WordWolf

You offered some nebulous "there might be another way to look at this" and "you might be wrong" and capped it off with "you're wrong and an idiot" with zero actual substance to it. It's like the much longer "Passing of the Patriarch" where cg went on for pages and pages as to how twi's bot failed but never getting into one actual thing the bot did or the bot failed to do. So, yes, the extent of my take away from that was the "you're wrong, biscuithead" thing. If there was something of substance OFFERED, something to actually CONSIDER, that would have been a different story. If you had substance, you didn't present it. I said I was an EXPERT in the subject? I've studied it on a number of levels, a number of times. I don't consider that an "expertise" in the subject, but I DO have a broader perspective than the average twi'er, for example. I've read books by non-twi'ers who also discussed delphia as well as the other mentioned words, for example. If you have something to offer, feel free to bring it to the table. (I offered a few links in passing.) How confident are you that I IMPLIED expertise, and you didn't actually INFER the implication? A) "Maybe you're wrong" isn't something of deeper substance. It's good to consider alternate viewpoints, but there needs to be some substance to support a position and not just its existence that makes it worthy of reflection. A poster here is CONVINCED Jesus Christ will appear and teach us out of the Orange Book. I'm NOT spending a lot of time reflecting on that one because there's nothing to say "wait-this brings something to the table, and that something is...." B) Getting me to consider the substance of something usually works when presenting the actual SUBSTANCE. Calling me "stupid" is not a successful motivational tool to get me to see things your way, no matter what. I don't know why it worked for you, but there's a LOT of people who get turned off when an ad hominem attack is dropped into an intelligent discussion. Does anyone else besides him see this big "expert" thing he's claiming I presented in the last few posts? Can someone quote exactly what I said and why it looks like I'm claiming to be an expert? If I'm an expert in something, I don't tapdance about it-I say so outright. So, if a third-party can see this, please chime in and show me what he's on about. Sure would be nice if the "alternate viewpoint" was presented with something of substahce to justify the viewpoint, otherwise it just looks like another unsupported claim. The GSC has seen MORE than its share of those. So, you refuse to provide something, but I'm supposed to? And I'm supposed to take it seriously? Really-if you had something and posted a link, I'd approach it with all the seriousness it warranted. (i.e a site quoting vpw gets less consideration than neutral parties showing their work, and so on.) If you think some verses APPEAR to show phileo and agapao as synonymous in usage, feel free to post them or at least cite them. THEN we have SOMETHING specific we can discuss. Even if we end up disagreeing afterwards, at least we'd have gotten somewhere and looked at something.

TLC: "Is there any polite or proper way to say that if you actually believe that, evidently you may not know chit from shinola when it comes to that particular issue?" If there IS a polite way to say it, you sure didn't try very hard to find it. Even the "vpw was God's prophet/apostle/everything" people usually aren't this overtly rude to me, and they have a vested interest in keeping me quiet. Interesting how you completely skipped that there's been lots of discussions about the differences between those and other related-but-different Greek words to say "you're wrong and you're stupid" for saying they're related-but-different words.

Ok, we have a Bond film. We have Blofeld. That limits the field considerably. George is a nice guy, so I'm thinking it's not the Lazenby film. Blofeld had no significant lines in "For Your Eyes Only" and was never really confirmed to be in the movie, IIRC. (So, he certainly never said his name.) What's left? If we hope that the non-Eon film was skipped (Connery in "Never Say Never Again"), we are left with-what's left? George eliminated "Goldfinger." We heard of no Russians, so maybe not "From Russia With Love." I think that leaves us with maybe 3 flicks. Is this "You Only Live Twice"?

"Just put me in a wheelchair get me to the show. Hurry hurry hurry before I go loco. I can't control my fingers I can't control my toes. Oh no no no no no." "Just put me in a wheelchair, get me on a plane. Hurry hurry hurry before I go insane. I can't control my fingers I can't control my brain. Oh no no no no no."

