WordWolf

Is this "King of Kingsman-the Secret Service"?

I do, but would prefer to add "unable to rot" to that, and change "liable" (awkward word) to either "not ABLE to decay" or "not SUBJECT to decay" or "not ELIGIBLE to decay." I can easily see someone stumbling over "liable" and vpw would certainly have gone off on how that meant it was LEGAL to decay or something. (Thank you for not going the lazy route and saying "unable to corrupt" and calling it a day.) Anyone else on "incorruptible"?

As for lcm, his background has him as a "dumb jock" who was of insufficient skill to make it to the big leagues after college, who also was a Christian in college. From there, he went straight into twi full-time, with no pauses for a normal job or life like any normal adult. (That's why it was so hypocritical when he and vpw complained about other people who didn't show up for MORE time at twi and work MORE for free than they already did. Neither had any experience with real jobs and real lives, so didn't realize how unrealistic that was for people who want to keep a real job- and how unrealistic it would be to quit a job every 50 weeks to work for free at twi, then return home and look for a whole new job every year just to satisfy their unrealistic expectations.) Anyway, despite having a Bachelors, lcm neither understood Psychology nor people. (Someone falling down and becoming incoherent isn't someone "going gooney-bird", and most laymen could at least give a BIT more accurate descriptions than that.) Lacking life experience outside college and twi, it would come as no surprise if he never matured past the varsity team in socialization- and it seems to me he did not. (Hey, just remembered, since he played on his college's varsity team, he exceeded vpw's athletics accomplishments ALSO.) So, where an athlete might have knee-jerk reactions to homosexuals and call them names and criticize them to other athletes, he would do exactly the same- and to twi, since he controlled the microphone there and had captive audiences every time he wanted to just monopolize free time for others. Add to that how he was replaced in his marriage that way, and there's plenty to make lcm feel insecure about homosexuality right there. Rather than deal with that, he turned around and "kicked the dog" to make himself feel better. With continual reminders facing him, he kept lashing out and obsessing over homosexuality. Other than the above, there's nothing that he HIMSELF ever said or showed that said he was interested in other guys "that way". In the absence of any reason, it's possible to speculate without cause- but I'm more honest than that and won't do it. (I've seen others who won't stop there, though, although not as posters at the GSC that I know of.) I know it's considered "de rigeur" to accuse guys who freak out about homosexuality to all do so solely because they're closet homosexuals or homosexuals in denial, but really, there's other possible reasons they may freak out as well. I'm not saying anyone's right to freak out, but those freaking out have reasons, whether or not anyone else would consider them GOOD reasons or any justification for freaking out.

"I was just wondering if the Fellow-Laborers program had any military style training? " Hey, Waysider! This one's apparently for you. IIRC, you were the FL survivor here.

Welcome back to posting here! I can't say I've made the same choices as you, but then I don't have your reasons for making them. If it's working for you, then fine. I also think Pope Francis is tops. (Frankly, I would have rather he gotten the Papacy rather than Benedict last time.) I think he's just what the RCC needs.

Right. We expect there to be a difference between murder (he tried to kill him and succeeded) and manslaughter (he didn't mean to kill him, but it happened anyway.) But twi never looked close enough-it saw what it wanted to see, The End.

My best example of that was the pro-abortion doctrine. Until we "take our first breath", we're not born, and we die when we "take our last breath" (ZERO VERSES SO FAR.) The one verse that comes up is when Gabriel spoke to Mary and said that "the holy thing" that would be born of her would be called The Son of God. So, before Jesus' birth, he was a "thing." But that's only in the KJV. The other versions render that 'holy one" or "holy child" or otherwise. A quick check of the Greek shows that this "THING" thing only occurs here, and the same word for "holy thing" here is translated either "holy one" or "saint" EVERYWHERE ELSE. For consistency, read them all as "holy one/s". Then twi's sole verse for "not a person" vanishes. Worse, we see that other verses show a 3rd trimester kid can react and show emotion. (Elizabeth about John, when Mary arrived.) AND he was called a "baby." At 6 months. We don't know when that all applied, but it was true by that time, which is 3 months earlier than twi said. And this is not hard to find if one is looking. And even after I posted all the verses that said that, vpw fans still posted right after that saying the "thing" thing.

Ok, can we start trying to get some definitions going, or does everyone want another few rounds before we start?

