Broken Arrow

Do we have to do Rock? I've got one I've had on my mind for days and I think you'll recognize it. It's of the jazz genre and it's been sung by a variety of "crooners".

"Gotta get my ol' Tuxedo pressed,

Gotta sew a button on my vest...."

Thanks Waysider and Boshie. That gives me something to go on. To answer your question about who VP got the RHST stuff, much of it was from someone named J.E. Stiles I believe. That's the guy God had him meet when he was trapped by a (ahem) "snowstorm" in Tulsa. VP liked him, he said, because of the way he treated his wife which was bossy and inconsiderate.

This one's been making the rounds at my office lately. I think it's pretty funny. This is a montage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI58wj4b4g0

The only "professional" training the corps ever got was Dale Carnegie

training in SALES....

Oh, I dunno about that. Have you forgotten about "Real Clean Window Cleaning"?

.

TWI, IMO, moved people around in order to maintain control. If a person stayed in an area too long they would gain a personal following. Then if TWI wanted to ram something...er...I mean make a change...they would be forced to get a buy-in from the local leader. Worse, someone may even start to revere someone else besides VPW! Even worse...the abs might quit flowing to HQ. No, VP learned his lesson well from his experiences with The Way West, and The Way East, which I believe were independent organizations. Wierwille conspired to have them shut down if I have my story straight.

Remember "The Great Principle" from the Advanced Class? The Great Principle says,

"God's Spirit teaches His creation in you which is now your spirit and your spirit teaches your mind. Then it becomes manifest in the senses realm as you act."

What strikes me about this is the differentiation between "the spirit (small s)" and the person themselves. Even though TWI was/is not a gnostic religion, this is a type of gnostic belief if I understand things correctly. That is, a person can do whatever they wish with the body and it doesn't matter because the spirit is not affected. I believe this type of thinking opens the door for all types of illicit behavior in "the name of God". I would be interested in hearing others' ideas about this.

Also, does anyone know where Wierwille might of come up with this so-called "Great Principle"?

Nevermind. :)

I don't know how to state this any plainer. I am not attacking Paul. I am attacking a concept. The concept is that, first, the epistles are addressed directly to us today, and, secondly, that whenever Paul spoke, it was synonymous with God speaking.

I read what you're saying here, Waysider but your words seem to be inconsistent with other posts you've written. Namely:

" Suppose for a moment, though, that Paul was, perhaps, the VPW of his day. (So often, people would put forth the inverse idea that VPW was the Apostle Paul of our day and time.) Even now, years after his death, with the advent of the internet and the plethora of information it puts at our fingertips, some people still aren't able to see that VPW was really a con-man. People in the first century did not have access to resources that could prove or disprove Paul's legitimacy."

"What if Paul was really a forerunner of what we now call "con men"? What if Paul was the VPWFHDAT? (VPW for his day and time) It certainly shines a very different light on the importance and "inerrancy" of The Epistles."

"What do we really know about this cat named Paul? I mean, he had a pretty lengthy rap sheet before he made the old switchola. Personal credibility does not work heavily in his favor...."

"If Paul was a flim-flam man on the order of VPW, maybe the comparisons are warranted."

"there are at least weather records on file that refute Wierwille's gas pump Stowwwry. We don't even have any traffic logs for Damascus Road."

This next was was bit vicious in my opinion:

"A thousand years from now-----

"He sacrificed his very own eye for his keeeds. And, when that wasn't enough, he turned his face to the wall and, with a broken heart and shattered liver, was heard to say, 'I wish I was a man. I know I could have been.'"

A comparison, it seems, to Paul discussing how he was beaten etc. and what it would have sounded like if it were being written about VPW.

I could have picked other quotes...but you catch my drift.

Now in this post you say you're not attacking Paul? With all due respect, and I do respect you by the way, these look like attacks to me. So, can you help me out here? Am I completely misunderstanding your words? Looks plain to me, but we're all guilty of reading into things. So I'm open. How do you reconcile some of these statements that look (to me) like attacks on Paul with, "I'm not attacking Paul".

A lot of what Paul said did not "fly" as it was so outside the realm of the common Judean understanding of God. It didn't necessarily agree with new-found Christianity, either.

The lack of women in positions of leadership in some denominations comes from words right out of Paul's mouth (emphasis added). Women don't cut their hair because of Paul. The treatment of homosexuals in the church is another example.

