Vertical Limit

1 more on the dead horse that keeps popping up in my brain. Jesus could not have been illegitimate because he had to fullfill the law. Joseph and Mary had to have already been married when she got pregnant.

I thought "espoused" meant that they were already married and just haven't consumated the marriage. The time for that was supposed to be set by the priest or so we were taught. If memory serves.... Deut 20:7 And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her. the only scripture I could find on it... And that maybe that's how Joseph found out she was pregnant was when they were to come together. Then Joseph was considering what to do because he thought she was pregnant by someone else. Then the angel showed up. [This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 21, 2003 at 2:18.] [This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 21, 2003 at 2:20.]

yeah, that's that whole "battle of the senses" thing taken to extremes. Natural man verses revelation faith. Is it a sin to misunderstand the bible? No! Is it a sin misunderstand or miss what God is trying to tell you in any given situation? No! Are mistakes and sh!t happening an indicator of your relationship with God? No! Has God quit helping me because I made a mistake or something bad happened to me? No! If God is going to shut me off from himself every time I make a mistake-like OCD said on another thread-time to upgrade. My opinion

What The Hay says; "So what if you agree or don't agree with what VPW wrote? And what if I agree where you don't agree, and you agree with him where I don't?" So?????What????? twi's version of "likeminded" ain't happening here! Try not to jump to conclusions Peace :)-->

What The Hay - u said "It's amazing how people still keep bringing up his words just to have something to strive over, usually with no other pupose than to be argumentative and controversial with other people regarding something he wrote years ago" BEEP---Wrong Again, Not this Cafe (well maybe a little) Maybe 1 day I'll tell you why I want the truth. [This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 17, 2003 at 22:48.] [This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 17, 2003 at 22:53.]

What The Hay- "attempting to stand approved before men" ?? Nope - NOT - No Way

ex10 I was just going to edit my post to say "or both"!! You guys are really cool!

"We be not born of fornication" So the statement is either the Jews accusing Jesus or the Jews defending themselves against what Jesus was saying. hmmmm.....don't think I'll loose sleep on it but it's pretty cool.

makes me wonder what else I accepted without checking it out

"We be not born of fornication" Could be the ones Jesus was talking to was refuting what Jesus was saying by saying that they were children of Abraham and Sarah and not of Abraham and someone else-like the maid

I guess deceived would be a better word for it. Any way more directly on the topic- We were told that we should stay because twi taught us the word.

Garth I been thinking about it off and on since the last thread on the subject. How about this; Mind Control = a person being directed by another to think a certain way about anything that ignores or changes the facts and truths about the given subject or situation and the one doing the directing has a motive that only benefits himself Eh.... A stab at some sort of definition of the term. At least what it means to me. Put in the positive where the facts and truths are not ignored and drop the benefits part and you have reality. Does that make sense? I'm guessing you just do not like the term. I can understand that. It is a term that has different meanings to different people. But the tactics discussed on those web sites (twi tactics) are more what I was trying to point out. [This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 16, 2003 at 20:52.]

"the abused Way Corps became adept at abusing." And some of 'em liked being that way I might add. At least some I had which are still in twi. It was a well thought out system that slowly was yeilding the results. Maybe oldies doesn't see that as being a victim. Not that I'm trying to get this thread back to that. But some were just plain blindsided with abuse just as sudden as 9-11. And a realization that they were in a system of abuse, seduction and seclusion.

The unfortunate folks at the TWI who got FXXXXD couldn't leave, they were trapped and it was too late. Get It Fella?? [This message was edited by Modaustin on January 13, 2003 at 13:54.]

I'm just curious as to where you got this kind of thinking oldiesman. A movie? A book? A leader of a cult? What? Have you even read My Stories? Searched for stories on all the different sites? Talked to anyone that was abused? The blame does not lie at the feet of the victim!! You know we have a justice system in America because the blame does not belong to the victim!! How about some reality instead of beatin that same old drum!!

Well........... here's another one, "I have no friends when it comes to the Word Of God" Jesus said something like that to his 12 apostles. VPW ain't Jesus. I'll have any friends I want! :P--> (Probably said before) Add on-- Thinking more about that phrase that was so widely used in twi. twi breaks it's own "biblical principles we must adhere to" rule "the verse must be understood in light of to whom it is addressed" John 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. That was Jesus addressing his apostles. And, according to twi, in the "gospel administration" to boot. I don't see where else that statement could have come from. Another add on-- "interpretation and application must be understood in light of to whom it is addressed" That's the one i think--- hmmm edited 3 times. I'm either talking to myself or just entertaining myself or both. What the heck... [This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 10, 2003 at 20:25.] [This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 10, 2003 at 20:41.] [This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 10, 2003 at 21:00.]

