WordWolf

[WordWolf in italics for variety.] That's how I see it, too. I've been branded a "heretic", too. Mostly by more conventional Christians, but I presume that some ex-twi'ers have put me on a dartboard by now, if only for the "wonderland" threads.

Obviously a Q/Voyager episode. You'll need someone who's SEEN those.

"MONDAY I'VE GOT FRIDAY ON MY MIND". Used to listen to that song every Friday afternoon. Loved the guitar riff. And that drum changeup towards the end.

I sent a sample of the dress to the lab. They haven't gotten back with the results yet. <_< He's God. ("Who are you, and how did you get in here?" "I'm the locksmith. And, I'm the locksmith.") You have a right to your opinion. More power to you. Except for any "Jesus was an illusion or a spirit projection" types who might be lurking,ALL of us say "Jesus, really a person." Usually, we add something like "and also The Son of God" or "and also God the Son" or something along those lines. Please elaborate. I don't see how you got there. I missed something important in-between the question and the answer. Can you walk me through it?

I wonder if I really WAS the only person, upon hearing that answer, immediately heard "Mighty, mighty, Mighty-Man!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_Man_%28Television%29 http://www.hbshows.com/site.php?c=./mightymanyukk.htm

I agree about checking what the actual verses say. In this instance, I think Bullinger (and thus vpw) was correct. Matthew 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. The Matthew lineage is 3 x 14. 1) Abraham 2) Isaac 3) Jacob (aka Israel) 4) Judas/Judah (& his brethren) 5) Phares (& Zara) 6) Esrom 7) Aram 8) Aminadab 9) Naasson 10) Salmon 11) Booz (Boaz) 12) Obed 13) Jesse 14) David (the King) this completes one set of 14. 1) Solomon 2) Roboam 3) Abia 4) Asa 5) Josaphat 6) Joram 7) Ozias 8) Joatham 9) Achaz 10) Ezekias 11) Manasses 12) Amon 13) Josias 14) Jechonias (& his brethren). Then the carrying away into Babylon. This completes the second set of 14. 1) Salathiel 2) Zorobabel 3) Abiud 4) Eliakim 5) Azor 6) Sadoc 7) Achim 8) Eliud 9) Eleazar 10) Matthan 11) Jacob 12) Joseph the husband of Mary 13) Jesus who is called Christ. As written, the count is clearly ONE SHORT of 14, 14, 14. Matthew 1:17. "17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." So, is the COUNT wrong? Or is one of the VERSES wrong? I believe the answer given was correct- the counts are correct- 14, 14, 14. Luke 3:23-24 "23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph," So, that lineage ends Joseph Janna Melchi Levi Matthat Heli Joseph Jesus. Those are obviously not the SAME generations as the first list. Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan Jacob, Joseph, Jesus. Joseph, Janna, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli, Joseph, Jesus. Doesn't take a Greek degree to see these are 2 different lists. This means there's at least 2 possible answers. A) the lists are guesswork and error, and the Bible can't be trusted. Some of us (not me, but others) find that the acceptable answer. B) the lists are correct, but mislabelled. Obviously, there are 2 family lineages, one of Joseph Mary's husband, one of someone else. What is what? Well, the Luke account says Jesus was believed to be ("as was supposed") to be Joseph's son, Heli's grandson, etc. The Luke account appears to be Mary's husband's line. What about the Matthew account? If the account is supposedly Mary's husband, then there's 2 problems. 1) the lists don't match 2) the NUMBERS don't match- a generation is MISSING. If the Luke account is Joseph's line, and the Matthew account is Mary's line, then the numbers in Matthew should go 7) Achim 8) Eliud 9) Eliazar 10) Matthan 11) Jacob 12) Joseph 13) Mary 14) Jesus That would mean the Joseph in step 12 was Mary's FATHER, and the word translated "husband" SHOULD be "father". Is it possible that Mary's father and husband would have the same name? Joseph was a common name in Judaism. If you look at the Luke lineage, there's 2 Josephs in that one, as well. So, it's certainly PLAUSIBLE. And it explains the count. And it explains why there's 2 lineages, if one thinks Scripture is in any way reliable. On the other hand, I'm open to alternate answers that say 1) the Bible is correct 2) the lists in Matthew are 3 x 14 3) Matthew correctly depicts a lineage, as does Luke I posed this to some Christians before, and nobody was able to present an answer that worked equally well with those 3 postulates. (This is not the case with other ideas I've done that with.) So, if you've got such an answer, I'd be interested in reading it.