Actually, history points out that women had more voice and more involvement in church administration under early Christendom then they had historically up to that point. The same held true when Jesus walked the earth. There were actually women in leadership in the early church. This is in comparison to the Jewish, Greek, and Roman religions of the time. I have to admit I do not understand the passage about women not cutting their hair. While Paul and Christianity often get tagged for being chauvenistic, in reality the opposite is true.

Happy Birthday call last night that was a blast from my past and she said "you sound sad, are you sad?"

I said "no, not sad, I'm pizsed off"

She said "negative thoughts and feelings? You know better, we'll be believing for you"

The next thing she heard was "if you'd like to make a call, please hang up and dial your number again"

Yeah, that cheered me up

What a fine group of bonified, trained counselors we were!

I can buy into that. One could conceivably find inspiration in seeing how Paul was able to make the best out of a bad situation. Lots of good lessons in there when seen from a non-mystical perspective. It might serve as an example of forbearance. I don't think that qualifies it as "meaningless". The point I am seeing here is that the verse is about what Paul felt HE could do because of the "Christ which strengthened" him, not what God said WE could do. (ie: It wasn't God telling us what we could do; it was Paul telling the Philippians what he, Paul, could do) It has a completely different meaning when viewed in that light, much different than the way we applied it in The Way. I'm not saying it's bad advise to be optimistic. Perhaps, as you say, the message here is, indeed, to "be content", "keep your chin up", etc. That's not necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand, I don't think it justifies irrational behavior, such as hitch-hiking to L.E.A.D., in some ridiculous time constraint, with virtually no money, and saying "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" as if that would make the venture anymore reasonable or possible.

I agree, except that I believe Paul is implying the same holds true for all believers. That is, we are adequate and should be content regardless of our physical state. One thing I'd like to add, the idea of being content with what you have, trusting God, as it were, is not unique to Paul's teachings. Jesus taught it, Psalmists (David?) wrote about it, even other religions teach it. I heartily agree with you, however, that TWI butchered the application of this verse. In the WC, you were put to shame if you didn't make it to LEAD within a certain timeframe. I was shocked my first year when a team of 3 were arrested by the Kansas Highway Patrol as hitchhiking on the freeway is illegal! I thought, "Gosh, if people are getting arrested, maybe we should think of another way of doing this. But no, TWI just posted their bail and back on the road they went not being given any consideration for the time they spent in jail!

To justify themselves, TWI used this verse to knock us over the head. You know, you look back and ask yourself if there were ever warning signs you might have missed. Well, duh!

BTW, I wrote my last post as I was running out the door. The comment I made about "meaningless" doesn't fit with what you were saying and I would like to "strike it from the record".

Brothers, be imitators together of me, and observe them which walk so as you have us for an example.

Maybe?

I think so.

How many times have you heard someone say, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."? (Philippians 4:13) It became a mantra, even found its way into retemory cards and songs. But, look it that verse again. Is this verse really something that God is declaring to be one of the "over 900 promises" to the body of Christ talked about in PFAL? Or, is it simply something Paul said? Forget about administrations, to whom it is written, Jews, Gentiles, Church of God and all that stuff. It is simply not saying this is anything other than a declaration Paul made, of himself, to the people of Philippi. In other words, "Thus saith Paul."

I BELIEVE THE CONTEXT OF THIS VERSE IS PAUL TALKING ABOUT LIVING CONDITIONS. THAT IS, HE IS ADEQUATE WITHIN CHRIST HIMSELF IN ALL SITUATIONS. IT DOES NOT MEAN, AS TWI SUPPOSED THAT HE COULD DO ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL OR OTHERWISE BECAUSE HE HAD THIS "FORCE" HIM. I SUPPOSE YOU CAN TAKE THIS AND MAKE IT MEANINGLESS IF YOU WISH BUT I THINK IT TRANSLATES INTO A LIFE LESSON. THAT IS "BE CONTENT".

Yeah, well, maybe I'll just mind my own business. Sorry.

Not sure about Mission House/Lakeland as it no longer exists.

I'm not trying to defend the guy...but I always assumed this was the school he was referring to:

http://www.lakeland.edu/

This school still exists and it's been around since the 1890's I believe. It's also in Sheboygan, Wisconsin which is where VP said he attended. I had a friend that went there in the 70's.