Both are wrong. They're both victims of their own methodology. They got out of twi, but twi has not gotten out of them. They can't help but use the same techniques that damaged themselves and others in twi- but made them both feel special. I think that one antidote to twi is HUMILITY. Otherwise, one is subject to being lifted up with pride...

twi did that quite a bit. My usual rule is that- if twi based a doctrine on one verse or no verses, the doctrine should be presumed error until proved otherwise. So far, it's worked. I had a thread somewhere about doctrines entirely built from one verse, I think.

Interestingly enough, both vpw and Bullinger said there were 7 of those things (EWB-:"dispensations", vpw- "administrations") but disagreed on which where the 7. Bullinger began with the original Paradise, then the Patriarchal, then the Law (1,2,3.) twi agreed, then said the 1 year of JC's ministry was one. This struck me as odd, since Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of The Law would pass away until all would be fulfilled, and that was done at Calvary. But it allowed them to put us in #5- "Grace." EWB said #3 LAW continued until Pentecost, when #4 GRACE began. Both said the next one was basically the Tribulation. vpw said the next and last one was #7, Final Paradise, or GLORY. EWB said that #6 was the Mllenial Reign of JC in Revelation 20. So, vpw said the 1 year of JC was an administration but not the 1000 years of the Millenial reign, and EWB said the reverse, I know there's lots of verses in the Gospels, but I think a millenium is a much more viable candidate than any single year, if it comes to that. Then again, I didn't render "oikonomia" as "dispensation" NOR "administration." I render it "stewardship", and consider who's in charge of stewarding God's Word at that time, and in what form it's stewarded. All of that makes it look more like "Covenant Theology" than anyone's form of "administrations."

That subject is rather vague in Scripture. "Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is never defined. Therefore, must not be that important, at least for the Christian. As a subject, it seems more like an inkblot. I once tried to find out, definitively, what "pulse" was in the OT. Every online result was "It was a mixture of x, y and z, and we're selling it if you're interested." Or the infamous "thorn in the flesh". where each speaker had a different problem, and it was the same one Paul complained about, by amazing coincidence. This subject, also, lends itself to lots of wild speculation with people certain of something nebulous.

*reads* It's shorter if you skip over JAL reminding everyone who he is, and skipping over a few pages asking why DG got a golden parachute and everything short of an office party when he said he was leaving because they're all wrong. It's a good question, but a distraction from the actual substance of the discussion. That's the beginning and part of the end, respectively.

WordWolf: " There was an episode of "Gilligan's Island" where the Professor did "word association" with Thurston Howell III. At every word, the first thing that came to Thurston's mind was "money." "Hot." "Money." "Cold." "Money." (Until he finally gave a different answer...) "Child." "Tax deduction." lcm had this fixation that became an obsession with homosexuality. Eventually he started seeing it everywhere. So, "What was the original sin?" "Homosexuality/" "What is the worst sin?" "Homosexuality." "Why did we have problems with this program that's tanking?" "Homosexuality." "How can we make twi better?" "Remove homosexuality." "What's twi's biggest problem right now?" "Homosexuality." "What's the capital of Paraguay?" "Homosexuality." "Who was the 16th US President?" "Homosexuality." "What do you see when you look at art?" "Homosexuality." I don't think it was a matter of plagiarism, as much as it was playing a piano that only had one key." shortfuse: "Yeah, I suppose you are right. I remember him saying how he put it together because VPW thought it was masturbation. So that got him to sexuality. What is sexually immoral? (Adultery? no, that can't be right.) Homosexuality! " Taxidev: "I wasn't at HQ, but my understanding was that because Craig was extremely homophobic, he may have determined that himself, as a way of fending off potential homosexuals from entering the ranks - let it be known right up front TWI doesn't accept that stuff. As many resources as I have looked at over the years, I have never seen even a hint of this interpretation of Gen 3 anywhere. And what we on the field were told as to why it was removed from the next version of the class was that it was too much for new people to handle. But I suspect it was because Rosie and her girlfriend didn't want it there." Rocky: "Perhaps Loy was freaking out because, right under his nose, his wife and his chief rival for the power of the purse in TWI were doing the nasty. The connection is plausible. " I think we're all saying the same thing from different directions. I think that why lcm BECAME so obsessed with homosexuality was only secondarily the stereotypical "jock" stuff and primarily because it was causing him to be benched for other women (to continue the sports metaphor.) Besides, lcm didn't really play sports around twi like a life-long jock. People who played sports there reported that he was not one of the guys, and when he DID play, he had to be in charge (vpw forbid his side lose a game, too...) So, the more PERSONAL reason it bothered him...