Let me see if anyone can fill this one without hurting themselves.... The Three Musketeers Julie Delpy An American Werewolf in Paris

Right. That's what vpw said, and Oakspear explained the meanings without being shackled by relying on archaic meanings from the KJV, where some words have changed in usage since 1611, but vpw pretended they didn't when convenient.

Most likely spoken by a non-biped. That probably means a Q, or a changeling like Odo or an elasomorph or something. Odo's rarely snarky like that, and the others of his race LIKE bipeds scurrying about. So, I suspect this was a Q, probably Q himself, the snarkiest Q there is. At a guess, this was when Q lost his powers and spent an episode as a mortal human male.

Glad to hear that you and your ear are alive and well!

I remember. But 1/2 the answer was already posted... vpw taught that "take unto you" meant in a sexual sense, not "take her to be your wife again, instead of divorcing her for being unfaithful, because she was not". Seems to me the most obvious reading, even in the KJV, is that the angel told him THAT, and vpw added the sexual element into this verse. (He had a habit of doing that.) He also had a "unique interpretation" of Matthew 1:25, quoted above. Although everybody knows "knew her not" to mean "didn't have sex with her', vpw claimed there was additionally an alternate meaning of the term that meant instead "didn't have sex THAT RESULTED IN A CONCEPTION with her." It was twi doctrine-and almost certainly STILL is twi doctrine- that Jesus was not Joseph's son genetically, but that while Mary was pregnant with Jesus, that the husband and wife had sex (which, obviously, could not result in a pregnancy since she was ALREADY pregnant.) lcm's witty explanation: "C'mon- Joseph was a man!" i.e. "I can believe in a virgin birth, but not a young man abstaining from sex with his young wife."

That's it. The first quote was "Scrooge's" quote to his girlfriend- which the Future glimpse showed was why she stopped working with the homeless. By then, he was making a ghostly apology for saying it, and took it back by the end. The second quote was easy to recognize- there's no subtlety when you're casting Buster Poindexter in a movie. :) And the last was after the 3rd ghost, when Bob Goldthwaite's character, recently fired, greeted him with a loaded shotgun. "Hello, wabbit!" *blam* One of you want to post the next one? Want to make it free for a few days for anyone passing through?

I was half-convinced that was a joke, but ok, Johnny. Congrats on not sinking to their level. BTW, Linder used to show up in the "who's online" list. I presume he logs in invisible now. That's what prompted the thread title, I remember. Sometimes people posted he was listed at that moment, and someone even posted a screenshot.

"I'm gonna give you a little advice Claire: 'Scrape 'em off. You wanna save somebody? Save yourself.' " "Taxi. Can you get me to the IBC building in three minutes?" "Which floor?" "I'm alive! Yes! I'm ALIVE!" *click*"Not for long."

I think that's what some of us call "being sick and tired of being sick and tired." "Confirmations and reassurances". And some people still don't have any idea why twi always said never to rely on experience, and to dismiss your own feelings if they contradict "the Word" (twi's word, anyway.) Oh, and I meant they said not to rely on YOUR experience- it was perfectly fine to rely on vpw's experience or lcm's experience on something. twi's never had a problem keeping double-standards their Standard Operating Procedure.

Actually, 'Stay alive- no matter what occurs!' would have been the giveaway. ========= Ok, I don't THINK we've done this one. "I'm gonna give you a little advice Claire: 'Scrape 'em off. You wanna save somebody? Save yourself.' "

Do you mean, all the marked and avoided people are speaking up, or that they marked and avoided twi in response? To this day, there are people in twi you will announce that to, and they will nod and say "Yes, that's what God decided. Would you like some Kool-Aid?"