The story goes that he was offered a basketball scholarship at Ohio State but his father wanted him to go to Lakeland. You'll remember from the class he said he played college ball and a "little bit of professional basketball...." He said he invented the hook shot.

I guess this has nothing at all to do with his doctorate. But I thought someone might be interested that there is at least one actual school.

Yeah. Like Columbia---- (School of Broadcasting)

HeeHee

Now I'm embarrassed! I really did think all this time he went to THE Princeton...sheesh!

I'd generally attempt to refute or at least present another viewpoint to anyone who said Paul was the VPW of his day if I thought it would do any good but saying...

You got my attention but are wrong,

there are volumes written that say you are wrong,

you hardly have to be a human being to come up with your points,

pray, study, and possibly God will open your eyes.

Sheesh Caribousam,

I already don't give a fig what else you may have to say. Nice 'tude BTW!

JeffSjo, one of the downsides of a site like this is we can't see who we're talking to. Caribou might be some young guy or girl just trying to find their voice and maybe haven't mastered the best way to frame something. You seem a bit more seasoned. How about we give this guy some room?

Thanks Tzaia. I heard about the book you're referring to. I even picked it up and thumbed through it a little. It looked like it would be interesting. I'll have to check it out.

Ah...another "orientalism" that Wierwille pulled out of his @$$

I think he got it from that Bishop Pillai guy. But I might be wrong about that.

I don't expect this to "rock anyone's world" nor do I think this post is going to last very long. Do you remember this teaching from "The Blue Book"?

Behold I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; they walls are continually before me.Isaiah 49:16

The teaching was that the word "graven" meant "tatoo". VPW further commented that one never saw anyone with a tatoo on their palms. He said the reason no one did this is that there were too many nerve endings in the human palms and that having a tatoo there would be too painful and that no human could stand it.

But God, said Wierwille, loved us so much that He was willing to undergo the pain of having our names tatooed on His palms so that he would always have our names in front of him. Not on his arm that could be covered up by a sleeve, but always in front of Him.

The teaching may be accurate as far as God always having us in mind. But the tatoo/pain thing was wrong. More than 30 years after reading this I talked to a tatoo "artist" and asked him why people didn't get tatoos on their palms. His answer was that of all parts of the body, the skin on one's palms replaces itself much faster and more frequently. Moreover, since we use our hands so much, skin is constantly being rubbed off. This man told me that a tatoo on a palm would only last 3 months or so. In other words people didn't get tatoos on their palms because it would be a waste of money. He also went on to say that Sandra Bullock's boyfriend, Jesse James, got a tatoo on his palms that contained obscenities. According to him, the tatoos were unreadable in about 4 months. Maybe I never asked before now because I didn't want to take the risk that the man to whom God was giving the greatest revelation on God's Word since the first century would be wrong.

Anyway, like I said, not earth shattering or life-changing. Just one more thing to add to the pile.

Just for the record.

I never said Paul lied or that he was a con-man or perverse in a manner that resembles VPW's depravity. I said "what if."

What I alluded to is that we accept his credibility based on a criteria that he, himself, established. That doesn't necessarily make him a liar or a con-man or anything else. It certainly dilutes the value of his credibility, though.

The whole reason I jumped into this topic is because of what you stated in your original post. That is, "Suppose for a moment though, that Paul was the VP of his day...." and "What if Paul was really a forerunner of what we now call con men".

I just don't see it the way you do. I think there was more criteria to his credibility than what he alone established. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. (Is that metaphor outdated? Should I say repititive CD now?) Paul himself and his writings were also accepted by his contemporaries. His writings were respected enough that many of them were preserved. In the 2nd century, you will find communications between churches in Phillipi and (I think) Galatia requesing for them to send them their copy of one of Paul's epistles. One sees Peter referring to Paul's writings as "scripture". These actions on the part of his contemporaries and other actions are testimony to Paul's credibility.

Some in this thread have refuted this argument by saying that people who spoke well of Paul were those who loved and respected him. The implication is that these assessments by his peers are irrelevant. But even this position refutes your claim that his credibility is "based on criteria that he himself established".

