penworks

Probably his rapidly increasing level of debauchery.

You are not the first person I've heard who has made that deduction!

IMO this group is continuing to propound TWI errors and false claims, stating as truth their own beliefs beginning with stating "The Bible is the Word of God."

This is the definition of the Bible that VPW began with. He defined what the Bible was. We all know, he denounced anyone with an educated differing opinion on what the documents were. In my view, it is dishonest to say that is biblical research.

It does not seem that these groups will ever come clean and state that what they are teaching is their BELIEF, and if anyone wants to join in and believe with them, fine.

But they continually claim their beliefs as THE TRUTH and that everyone else should believe it or else go to hell or lose rewards or suffer some other demise. This system is intolerant and has caused more trouble than healing IMO.

Don't hold your breath if you think they will change. They've invested too much.

...and those trying to "clean up" the research even when VP contradicted himself often failed, for example, his two different teachings on when soul life begins.

1971:

PFAL book

Pg. 237

“The soul life is in the blood and is passed on when the sperm impregnates the egg at the time of fertilization.”

Contradicts these two later teachings:

1977:

Christian Family and Sex class, 1977 syllabus

Pg. 12

“The most dramatic part of the birth is the crowning because this is when the baby takes its first breath of life and becomes a living soul.”

1979:

Advanced Class

Segment 9 (on tape which I no longer have):

“The first breath of a child is soul life, until that time, there’s no soul life.”

So between 1971 when the PFAL book first came out, and 1977, only a six-year span of time, something changed for VPW regarding this topic. Again, in 1979 he repeated the 1977 version.

Anyone who continues to claim we were "taught The Word" needs to think again!

The question is not addressed to me...but as a non-Christian...no, this does not apply in my case.

Just for the record, it doesn't apply in my case either.

Quote from Oldschool's transcription of the podcast:

"...the Word of God says that Christians should give their very lives as living sacrifices and that certainly includes giving; giving time, material goods, and money. Although some people's situation may be such that they cannot give ten percent to the work of God, many people can and should give more than that. This teaching not only covers giving and tithing, but also provides biblical information about what to give and where Christians should give."

The above is a rehash of TWI dogma, as most of us can see.

I'm reminded of this quote from The True Believer - Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by Eric Hoffer, " It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible." p79.

Hi Greasespotters:

In my files I recently found this page of propaganda written for VPW in the 1970s by a Corps grad - it is not copyrighted. I am posting it here because I think it illustrates the old "likeminded" dogma we heard all the time in TWI. But this thinking is not over yet. Recently I was told something like it from a TWI offshoot leader (I will leave his name out of this) who said "I am sorry about the strife that seems to constantly occur in the Body of Christ. Our best bet is to stay holy and stay obedient." I'm not sure who he includes in the Body of Christ, but I do believe he got this way of thinking from TWI in the old days when we thought "we" were unified...

The following is the retyped page:

II Corinthians 1:5 - A literal translation

Demolish your human logic from the high position to which you have lifted it vertically against the knowledge of God which you have known by experience. Be wise, lead captive everything to Christ which you attentively listened to and heard.

Retention statistics

25% of all people forget what they have learned in 24 hours

50% of all people forget what they have learned in 48 hours

15% of all people forget what they have learned in 96 hours

In 16 days practically everyone has forgotten what they have learned.

62% of ideas people accept and retain come with the 6th hearing.

Noteworthy notes:

“Now I beseech you brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” I Cor. 1:10

Our ministry in the midst of our times is continually reminded of this verse. As believers of the Word, we must be in complete agreement when it comes to voicing The Word. It is vitally important for our leaders to “speak the same thing.” There may be occasional instances, however, where some of us disagree. In a case where there is not complete agreement among the believers, let us refrain from teaching our individual positions on that matter until we are sufficiently instructed so as to be in agreement. There are numerous areas where there is no question or controversy or disagreement. To prevent divisions in the body [implied to be the Way ministry] let us emphasize those areas where we agree and not publically discuss the areas of disagreement.

“Truth needs no defense.” How often have we heard this statement; yet how quickly do we endeavor to defend the truth of The Word when challenged by unbelievers and others. Since truth needs no defense, we should develop a strong offense in challenging those who question the truth. Error must be defended, and we of The Way ministry must develop the technique of challenging those who propound error. An effective strategy is to answer a question with a question. This shifts the burden of proof to the person who refutes the truth. The technique of following up a question with an answer in the form of a question is a great skill which must be developed and utilized as we hold forth the truth of God’s Word.