"Just like I can see a dog and call it a mutt, while you see a mutt and call it a dog. Is the mutt a dog? Sure. But, is the dog a mutt? And would (or does) it make any difference whether it is or isn't? " The thing is, there are animal authorities, experts and resources that can explain any fine distinctions (such as when a dog or is not a mutt), but if we consider The Bible as authoritative, then the source for what the Bible means is-the Bible itself. (Or the religious organization you consider to be authoritative and the last word on a subject.) In the case of "kingdom of heaven" vs "kingdom of God", the 2 things to consider more than any other are: 1) what is the literal meaning of the word/each word in the phrase, and 2) what is the demonstrated meaning of the word/phrase as used in the Bible? Example: "ekklesia". Breakdown of the parts of the word results in "those called out". However, the demonstrated meaning in the Bible most closely resembles the word "assembly". Sometimes the construction of the word doesn't give you what it means. Example: "katabole". Breakdown of the parts of the word results in "casting down." However, the demonstrated meaning in the Bible most closely resembles the word "foundation" (a foundation is cast down so it can support the building that is constructed next.) To take 2 phrases that are used interchangeably and insist they mean 2 things that are NOT interchangeable is irresponsible, and imposing your opinion on the text. That's not an honest way to do research, or to find answers. To imagine there MIGHT be another meaning- when the Bible does not offer one- is a fun exercise, but devoid of authority. An active imagination is a nice thing, but not when doing textual study.

Boy, I'll sure be glad when we make it off this page. This posting by multiple steps is tedious, especially if I want to reply with a quote. "BTW, perhaps you're not familiar with D. Bader's work on the (lack of) difference between phileo and agape." Ultimately, what any "expert" claims (and many DISAGREE regardless of subject, for any number of reasons) is not important compared to what the Bible actually SAYS. In the case of phileo and agape, they're as dissimilar as phileo and coitas. Further, I've noticed supposed "experts" base their understanding on what a word in Koine Greek is taken to mean 2000 years later, and ignore the usage in the book itself, when we know meanings change radically over a few HUNDRED years (language drift and specialization.) However, if you want a side-discussion about people who talk about the different words for "love" and their corresponding Greek words, there's been lots of discussion about that by experts. We discussed that in Communications class when I was in college, and other people discussed it in Psychology. If you're actually interested, here's a pair of links to start with: https://www.truthaboutdeception.com/relationship-issues/love-styles.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_wheel_theory_of_love

Correct! CMS is the Riddler in "Gotham." John Astin was the 2nd of 2 Riddlers in the old Batman TV show. (We all remember Frank Gorshin, who actually looked like him. Even as a kid, it bothered me when they made another actor-who did not resemble the first- take a role of a villain with no explanation whatsoever. 3 Mr Freezes, 3 Catwomen, 2 Riddlers. All annoying. Robert Englund is an odd choice for voice actor- apt for the cartoon "the Batman", where the Riddler was odd, along with everyone else.

Next song. "Just put me in a wheelchair get me to the show. Hurry hurry hurry before I go loco. I can't control my fingers I can't control my toes. Oh no no no no no."

"Weird" Al Yancovic Conan O'Brien Cory Michael Smith Ted Knight John Astin Robert Englund

Fascinating. Now I can't hit "reply" on this thread on the last page, nor reply to a post there. So, I will improvise. I'm responding to the last post TLC made and it should be 2 posts before this one. Among other things, I said: "..The only justification is "if God meant one thing he would have used one word, not two", but this isn't the only example where there's 2 words or phrases that mean the same thing... " TLC replied: "There remains the distinct possibility that there is a difference, regardless of who can or can't see or recognize it! And this isn't the only example where there's 2 words or [similar] phrases that could (or might) mean the same thing.. but don't. Think agape and phileo are different? Or the same? " So, I reply here.... The thing is, if 2 words appear in Scripture, we compare the words. If they're demonstrated to be used differently (agape and phileo), then we say they mean 2 different things, and determine what each means and how, exactly, they differ. If they're demonstrated to be used interchangeably (krima and krisis), then we say they mean the same thing (and freak out the people who insist, despite the evidence, that 2 words in Koine Greek can't possibly mean the same thing despite there being synonyms in modern languages like, say, English and Spanish.) Unless, of course, our doctrine's more inviolate than our search for the truth, and we're not allowed to change our answers as we learn more. BTW, if the answer is "Bullinger said it, that settles, it, I believe it", then remember he was a Trinitarian all his life as well. This brings us back to the original point. 2 phrases are used interchangeably, and neither phrase is ever used in a context where the other was not used to say exactly the same thing. Any reasonable person would say they mean the same thing- given the evidence at hand. But that's not enough, because it MIGHT be possible that we missed something and all the evidence so far is actually wrong? Funny how we're all allowed to draw conclusions UNTIL THEY DISAGREE WITH SOME AUTHORITY (Bullinger or wierwille or some other liked authority), and then suddenly the rules change and we can't say anything for sure. Seriously, that's blatant, illogical, and sad. What any sensible person would say is- this is the sensible conclusion based on all we know, which is rather obvious and makes plenty of sense. And if, later, we find that somehow new evidence arrives and overrides everything we know now and makes more sense, THEN we CHANGE OUR MINDS in light of new information. Seriously, we don't ignore what's logical based on the idea that something MIGHT come along later and correct us.