Nice list. I suspect that both "sides" are making a fundamental mistake. Stipulating to that list, it appears that there's a number of verses saying "conditional", and a number of verses saying "unconditional." This points towards one of 2 conclusions: A) the Bible is contradictory in major ways and thus is unreliable for doctrine like this B) the verses saying "conditional" are addressing one thing consistently, and the verses saying "unconditional" are addressing something else consistently. That's my thinking, you're welcome to draw your own conclusions. Then again, we're still beginning this discussion, so who knows where we will end up before it's over?

The new book is probably Martin's best work on the subject. However, if someone's trying to retrace exactly all vpw's steps, they'd probably want to read the article, not the completed book. That's why I brought it up.

There was an episode of "Gilligan's Island" where the Professor did "word association" with Thurston Howell III. At every word, the first thing that came to Thurston's mind was "money." "Hot." "Money." "Cold." "Money." (Until he finally gave a different answer...) "Child." "Tax deduction." lcm had this fixation that became an obsession with homosexuality. Eventually he started seeing it everywhere. So, "What was the original sin?" "Homosexuality/" "What is the worst sin?" "Homosexuality." "Why did we have problems with this program that's tanking?" "Homosexuality." "How can we make twi better?" "Remove homosexuality." "What's twi's biggest problem right now?" "Homosexuality." "What's the capital of Paraguay?" "Homosexuality." "Who was the 16th US President?" "Homosexuality." "What do you see when you look at art?" "Homosexuality." I don't think it was a matter of plagiarism, as much as it was playing a piano that only had one key.

He probably means he was never in vpw's physical presence while the man drew breath. That's not the same as his taped stuff, which is STILL being disseminated in one form or another. BTW, even he never saw the taped stuff, he was exposed to vpw's influence because that infected all sorts of twi people, which was the idea.

You're talking about Dr Ernest L. Martin's "The Star That Astonished the World." https://philologos.org/guide/books/martin.ernest.3.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_L._Martin The original dissemination of the material was in Christianity Today's article (in 1976) titled "“The Celestial Pageantry Dating Christ’s Birth." He continued with this in his 1978 book, The Birth of Christ Recalculated. JCOPS and JCOP were books written by the twi research dept, to which vpw added his name and a few words of introduction and a dedication. (Personally, I think that takes gall, but he's not the first to pull that one.) Both of those books were far superior to anything vpw was involved with, and both had bibliographies. Martin was correctly credited in JCOPS. I didn't hear it, but that eliminates the vpw stuff and the Intermediate Class (and the TIP class.) Since they had access to the material as of 1976 when everybody else did, that suggests that any class covering it would have been filmed/recorded after 1976. It would not surprise me if lcm said that, not even aware he was stealing the credit for all the work for twi from Martin. lcm didn't see the same reality as the rest of us all through the 1990s and through his ouster from twi. BTW, anyone who wants the full text of the article and lives in the US, they might be able to get it. What you do is walk into a local library, and consult "the Readers Guide to Periodical Literature"- looking at Christianity Today and checking for Ernest L. Martin's article in 1976 with the name I posted above. Then you'll have the correct date-issue, and I forget if the page#s are included. Either way, if the library is well-stocked on periodicals, you can then request that issue on microfilm (or microfiche, depending on their system). Most of them will have a reading-gadget that will allow you to print out a photocopy (in negative form, IIRC) of the pages you want, for some change. If your local libraries don't have it, I'm sure any college library would have it. (I looked up articles in that magazine when I was in college, and I didn't go to an ivy-league school.)