By (I am omitting his name) at the request of Dr. Wierwille.

Written in the 1970s by a Second Corps graduate (it wasn't me).

In my view, the "default" position about "the truth" as you expressed it, is that we have lots of these documents that are considered sacred.

IMO men came along and made the claim that all of the documents in a certain canon are God-breathed, using a verse out of context in II Peter to "prove" this. I find that "proof" inappropriate as far as applying it to the canon "they" chose. There's a very long history of the texts and on top of that, a complex history of all the translations made of those texts and more translations continue to this day. I've read some books about all this, but don't have the kind of time to put into it that I think would be needed to come up with a "final" answer, although I don't really think there is one.

Keep in mind that new MSS have been discovered within the last 100 years and they probably affect some of what's been already accepted as "the truth," so it seems to me that we will never know for sure...and that's okay with me but I realize it is unsettling for many others. So I say it's just my opinion and leave it at that.

Okay, here's something I don't get...

EWB goes to great lengths to try and reconcile sections of the gospels where he sees a contradiction or inconsistency. But here's something that jumps out at me, and as far as I can tell EWB doesn't address it.

Here are the four accounts of when they took Jesus away to be crucified...(all quotes from the NIV):

Matthew 27:32

As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.

Mark 15:21

A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.

Luke 23:26

As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus.

John 19:17

Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).

What's wrong with this picture? Am I the only one that sees a contradiction?

This doesn't strike me as being a translation issue. The words are pretty clear.

You may not like my answer, but IMO it's because there are 4 different writers with 4 different interpretations of what happened.

When you look at the history of when these gospels were written, Mark was first and is said to be the basis for Matthew and Luke. John was written much later. Some scholars say John had reasons for touting Jesus as God, not the son of God, and for writing his gospel account in certain ways so as to fend off other types of ideas regarding who or what Jesus was, i.e. the Gnostics, etc. I'm not a scholar or historian but there are plenty of books out there where you can read more about this...

On a personal level, this is one of the reasons I started a thread

regarding the term "spin off" often used here, and at times, in a similar manner. Some of those s.o. people

I respect and like what they endeavor to do in sincerity. Just an added thought...not meant to complain or antagonize.

I remember that thread and I posted there. When I use that term it is to identify groups that use TWI as their base in what they teach and/or do. Maybe other people use the term to "put people down" but I use it to identify those groups. That's why I used the term in my article recently; it is important to understand what groups we're talking about.

That said, I think it's important to remember that when spin-off groups continue to repeat TWI errors, we should ask some serious questions, no matter how sincere they are...

Soul Searcher:

Bullinger wanted to make all aspects of the bible fit together, he often compared sections of scripture that appeared to be referring to the same event and picked out what he saw as inconsistencies or contradictions. For instance, regarding the number of men crucified with Jesus, he pointed out that that in one gospel one of the two reviled him, while in another, both did. That, along with other details, were contradictions that a biblical literalist would want to reconcile so that scriptures would fit together.

The same with his view that there were six denials; there are enough differences in the circumstances in each gospel, that the literalist is confronted with inconsistencies that must be resolved. Someone who is not so concerned with making it all fit together wouldn't be concerned about the contradictions; I am unaware how biblical literalists other than Bullinger reconcile these sections of the bible.

But common sense would indicate that since each mention of the crucifixion only mentions two and each mention of the betrayals only mentions three, then there were two others crucified and three denials. I have a hard time seeing an omnipotent god who authored the scriptures playing those kind of numbers games.

Other apparently parallel sections he just decides are talking about different events altogether.

Where did Bullinger "get it from? I don't think he got it from anywhere other than his own desire to make sense of the many contradictions. Even though he was a clergyman in a major denomination (Church of England) he came to conclusions very different from mainstream Christianity.

Personally I don't think you can eliminate all contradictions and inconsistencies because the bible was written by men and not God. Different viewpoints, theologies, opinions and agendas go into the bible, trying to make them fit together is like trying to harmonize different secular authors writing on the same subject.

To me, you have spelled out what was the matter with VP's theology taken in large part from Bullinger - the frantic chase to explain away "contradictions."

My question is what exactly is the problem with simply letting go of the idea that God authored the Bible and admit these are men's writings, men who may have been considered by other men to have been inspired in what they wrote, but still men with viewpoints and vocabularies all their own? I think that in so doing we can still value these writings but in a more realistic way.