Let's not forget that we were taught Paul's teachings through the lens of VP Wierwille. What is more suspect, in my opinion, is the credibility of what we were taught. I regard as suspect some of the things I came to believe were taught by Paul such as some of the things you've mentioned. But as to the man himself I do not believe there is any comparison to him and VPW or any con man for that matter. I also believe his credibility is valid.

I do know that I'm moving further way from Paul's version of Christianity and trying to move closer to what Jesus actually taught. Jesus didn't demand worship of him and what he was doing.

I see things differently. I don't see the disparity between what the two of them taught. As far as Jesus not demanding worship, he said things like, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me." I think Paul held the same belief regarding Jesus. Jesus also referred to himself as the "Bread from Heaven". I don't think Paul would have had a problem with that either. Maybe that's not requiring worship, but it would suggest at the very least that Jesus had a very high opinion of himself. Paul seemed to have a high regard as well. I don't see where Paul referred to himself in these ways. In fact, what I see is Paul point to Jesus, his teaching, and his person.

He was not taught by the master himself, or anyone who had a personal relationship with the master.

I believe there was the Apostle Peter, James, and the other 12 disciples. This is in addition to the 14 years he lived in Tarsus prior to Barnabas inviting him on his first missionary journey.

Everything he taught was revealed by the hs, which (to me) is something that is obviously flawed. It has come to Paul's word being as good as Jesus' when there is no evidence to suggest that he ever had any real authority other than what he bestowed on himself.

I'm not sure that everything he taught was supposidely revealed by the Holy Spirit. The Jews and Gentiles being fellow heirs in the Kingdom was I think. But that was also coroborrated by other happenings like the veil of the temple being torn in half when Jesus was crucified and of course Peter's experience with the House of Cornelius.

We really don't know what the (supposed) "false" teachers and "false" prophets said

It depends on what situation is being referred to. A big problem the early church faced was those who wanted to add to the doctrine of being saved by grace. That is, they were teaching that men still needed to be circumsized. Another place these "false teachers" were saying there was no resurrection. In another place they were breaking off into factions. Some were preaching only to make money.

I feel myself being pulled into the vortex of circular logic again.

The record of Paul was written by people that loved Paul. Just as VPW was described by us to others in the 70's, those records may not reflect the true Paul. We don't know. Or rather, I don't know. You are convinced that you know and that's ok, but I don't. Mohammad gained a huge following and is venerated amongst the Muslims at least as much as Paul is amongst Christians. Can we apply that as a standard of goodness or rightness or righteousness?

I'm not sure I can improve on the way I stated this previously. I don't believe that I'm being "circular". I know I know that is not my intention. I am not personally trying to make a statement as the right-ness or righteousness of the Apostle Paul. I am attempting to respond to those who are suggesting that Paul was a fraud, a womanizer, drunkard etc. I am saying there is no evidence to suggest that he was any of those things. The evidence would strongly suggest otherwise. Yes, the records were written by people who loved Paul. Those were people like the Apostle Peter and Luke. One a direct disciple of the Christ and recognized church leader during the same time period as Paul, and the other a respected believer.

There are other writings not directly about Paul per se but about Christians and their activities. There was no mention of Paul. I am not aware of any writings from other believers who accused Paul of any wrongdoings.

You're right, we don't know anything about much of anything. We only have evidence and I am pointing out that there is ample evidence as to the authenticity of Paul's character. There is none to suggest otherwise. Only those who say, "Well he could have been like Wierwille, we don't really know." Well, yeah, he could have been a lot of things I suppose but without any evidence it is speculation and only speculation.

As far as Paul's right-ness or wrong-ness, that's another issue for another time. I am not familiar with Mohammad. Are there people accusing him of raping and seducing young girls, being a drunkard, or a thief? If they are and there happens to be no evidence to support their claim, then my tendency would be to not accept their viewpoint. I appreciate your question.

When I read that, I thought Taz was saying VP expected entirely too much from his followers. Yeah, I know, "the closest pronoun" and all that stuff. But, that's how I interpreted it, none the less. I guess we'll have to wait for Taz to clarify.

Oh...you might be right. If that's the case, Taz...nevermind!

Erk - I don't think VPW liked Jesus because he demanded entirely too much from his followers. Paul's theology is far less radical in terms of expectations.

Thanks for your reply. I simply don't see where Jesus is more demanding than Paul nor do I see 2 different theologies.