*thinks* Did ELO do "Mr Blue Sky"????

"Weird" Al Yancovic Conan O'Brien Cory Michael Smith

Role Models Sean William Scott Dukes of Hazzard

Now I'm thinking it was a James Bond movie. Maybe something with Blofeld. Or maybe "GOLDFINGER."

A) I Samuel 1 covers Samuel, not David (who may not have been born yet.) B) God warned Israel at length that having a king was an awful idea for them, before acquiescing to THEIR insistence that THEY wanted a king. (All of I Samuel 8.) The first king was Saul, the second was David. Both seemed ok to some people's views, but both were disastrous for Israel, each in his own way. C) "things wouldn't be going very well for him and Israel from now on." That's remarkably understated. "But David immediately repented and so God completely forgave him". Actually, God promised David's punishment would be PUBLIC (II Samuel 12:12), that strife would never depart from David's house (II Sam 12:10). and that he'd lose from his house (II Sam 12:11), and that his future son FROM this sin would die (II Samuel 12:14.) You make it sound like God blew off David's punishments. David wasn't killed for it, but he suffered the losses he earned. D) David repented, and is mentioned in Hebrews 11. Then again, Gideon's also mentioned in Hebrews 11, and he's hardly the poster-boy for bravery. E) The top leader of all Israel had sex with another man's wife-and the power dynamics in play make this coercive by virtue of him being able to have her killed or everyone she cares about killed if he feels like it, so she MUST comply. David attempts to cover it up by arranging to have an innocent man murdered and made to look like an accident (the fortunes of war, but he was set up to be the only man behind enemy lines and thus certain to die.) David was unrepentant UNTIL Nathan confronted him directly with what he had done, and God's Judgement upon him for it. THEN David repented (he'd been caught and was going to be punished.) That's no better than any little kid who's not sorry UNTIL HE'S CAUGHT. THEN he's "repentant." David served his full sentence, and repented. THEN God forgave David-but David still had to live out his well-earned punishment first (as much as could happen "first",anyway- the sword never left his family during his lifetime.) F) Present-day Christendom is not a political entity like Israel, nor a country like Israel. Furthermore, it's not a country ruled by God Almighty. So, this really doesn't seem to go anywhere close to a reasonable comparison.

Sorry I didn't respond immediately to your 2nd pm, but occasionally life interferes with my internet posting, and it did so again. This question was answered a long time ago. The oddest part is WHO spilled the beans on this one originally. That was CHR1S G33R of all people. Mr "I'm enshrining wierwille's stuff" himself had to address this because he came across it, and it was too blatant to leave alone. That was back in the early 1990s, with a 2-tape set on the subject (I used to joke that it was one tape per kingdom.) However, the subject really didn't take long to cover. Bullinger came up with it, and it was one of the incidents (there were others) where Bullinger came up with something and decided that was true without tying it to the Biblical usages. vpw, naturally, plagiarized him without checking out whether or not it was so (vpw was a LAZY plagiarist and often didn't understand what he plagiarized.) However, there's few Biblical usages of EITHER phrase, and they're used in parallel verses to make IDENTICAL points in the SYNOPTIC Gospels. There is no BIBLICAL justification for saying they're 2 different things. The only justification is "if God meant one thing he would have used one word, not two", but this isn't the only example where there's 2 words or phrases that mean the same thing. Language is NOT mathematically exact-which means communication CANNOT be mathematically exact. There's a beauty and a poetry in a living language that would evade a cold, calculated language. I'll expound on the subject as soon as I have a reasonable amount of time, but really, it just takes the reading of the verses side-by-side and a willingness to let their overt meaning be the conclusion. In the meantime, someone linked to a discussion where it was already explained. Everyone except the vpw fanatics on that thread was able to follow without difficulty.

Somehow, this was overlooked..