Mark Pendel Arthur Kipps Ignatius Perrish Walter Mabry Nate Foster David Copperfield Allen Ginsburg Yossi Ghinsberg Sean Haggerty John Kipling Dr. Vladmir "Nika" Bomgard Alan Strang Maps J. Pierrepont Finch Billy Claven Rosencrantz Sam Houser "Igor Straussman" Miles Manny Wallace Harold Jamws Potter Tim Jenkin

WordWolf: "if you'll check your Greek, or, for that matter, your Concordance, you'll see that the "again" in "born again" is "anothen", which translates into "from above" sensibly and consistently. (Check your Concordance. Check your Interlinear. Check your Greek Lexicon. "Consistently.") John 3:7 and John 3:8 sure look like they're saying that "born again/born from above" and "born of the Spirit" are the same thing, phrased differently." ========================================== TLC: "Yes, agreed, and I really have no problem seeing that they more or less speak of the same thing. The issue I have is that I don't see that any of them are applicable to what is (or ever can be) experienced prior to the passing (i.e., the end, or if alive at the last trump, changed) of life that is in the blood. Furthermore, it appears that Jesus Christ's answer to Nicodemus (look closely at verse 8) was evidenced in Christ after his resurrection. And, as mentioned previously, Acts 13:33 specifically pinpoints his resurrection as the day he was "begotten" of God. So, when OldSkool spoke of "those born from above," the problem I have is with its broad application (right now) to anyone other than Jesus Christ, as I just don't see it used like that anywhere in scripture. Evidently this wasn't clear enough in my previous post, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. (Like I said, sometimes my perspective on certain issues is a real bear to communicate well.)" =========================================== Difficult to tell for sure in the Gospel occurrence, since it wouldn't be present-tense or past-tense in those accounts. But it is a different thing when going back to the I Peter occurrence. That's after Pentecost. If it speaks of "born again/born from above" as present or past tense there, then it obviously isn't tied specifically to the reality AFTER a resurrection. "I Peter 1:21-23 (KJV) 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." ================================== Hampered by the archaic phrasing of the KJV, we don't know for sure either way. But other versions, written in the 20th/21st centuries, render it a lot clearer: NASB for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. NIV For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. RSV You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; NRSV You have been born anew, not of perishable but of imperishable seed, through the living and enduring word of God. ESV since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; ==================================== As of I Peter 1:23's writing, the "born again/born from above" thing was a PRESENT reality for the Christians, and they weren't yet resurrected or raised from the dead or otherwise brought back from death in any clinical manner.

chockfull: "In sorting through this salvation topic (permanent/not) - it seems like one thing missing is a "glossary of terms" of sorts. I think the dictor in his "research" liberally misapplied the mathematical transitive property of equality to several things which are most likely quite different in reality and definitely nuanced in terminology in scripture. Born again Born from above Saved ... Defining all terms to the point where we all agree with everything is a tall order. However, defining these terms probably is going to be a barrier before we can proceed much further along this topic we are discussing IMO. What other phrases belong in this glossary? Any start to definitions? What commentaries or materials cover this? Thoughts?" I'd add all the critical tetms we're all going to dance around. So, you started with born again...........born from above.....saved.... I'd add "incorruptible....seed... eternal..life..." (4 terms) and reserve the right to call for more terms to be defined when they come up. ============== In other news, it sure would be nice if everyone would post friendly. We ARE trying to have a nice discussion here.

Just my thoughts, responding by your numbers... 2. Was she actually one, or was she not and just dropped for "GENUINE SPIRITUAL SUSPICION" (THEIR WORDS, NOT MINE)? I've heard lots of people who did nothing wrong even by their standards got kicked out for SUSPECTED wrong-doing with no proof, under this odd excuse. BTW, even if she WAS, this should have been caught long before she was assigned, let alone sent out. If there was any sort of oversight- and, more to the point, divine revelation- to the process, there should have been someone screening out inappropriate volunteers who were inappropriate for any number of reasons, some of which were known only to God Almighty. (We're not sending wows to Mesa, Az because God's warning us to change the locale-[earthquake later hits city], God said this person isn't ready now [major dental surgery 3 months later, would have had to leave the field], this one doesn't match our standards because they're a closeted gay...) As vpw founded it, and it remained for decades, the thing was open to whoever showed up with the money. That was vpw's big standard for all programs. "You can stay as long as your money holds!" - vpw to lcm, on lcm remaining in the Corps. In other words, if it's true, then it's their fault for sending people out unvetted. They disrupted the established groups by sending out unfit people, then dismissed them, disrupting the groups. If it's false, then an innocent person was sent home for doing nothing wrong but being on the wrong end of their PARANOIA. So, it's their fault if it's true, and it's their fault if it's false. 3.If he was that much better, he should have "shown you how it's done" by going to the car, praying over it, and healing the radiator hose like he wanted you to do. THEN you'd know how to do it. His lack of ability to do so was hidden by his accusation- but he was all talk and no action there- which he learned from twi, of course. 4. Their lack of planning left him high and dry. They kept promoting stuff until hours before they stopped it. Then of course, it's your fault if you planned by listening to them instead of going by revelation. (Naturally, those who ignored them to go by revelation were lambasted or kicked out, depending on the specifics.) 5. They lacked the skills to DO the credit checks, and were lazy. Furthermore, they didn't care. You had your money up front, that was enough. Later, if you had to go home, you were sent home, no refunds. Yes, divine revelation might have revealed something, but they knew how to FAKE that pretty well, not how to receive it.