"Compassion and Empathy". Certainly as an educator of young children this is something I think about often. One of my young families at work adopted two children, one from China and one from Ethiopia. Another one of my families adopted a baby girl from Ethiopia but have not gone to get her yet; they're waiting to receive their travel date from Ethiopia. I have a picture of the baby hanging in my classroom; the waiting is difficult for the young family. The first family I mentioned has 2 biological children and the second family has 3 biological children already. For me, these families are the face of compassion. Have any of you heard of the company Tom's Shoes? The owner was moved by compassion to start his business. The video clip comes with a warning. It may provoke strong COMPASSION.

Yes, the Tom's Shoes guy is inspiring! Thanks for these great examples of taking care of the mountainous number of children lost in the world. Children will run this place when we're gone...my hope is we give them ways to do it that benefit not divide humanity.

Here's a "secular" take on the issue, but in the end says the same thing, in my view. From Robert Wright. He "uses evolutionary biology and game theory to explain why we appreciate the Golden Rule ("Do unto others..."), why we sometimes ignore it and why there’s hope that, in the near future, we might all have the compassion to follow it."

Evolution of compassion

I dragged this topic out of the archives to clarify something.

Joe Wis* spearheaded the production of the Aramaic Concordance which was published in August 1985. I helped with this project. Immediately after that, he proceeded to work on the translation for the Aramaic Interlinear , as was his assignment.

HOWEVER, he was fired - the reason given by LCM via W*lter C*mmins was that Joe was "too academic."

Joe's credentials included a Masters in Near Eastern Studies from Univ. of Chicago.

By the time he had to leave in August 1986, Joe had finished the translation of the Aramaic N.T. except the Book of Revelation.

That month, Br*ce M*hone - mentioned above - was brought in to finish the translation for the Interlinear.

How come Br*ce M*hone wasn't thought to be "too academic" as well?

My point is that anyone using the interlinear and concordance should be careful to notice any instances where it backs up TWI theology such as in Matt, 27:46. The Syriac word is for "Leave" or "forsake" not "spared" which the TWI translation used.

I know that Joe translated the Syriac as "forsake" but the final published translation, overseen by other people, is different and reflects PFAL dogma. When I asked W*lter Cum*ins whether Lamsa could have just misled VPW on this verse, he told me VPW was more spiritual than any of us. In that circumstance, the text was not the authority, but VPW was...this was a pattern most people know about.

BTW - Br*ce M*hone runs an offshoot based on VPW teachings. It's called something like Capital Area fellowship.

Maybe I will create a poll asking who uses the above mentioned Aramaic research materials.

A related question I'm interested in is: does anyone think learning languages of the texts makes any difference to their spiritual life or are these two separate matters? Personally, they are separate...one is an intellectual exercise, the other is intuitive.

The heart of my question comes from wondering about the value of doing biblical studies and the specific ways in which people think they are necessary.

I believe VPW taught a person could not know God without a knowledge of the The Word (better known as the Bible in its original form, which we don't have, but that's another topic).

What other questions could we put on the poll?

As for any research now, you know it can't be going on for real. On their web site if you look under research, it shows photo of a couple of people sitting or standing at a conference table with impressive looking bookshelves behind them.

However what is lacking is the names and/or credentials of the people who supposedly submit this so-called "research." Ya know why?

They can't do it because they have NO ONE in that organization who has studied biblical languages at and/or graduated from a respectable accredited University with a degree in biblical studies and languages who can properly parse a pronoun.

If they DID, you KNOW they would have the information out there.

They sit on Aramaic work done by qualified people who are no longer around. Neither their own people can effectively use those works, because they don't understand and can't read and translate the script, nor can the outside relgious community buy the works because TWI will only sell them to "the household."

They had lots of well-qualified individuals with bachelors degrees, masters degrees, and PhDs in the languages, but RAN THEM OFF when these people had the integrity to NOT rubber-stamp bad work.

People like Dr. D*n McCon*ughy, Br*ce M*hone, and others who attended the University of Chicago and The Lutheran School of Theology under the world's foremost Aramaic Scholar, Dr. Arthur Voobus. People like B*b W*ssu*g, myself, and others sat at his feet. My husband studied biblical greek under Professor Wilmot at University of Chicago. There were many many others (for instance Orange Cat et al), that TWI could have utilized to do true and honest research, yet time and again, because we would not bend, were dismissed, harassed, defamed, and run off.

