that inerrancy was "the truth" or something like that. Seems like an awful power play to me. That split in that church caused misery, broken friendships, and pain to many...I see nothing helpful to the Christian message of "love thy neighbor" in doing that, do you?

Thanks for chiming in with these book titles. I think works like this one (there are others) show that Jesus certainly was a part of that messianic movement during that time, along with his cousin John the Baptist, which means he believed the kingdom of God (as he is shown to describe it by the gospel writers) was going to come before very long - even before he died or shortly afterwards. It didn't, so that poses a problem. VP handled that problem by saying gosh, Jesus just didn't know the mystery etc etc., which is a theological explanation based on what Paul wrote ...but that's another topic... Anyway, Jesus's morality teachings, in my view, were his attempt to warn everyone to shape up or else they woulnd't get into the kingdom. Of course, he wasn't the first one to teach those values...the "golden rule" had been around in other religions for eons... How does this relate to the topic under discussion? In my view, it is another example of his borrowed ways (from Bullinger, etc.) of "proving inerrancy." If you have a Jesus who predicts the end of the world and it doesn't come, then "the whole Bible falls to pieces..." you have to do some bible gymnastics to explain or reinterpret what Jesus is recorded as saying or else claim that he just didn't have all the information going on behind the scenes, etc. (VPW's mystery teachings). I think it's worth questioning VP's methods... P.S. Here are good definitions for research from Merriam Webster: 1 : careful or diligent search 2 : studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws 3 : the collecting of information about a particular subject

Workman, Thanks for the heads up. Charlene

Yes, my interest is a literary curiosity. As a writer, I'd rather let each gospel writer's work stand on its own, rather than smush it into the other ones to make a fifth gospel, but I already said that, right? :-) My "faith" such as it is in an invisible creator, doesn't depend on these things... Cheers

I stand by my view that an harmonizing effort, no matter how well intentioned or how long ago it was attempted (which does not give it any more authority than one done yesterday IMO) ignores the different viewpoints of each gospel and crams them together to say, "Voila! it's one continuous story told in bits and pieces by different people and all the bits actually happened and fit together like a jigsaw puzzle and in the order this harmony says they did." I'd rather accept each one on its own terms and for fun, look into who wrote them, where, and possibly why (although motives are usually hard to determine.) But take what I say with a grain of salt...my interest in the topic is not due to matters of faith, only curiosity.