[I appreciate you're honest that your approach IS PFAL. That's the biggest problem people are having here-primarily because that approach is limiting and has errors built into it based on taking vpw's word for all sorts of things. The result is that there's plenty of errors we all should have caught back when we were in twi but never actually looked at closely because we really thought vpw was a godly man whose godly approach to God gave him, personally, a clearer insight into things, and THAT, not plagiarism, is how we got all the twi teachings, pfal materials, and so on.[/b] Actually, vpw stole the first version of the pfal class ENTIRELY from BG Leonard. This is really old news in the ex-twi community. In fact, he considered those who had taken Leonard's class to be graduates of "his" class as well, without them needing to sit through the material all over again. Later, he added material from JE Stiles' book, and that became material of the last 4 sessions, as well as the major contents of "Receiving The Holy Spirit Today" (which was what the 1.0 class of pfal was called.) Later, he added Bulllinger and had material to fill out the middle 4 sessions, and split the class into "Foundational" and "Intermediate" (aka "the TIP class".) ] [The sad part is this: if you take the techniques you mentioned (and the others you referred to), and ruthlessly applied them to the materials you were taught, you'd have a rude awakening of how many things you were taught, and how they had NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER with what the Bible says. The so-called "Law" of Believing ALONE is enough to make the point clear-the supposed 5 steps are never demonstrated in Scripture or anywhere else. ("Needs and wants Parallel" was explained with this imaginary woman who wanted red drapes. "She had a need, and the need was, she might as well have red drapes, that's what she wanted." That was so blatantly illogical that it remained in the taped classes, but the people who edited the books left it out because it made NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.) Another example is the "Standing vs State" thing, and there's others, of course.]

WordWolf: [You really don't get it. Despite your own assertions you checked it all out, and aren't just regurgitating what you learned in pfal, your first time at bat was entirely based on something made up-as in "not based on the Bible"- that vpw taught and you swallowed without actually checking. The whole concept was based on a term that never carried the meaning ASCRIBED to it. So, contrasting "standing" vs "state" is incorrect because even if "state" meant EXACTLY what you were tauight, the Bible does not contrast that with the act of standing up (what "standing" means in the Bible.) So, the limits of what you know are the limits of what was taught in twi. And much of that was error-filled. You have not put it to the test on your own. You know LESS than you think you do, and have failed to test all those things for accuracy (old news around here.) You're convinced you can teach us, when we've done this and you haven't. It's like me doing a seminar for PhDs having never studied for a Masters in their field. Mind you, even IN twi, I was trying to do better, to improve on what was taught, and to learn from sources outside twi. ( I was an eclecticist from the beginning, so that just goes with the territory.) This would concern me if I were you.] [P.S. - Just for fun.....According to the Bible, what is the difference between "the kingdom of heaven" and "the kingdom of God"?] ====================================== Twinky: "Don't go there, WW..." ========================================== TLC: " why not? Kingdom of heaven is predominately spoken of in the gospel of Mathew, and quite specifically refers to the reign of Christ (here on earth.) Kingdom of God kicks it up a notch and should be considered or viewed from a broader perspective. (not that TWI's research dept. ever came up with a simple way to differentiate between the two...) " =========================================== [INCORRECT. You also hit one of my points quite nicely without meaning to. Seriously. There aren't many cccurrences of both phrases in the Bible {"kingdom of heaven" "kingdom of God.") Abandon all preconceived notions. Then read each occurrence in its contents, one right after the other. The answer to my question will then become PAINFULLY easy to state. Please pm me privately with your answer, since I want to see if rrobb can manage it without someone giving away the answer.]

My OPINION is that-if it refers to us as well as the people he spoke to at the time- then it refers to having the pleasure of leading people into "The New Birth." Before Jesus ascended, people could do lots of supernatural things, but not that. Also, I think twi fetishized speaking in tongues and added so many things to their practice that it didn't resemble actual speaking in tongues.

[You really don't get it. Despite your own assertions you checked it all out, and aren't just regurgitating what you learned in pfal, your first time at bat was entirely based on something made up-as in "not based on the Bible"- that vpw taught and you swallowed without actually checking. The whole concept was based on a term that never carried the meaning ASCRIBED to it. So, contrasting "standing" vs "state" is incorrect because even if "state" meant EXACTLY what you were tauight, the Bible does not contrast that with the act of standing up (what "standing" means in the Bible.) So, the limits of what you know are the limits of what was taught in twi. And much of that was error-filled. You have not put it to the test on your own. You know LESS than you think you do, and have failed to test all those things for accuracy (old news around here.) You're convinced you can teach us, when we've done this and you haven't. It's like me doing a seminar for PhDs having never studied for a Masters in their field. Mind you, even IN twi, I was trying to do better, to improve on what was taught, and to learn from sources outside twi. ( I was an eclecticist from the beginning, so that just goes with the territory.) This would concern me if I were you.] [P.S. - Just for fun.....According to the Bible, what is the difference between "the kingdom of heaven" and "the kingdom of God"?]