They can't DO genuine research because they have nobody qualified to do it.

All they permit anyone to do is rehash what has already been done and God forbid you should contradict established doctrine.

That's not RESEARCH and it's not HONEST.

I dragged this topic out of the archives to clarify something.

Joe Wis* spearheaded the production of the Aramaic Concordance which was published in August 1985. I helped with this project. Immediately after that, he proceeded to work on the translation for the Aramaic Interlinear , as was his assignment.

HOWEVER, he was fired - the reason given by LCM via W*lter C*mmins was that Joe was "too academic."

Joe's credentials included a Masters in Near Eastern Studies from Univ. of Chicago.

By the time he had to leave in August 1986, Joe had finished the translation of the Aramaic N.T. except the Book of Revelation.

That month, Br*ce M*hone - mentioned above - was brought in to finish the translation for the Interlinear.

How come Br*ce M*hone wasn't thought to be "too academic" as well?

My point is that anyone using the interlinear and concordance should be careful to notice any instances where it backs up TWI theology such as in Matt, 27:46. The Syriac word is for "Leave" or "forsake" not "spared" which the TWI translation used.

I know that Joe translated the Syriac as "forsake" but the final published translation, overseen by other people, is different and reflects PFAL dogma. When I asked W*lter Cum*ins whether Lamsa could have just misled VPW on this verse, he told me VPW was more spiritual than any of us. In that circumstance, the text was not the authority, but VPW was...this was a pattern most people know about.

BTW - Br*ce M*hone runs an offshoot based on VPW teachings. It's called something like Capital Area fellowship.

From the site:

Issue #1: "Biblical research is not only at the foundation of The Way Ministry but also at the foundation of each of our individual lives. Biblical research is for every believer, not just a few."

WOW! Still claiming they are doing that...

Issue #2: Notice the items that are now trademarked, 4 out of 6 on the front page under What is Available.

Great discussion, all.

In case Thurman did not happen to appeal to some readers here (indeed, did not), here are a few others at T.E.D. who speak on compassion, too.

Brief talks on compassion

Enjoy your Saturday.

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful and thought-provoking insights. I think this issue is a critical one, obviously, but I struggle to understand it and apply it everyday just like everyone else.

I added the following to another thread this morning but thought it appropriate for this one, too.

As regards to our impulse as humans to offer compassion or encourage others to express it, compassion does not exclude seeking justice for criminals nor should it belittle the pain of victims or minimize the seriousness of these things.

To me, a good example is how the Dalai Lama recently called what the Chinese gov't is doing to the Tibetans a "cultural genocide." Monks are being beaten, human rights violated left and right. I was recently there myself and understand better now what's going on. As a person with good credentials for understanding compassion, D.L. knows better than most that justice is never excluded in the process of extending compassion. I think this has been a common misperception in the West. Perhaps it has been here at GSC. Compassion is not a band-aid or a way of staying in denial about the reality of abuse or crimes nor is it a matter of brushing off harm done. I think humanity is still trying to figure it all out...there are no easy answers. For many of us, at least.

I disagree. I don't know how we can always meet needs. I think we do the best we can with what we're given. We don't have the advantage of eye contact, body language and the benefit of real time conversation.

Thanks, Shellon, for expressing this so well. Words are often very incapable of expressing what we want in a perfect way.

I guess all I can say is my own intention in being here is to offer what I can, avoid preaching, and try to consider what is going on before I add comments. If I've ever come across otherwise, I trust I will be forgiven.

In regards to the painful experiences recounted here, they are dreadful at times but they are important in raising awareness of the huge problems involved when religion is made into a buisness and leaders abuse followers as happened in TWI and continues according to reports here. I left a long time ago but am still finding out that what I used to think was going on in TWI at times was quite different than what was actually going on.

As regards to our impulse as humans to offer compassion or encourage others to express it, compassion does not exclude seeking justice for criminals nor should it belittle the pain of victims or minimize the seriousness of these things. To me, a good example is how the Dalai Lama recently called what the Chinese gov't is doing to the Tibetans a "cultural genocide." Monks are being beaten, human rights violated left and right. I was recently there myself and understand better now what's going on. As a person with good credentials for understanding compassion, D.L. knows better than most that justice is never excluded in the process of extending compassion. I think this has been a common misperception in the West. Perhaps it has been here at GSC. Compassion is not a band-aid or a way of staying in denial about the reality of abuse or crimes nor is it a matter of brushing off harm done. I think humanity is still trying to figure it all out...there are no easy answers. For many of us, at least.