Holy Crap! I know it might look strange that I posted on this thread "actual errors in pfal" and in my last post I referenced 1 John while you guys were talking about some of the stuff in 1 John in the doctrinal section. Could have referenced Romans 8 or 12 or another set of scriptures. I swear I didn't know that thread was happening. After noone else posted on the actual errors thread I started looking to see where everyone went and saw that thread. I'm not some kind of weird troll or something. Maybe you didn't think it was strange or something but I thought you might. I kinda thought it was!? I hardly ever look at the doctrinal section. I guess I'll take a look at it more.

Maybe it was hot air or a lie when I said I have a lot more. It's mostly in interpretation and application and may not fit into Raf's rules :)-->. If the out-of-fellowship, standing and state teachings are wrong (which I believe it is). Then a whole lot of pfal is wrong as it was a major portion of the class and filtered into the renewed mind sections and a ton of sns and fellowships up and down the "tree". Not to mention the practical application of this kind of thinking that produces a whole lot of self condemnation. Therefore (at least for me) a better understanding of the new testament and how to enjoy the freedom we have been given. The class teaches all apparent contradictions in the bible lie either in our understanding or in translation. I think the translation and interpretation was tweaked to fit the understanding instead of trying to actually understand it better. "in the Lord" and "in Christ" We were taught that one was standing and one was state. I can't remember which is which at the moment. But I don't think that is the correct understanding at all. Most of the new testament seems to have been tweaked to fit into this in fellowship one minute and out of fellowship the next teaching. I think it was used to keep us off balance and distracted from seeing clearly-it was in "my story" if I ever tell it fully. What twi considered to be sin or broken fellowship is bunch of bull too. Puts 1 John in a different light if sin is sin according to the scripture and not twi's version of broken fellowship. And the "As He Is" chapter is seriously flawed. My thinking on this is not set in stone but I do know that twi's version of what it is to walk with God just ain't right. What ya think Raf or anyone?

If that's all the contradictions they could come up with I would say King James and company did a pretty good job!!!! There is a lot in pfal and the books that contradicts what the bible says. Some were mentioned here and I got more too!!!

Mike Venom? No I don't think so. I've seen others get worse here and not cry about it like you do. I suspect you post here because no one else would listen to what you are trying to promote. Speaking of which I think vpw would even tell you to knock it off. You've been given room for doubt that possibly what was said is not true. What I think I see is a predator at work and I think maybe Abigail sees it too-maybe not-but you certainly picked the right doctrine for abuse to follow. You don't seem to see it. Like mj412 said "you know Mike to your honest glory you have helped many many see the rabid senseless mind set of those involved in TWI and just how consuming and pathetic the end can be." So you are doing some good here. Why would you want to worship vp when there is so much more to life. I think you are taking the easy way out. Not thinking for yourself and applying your own mind to understanding the scripture. Instead you take vp's word for it. A lot of things he taught I agree with and a lot of things I don't.

lcm and others pulled that "If you don't like the message, attack the messenger." gun out a lot too. Your message is dangerous and if you believe it so are you.

a dangerous person because of a dangerous doctrine apparantly believed and when it's applied it yields dangerous results twi 1

I agree with you there Abigail 100%

2 or more people can have different opinions that they hold to be truth yet still be doing the will of the Lord. I know - actual errors. Kinda good though ain't it Raf?

My point is that vp taught that Paul was outside the will of the Lord by going to jerusalem. I don't buy it. I think the will of the Lord is much bigger then Paul going to jerusalem (plus I don't buy the out of fellowship teaching). Take for instance Moses after breaking those tablets. God didn't want him to do that but they were still talking! Only Moses had to redo the thing. Paul had a little bit more he had to deal with. For proof of Paul's out of fellowshipness vp cites that Paul didn't win anyone for 2 years. Well if that's an indicator we are all probably in trouble. Another for instance is that God didn't want us to give twi tons of money (and other things we did) but we did. Does that mean we were outside of the will of the Lord? Not in the way I understand the will of the Lord to be. We just don't have the understanding needed to do everything God wants us to (see through a glass darkly-KJV). Take Mike for instance. I think he thinks he is doing the will of the Lord. Does he? Will he? If he is not now that doesn't mean it will not get done, or that he might even have a hand in getting the will of the Lord done. I might have gone with vp's teaching on that verse if it wasn't for the 2 words "be done" and the other stuff I said about what I think the will of the Lord is. I don't mind if others have different opinions on that verse-fine with me.