[Sorry, but you've stepped outside the Bible in your usage. The word "standing" appears in the KJV 52 times. 51 times it rather clearly refers to either a building/standing structure or a person, in either case the physical act of standing up (a building that stands, a person who stands on his feet.) The other instance is Micah 1:11. The same word rendered "standing" in Micah 1:11 in the KJV is generally rendered "support" in other versions, and is rendered "standing-place" in many of the others. So, this usage of the word "standing" as you have given it does NOT appear in the KJV. From where are you drawing this meaning, if not the Bible?]

Go Melissa McCarthy Spy

Rrobs, presuming everything you posted was serious, you're running into some very elementary and very obvious problems. 1) You do not know where you are. The GSC exists specifically to "tell the other side of the story" with twi, and sometimes with its offspring, the offshoots. That means that, not only is it NOT a vpw admiration society, it is the opposite of that, and people have told about the many felonies for which vpw would have gone to prison if he had been caught, and if he hadn't been as thorough as he had been in covering his @$$ when raping women and making sure they wouldn't tell on him. So, posts extolling his brilliance, or ignorant of the rather fundamental flaws of pfal and twi materials, will reflect poorly in this crowd. (vpw plagiarized and often didn't really understand what he plagiarized, so he reproduced correctable errors entirely, and sometimes quoted incorrectly and contradicted himself, and sometimes added a few things to make himself sound like he was walking around getting revelation when he was using hidden sources for his (often wrong) claims, and occasionally adding a bit of charlatan showmanship to make it look more convincing.) 2) Furthermore, posts which reflect a vocabulary centered around twi-speak that also include claims that the poster examined vpw's work independently and thoroughly expose a rather marked lack of thoroughness in that department. 3) The GSC exists to "tell the other side of the story." It is not a Christian messageboard, nor does it need to be. There's no universal consensus on doctrine among posters that represent a variety of Christian positions, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, wiccan, etc. So, expecting everyone here to agree on the Bible as THE standard is not effective, even if it's not as volatile as trying to get them to agree on twi materials as THE standard. 4) Because there's such a variety of posters, there's no one official consensus. However, you'll notice that nearly all the posters agree about vpw's plagiarism having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and about his rapes and molestations having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's because they're so well-documented and tracked after the fact that people from greatly-differing perspectives agree on them. 5) If what you're looking for is "the cheerful posts", the GSC is not the best forum for you. It's here to INFORM. Do you look to the evening news for your daily dose of sunshine? Furthermore, there's threads that are fairly cheerful. They're NOT in the forum where we discuss vpw's felonies. 6) Much of the time, we don't need to rehash the same felonies here- except when someone arrives and announces they didn't happen or that they were exaggerated or that it's fine that vpw was a plagiarist and rapist or whatever. THEN we have to get into the same old horse manure all over again. 7) The fact that we've informed people about vpw's felonies and so on does not mean we spend all our free time being depressed, negative people. We all have lives, and they're not on this board. The blithe dismissal of people with fantasies that this is how they spend their off-time is trite, and one defense mechanism of those who desperately want to imagine vpw was half the man he claimed he was. 8) If you really want to get into Doctrine, post in Doctrinal. If you want some light-hearted fun, we have gaming threads. in the Movies/Music forum. If you just want to repeat how wonderful vpw was and twi was without finding out why we disagree so strongly, this is the wrong messageboard for you. There's closed communities online that do little else but that very thing. They welcome another poster parroting the party line and would love to have you. If that's NOT what you want, then pay a little attention and consider changing your approach here. All the wayspeak, posted here, is a lot like someone showing up to a Holocaust Survivor panel in a Nazi uniform and playing the jackboot.

When the Death Certificate lists the TYPE of cancer that was the cause of death, someone dismissed it with "cancer shmancer", If you got cancer in twi, vpw HIMSELF would have gotten on you for it, since he said it was devils that were responsible for them, and if you were vulnerable to devils, it was a failing on YOUR part. (Job's miserable comforters had nothing on vpw when it came to suffering misfortunes, especially illnesses.) vpw would have reprimanded you for dismissing it so blithely- except you were excusing HIM, and HE gets a free pass from all the condemnation he passed around and judgements he passed. When plagiarism was discussed, someone dismissed it with "nonsense!" The examples of plagiarism are proven, documented, and extensive. (Not all the plagiarism has been documented, but almost everything vpw taught came from the pen of someone else.) When someone can dismiss those things so casually, I can't take them seriously. I certainly can't respect them.