The grossly unfortunate thing...more like an elephant in the room...is that former perpetrators of abuse are no longer living and never faced justice for their crimes and abuses.

All we are left with are our stories, hoping they will speak to issues that can assist people in the same boat of pain,recovery, denial, or ignorance and warn others not to jump into the boat to begin with.

Peace

... The Good Reverend forgets the following question. How does one define 'substantial errors', as opposed to 'unsubstantial errors', ... hhmmmm?

IMO, the significance of that statement is this: There is always someone in charge making that determination - which errors are substantial and which ones are not, which word to use in translating a Greek word into English and which other ones in the "range of meaning" to ignore. IMO, this is a subjective process. In TWI, the original person in charge of making that determination was VPW. Then Walt*r Cumm*ns in Research got involved with textual studies to help substantiate the inerrancy stance of TWI. He went to Germany in one attempt.

The problem for me became: The "accuracy" of "The Word" was what someone "in charge" ended up deciding. To me, it is still someone's interpretation and interpretations can be influenced by a number things going on with the interpreter.

When I was "witnessed to" in 1971, I was told that TWI was always open to learning more about the Bible. They even said the ministry could and would change when it learned more.

This appealed to me.

These statements are printed on a "For Those Who Want to Know" handout sheet:

"This is what research is all about - working, studying the whole Bible to see how it all fits together. Part of research is not to find something new in the Word, but to establish in your own heart the inherent and inerrant accuracy of the truths of God's Word for yourself."

Next paragraph:

"As a research and teaching ministry, we are always open to learn more about the Bible. The ministry has the freedom to change and grow when something new is discovered in the Bible. No dogmas are imposed on an individual. The research is made available to those who wish to utilize it."

Two of my (notice MY) questions about the above statements include:

1. How open was/is TWI? - My experience was that you could not usually question things like inerrancy or teachings already in print or taped or on video.

2. Who decides what doctrines to change and why? - I saw only VPW, and a few select individuals do this as they worked as a group, but in the end, while VPW was alive, he had the final answer. Sometimes that meant he appealed to his "scope of The Word" after 40 some years of study, not to any text in existence.

After he died, as far as the Way Corps teachings and Magazine articles go, the "accuracy of the Word" became a team effort of the research team (some with degrees, some without), with Walt*r Cumm*ns making the final calls, even when some input from others seemed workable.

The research system was set up like this because W.C. was the one VPW put in charge of research. During the course of this process to determine the "Literal translations according to usage" I began to wonder where this put TWI as far as claiming it could get back to the "accuracy" of The Word. Which would show inerrancy.

Those are just a few thoughts to add to the topic.

One last item: In the PFAL book, page 5, we see VPW's habit of using the terms "the Bible" "scripture," and "The Word" or "God's Word" interchangeably.

To me, that is a MAJOR issue.

In my view, this got very confusing. One reason is that there are many different Bible versions, some with different canons. Which one has the God-breathed canon? I think this subject has been hashed out here by several of us.

Peace

One would think that what you laid out in the post above would be the default position and any inerrancy would have to be proved. If the bible was inerrant, it stands to reason that that would be demonstrable.

Thank you, Oakspear, for saying that the "facts on the ground" about the texts could be "the default position."

That is EXACTLY the one I've taken since I haven't seen anyone demonstrate inerrancy of the whole Bible.

Because I take that position, the burden would rest on the fundamentalists to show the assumption of inerrancy to be a worthwhile one.

To do it, they would have to choose a particular version to start with, I think, and probably be able to read Greek, Hebrew, Latin, etc. That seems a tall order from "God the author" in order to get to know anything he said "in the originals."

Our best attempts have been in attempting to "reconstruct" the originals.

Which leads to the next question, "Since we don't have the originals, how would we know our so-called reconstructed original is actually anything close to the original? There's no original to which we could compare our reconstruction.

So after all this reconstructive surgery (like on a human face) could we honestly say it's exactly like the original?

Some people seem confident in what they have that they still say, "Thus saith the Lord." My problem is I'm not that confident. That's just me. That's what put the brakes on my joining an offshoot, as much as they said they were correcting VPW's error - what about the errors in the text to start with, besides the ones VP added?

TWI took the KJV with add-ons to try and reconstruct the original. I was part of the research team who tried to do that with "literal transaltions according to usage." It all got pretty gymnastics-like after awhile...trying to scramble and explain contradictions...