I have to justify my posts now? Ok, I'll play along, and enable the "help files." First of all, take a deep breath and a brisk walk around the block. Your posts look tense lately. If you're posting tense, you're not at your best. We agree it's better to post at your best than otherwise, I'd expect. As to your question, I'm going back a few posts. This was in reponse to previous posts. One problem as an ex-twi survivor is to be used to, familiar with, or locked into (depending on the poster) the twi explanation for anything. I saw signs of that earlier, and commented on the specific point where one of those came up. (Bullinger's contradictory explanations for "other", which vpw retaught without rethinking.) Then we got to some discussion of "born again" that skipped over that the KJV said "born again" but the literal Greek for "anothen" is not "again", but "from above", (The KJV reliance is another potential problem for twi survivors.) So, I addressed that. Then we discussed something where examples appeared in the Gospels and Epistles. "It only appears once, in an Epistle." I posted where it appeared previously, in a Gospel. The response made it sound like Gospel verses are of little importance, especially compared to the Epistles. That's ANOTHER issue that comes up. If it's because vpw said that verses "aforetime" were "for our learning", then that's a factual error because the Scriptures written "aforetime" were the Torah/Old Testament. (BTW, the "for our learning" thing is ANOTHER KJV error, the "learning" here is the same word rendered "doctrine" as in "profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction..." So, the Scriptures written "aforetime" were "for our doctrine.") So, the thinking is often as vpw taught- the Gospels are unimportant because they are "written aforetime" and thus "for our learning." This is wrong because (1) For our learning is "for our DOCTRINE" and not just a side- note as vpw portrayed it (2) the Gospels weren't "written aforetime" and heither was "Acts". Think about life in the 1st century church. No printing presses- books were hand-copied when they were found, Christians were breaking societal codes and laws by meeting and by being Christians. The New Testament books, for the first century AD, were not WIDELY circulated. They could neither be run off a printing-press nor sought openly. They were contraband-and hard-to-find contraband of limited supply. Finally, with at least one Gospel and the Book of Acts specifically stated to be written TO Christians-which is what makes the Epistles such a big deal- then the most reluctant reader is forced to at least accept that THAT Gospel and Acts are of equal weight. (Mind you, the Gospels, to any serious read, are not written specifically as conversion tools, they read more as material for the Christian than the non-Christian. I referred to this when I posted that twi was wrong in pushing this "only read the Epistles" thing. This discussion takes some interesting directions at times- mainly because a background in twi predisposes posters to make certain specific mistakes, sometimes in harmony. (Of course, I could, and would, say the same if the posters were all Roman Catholics or something.) I bring things up because if I don't bring them up when I see them, they may end up the linchpin in someone's doctrine- an error that could have been easily fixed long ago. It could have prevented boondoggles like Geer's "God doesn't know all things" and maybe something else that this thread's about in the first place. BTW, don't think I can't change my position now or ever. I've done it plenty of times as the preponderance of the evidence weighed in on one side, whether or not I LIKED that side. In other news, carry on everyone, and keep posting friendly!

Although the exact wording of most of the Gospels doesn't say "This was written primarily to (x)" as us modern readers would prefer, both Luke and Acts were addressed. Luke 1 King James Version (KJV) 1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. Acts 1 King James Version (KJV) 1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Depending on who you ask, both are either addressed to a specific Christian who was instructed, or in general to the "beloved of God". In either case, Luke and Acts are addressed to one or more Christians.