Who really cares about this anyway?

Well, I used to when I depended for guidance in life on what I thought was God's Word and using it for my only rule of faith and practice. To let go of that idea requires some adjustment...to say the least. But I'm still alive and kickin'.

Ah well, any further comments on this topic? I'd like to read what further implications others see regarding this "default position" - the downsides and the upsides.

Peace,

Charlene

/me snickers at the 'Caution' of it being from a Buddhist perspective.

...indeed...that was my poor attempt at being a bit snide, and obviously not very compassionate - a good example of NOT living up to the high ideals in the message of the speaker... :(

Are you talking about John S0m@rv!1le, of Total Fitness Institute infamy?

Yes

If God's word is so complicated he needs these workmen and others to share the ego of these workmen, God probably didn't do a good job in speaking His words clearly the first time. What makes us think we are better communicators?!

Hi Greasespotters and visitors:

In my ongoing attempt to find common ground among religions and in particular lately between TWI supporters, offshoot followers, ex-cultists, never-in-your-life cultists, Christians, Agnostics, Atheists, etc. etc. I'd like to offer this video clip on T.E.D.

My questions are:

Is it really possible to do this?

Are we evolved enough as humans?

How do we de-escalate the rhetoric in civil discourse to do this?

Caution: This is a Buddhist perspective on what it means to be compassionate, although he points out how Christ encouraged this idea and way of life, too.

My intention is that this topic can be disussed here - I don't think it falls under the Doctrinal forum. If I am wrong, it should be moved there.

Robert Thurman on Expanding Your Circle of Compassion

Thanks,

Charlene

My article has lit up some otherwise dull fuses out there. (Note: I've received some personal emails that indicate this but I will not post them here.) If I have offended anyone in regards to their hero, that was not my intention.

My intention was to share my opinons/experiences in the hope that they would be helpful to others or useful in their understanding of TWI and what was taught by that group.

Naturally, what was taught by that group originated with VPW. My writing is not a personal attack on him. My writing is an exploration of the THINKING that he promulgated. He used that word a lot so I will use it in an attempt to communicate with TWI followers or spin-off group members.

The THINKING behind the TWI research approach involves assumptions.

I personally think that inerrancy is not a reasonable assumption with which to start research.

Why?

It denies the "facts on the ground" about the texts of the Bible that most people know, i.e. that they were written by various different writers in different countries during different periods of history and could not possibly be "without contradiction" by the sheer fact that these writers were unknown to each other. Not to mention the fact that we have no originals. At best we have translations of versions that are copies of copies, etc. etc.

I fully realize these "facts on the ground" fly in the face of another assumption, which is God is the author of all these books. To those who choose to accept that proposition, it doesn't matter who wrote them or how many writers there were. The books constitute a pile of writing that constitutes The Word.

Who cares about the history of the text?

TWI cared about it for awhile. Until someone in 1986 named Ch(s Ge*r came along and read the Passing of the Patriarch and all of a sudden, the research group at TWI, which consisted of TWI research team members (myself included) and members "from the field" were stopped from continuing on the project by the head of research, (Wal*&r Cu*mins who was I suspect (watch out, this is my OPINION) under pressure from Ge*r) canned the small group of people interested in that topic. It became too problematic, I guess. YEAH. Why? It might undermine one of the cornerstone assumptions of TWI, the one they were fighting so hard to maintain: that the Bible "fits like a hand in a glove."

I have an over-active imagination fueled by an over-active curiosity driven by years of knowledge-of-things-in-the-world deprivation that leads me to over-analyzing events of the past, present, and possible future scenarios.

Water boy, you are not alone...

If I remember correctly, the original point of bringing up the pre-Christian resurrection stories was as a counter to Wierwille's claim that Jesus' resurrection was unique among all the religions of the world. It wasn't. The existence of slain & risen gods born of virgins written about since antiquity doesn't in and of itself make the gospels false, but neither do the gospel stories make these others invalid.

I guess there are at least two ways of looking at this:

1. The Devil knew what God was going to do and set up other deaths & resurrections and virgin births to dilute the affect of Jesus.

2. Jesus' biographers added details from pagan mythology to his life and background to make him seem more godlike to the non-Jewish world.

3. Just a coincidence!

If you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, I would imagine that you have to come up with scenarios like #1 in order to make it all "fit". If you do not believe that the bible is a divinely inspired book, then #2 would make more sense.

Brilliant analysis.