This really wasn't so much a "it's the product of the times" or "it's the product of the locals", as we've already seen. This was probably more a vpw-specific thing. All accounts of Old Man Wierwille was that he was a tyrant who kept his boot on his family's neck. (vpw rebelled by hiding in the forest and shirking his chores, but never went to his face and risked a beatdown.) He also was rough with anyone OUTSIDE his family who he disagreed with. Now, how did vpw view this? Did he say "I saw this didn't work-I shall be more human with MY family, MY loved ones, the people I interact with"? No- he adopted this as his own Modus Operandi. "He was a mean man."- one of his loved ones at his funeral. vpw's view of women-by his own words- was deriding and belittling. vpw, pg-198, TW:LiL... "'Women never tell the truth.'" "There aren't going to be any women around when I get the holy spirit.'" "..turned to his wife and said, 'Honey, I'm going with VP.' She said something to him like, 'How long will you be?' And he said, 'That's none of your business.' That was it, and my opinion of him as a man went up 99 percent. His stature increased in my eyes. just from the way he handled her." I don't know how wide-spread this kind of thing was at the time. I don't know how wide-spread this kind of thing is now. I DO know it's unScriptural, and was wrong THEN, and wrong NOW, and will continue to be wrong.

Correct. I would also have accepted the cover done by the Ataris. They changed one line- "Out on the road today, saw a Dan Quayle sticker on a Cadillac." That was fast. Your turn, Raf!

If you really want to discuss this, start a thread in Doctrinal, please, and I'll meet you there.

This phrase appears ONCE in the New Testament. King James Version, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." NIV, Luke 1:35 "The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." NASB, Luke 1:35 "The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God." ESV, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God." CEV, Luke 1:35 "The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come down to you, and God's power will come over you. So your child will be called the holy Son of God." Then there's the less literal versions. The only one who mentions a "thing" is the KJV. In fact, even the NEW KJV says.... NKJV, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God." Last time I studied this in the Greek, I found the most literal word-for-word translation for that phrase matches the NIV and the NKV. The word "hagion" in the Stephens Text (per the Gordon Ricker-Berry Interlinear) is what the KJV renders "holy THING." That's a little odd, since the plural of this word is what's rendered "SAINTS" in the Epistles in the KJV, the "holy ones". This "thing" thing is ERROR. twi never corrected it because this ERROR supports their ERROR in Doctrine. "See? Even the angel referred to Jesus as a 'thing.'" Bull-muffins.

I'd like to examine this first. twi said Jesus was referred to as a "holy thing", and used the King James Version to support that. But twi checked a lot of things against the Greek and found they didn't match what was in the KJV..... and NEVER CHECKED "holy thing" to see if it matched....... I figured one of these days, someone would bring this up..... Ever look at the Greek on this? You would if you checked a few other versions....

Seems to me that the more people talk about debbil spurts zooming around and doing stuff, the more the people are full of balloons. I've yet to see anyone COMPETENT in the field who talked a LOT on the subject. (Not that I think the subject ITSELF is error- just most of the so-called authorities and self-appointed experts on it.) Not by coincidence, twi was LOADED with self-appointed experts on the subject, starting with the woefully-clueless vpw and all the way through most of the inner cadre, and many of the higher-ups everywhere.

Of especial concern is the effect that one of the scenes in Session One has on parents. That's when vpw makes up an imaginary woman and child in an attempt to get people to believe his "fear is negative believing and it makes things happen" doctrine. He says that this woman (like very many mothers and fathers, including much of his audience) worried about the safety of her only child, all the time. In this respect, she's just like millions of mothers who see their kids arrive safely home every day after they worried about them. Where she's different is that one day, the kid is struck by a car and killed. vpw is VERY SPECIFIC about the cause of death. Is it the driver? Is it the faulty brakes? Is it a poorly-constructed road, which produced a blind turn? Is it even the result of the child being improperly socialized? No. "YOU KNOW WHAT KILLED THAT BOY. IT WAS THE FEAR......IN THE HEART.....OF THAT MOTHER." If that mother existed, vpw was acting much as Joel's miserable comforters- blaming HER PERSONALLY for bad things that happened, despite God causing the rain to fall on the just and unjust. A number of people here have talked about themselves or their parents having been traumatized by that segment. Can you say-in good conscience-that you are ready to expose a new group of people to such a destructive, error-filled doctrine?

Any chance this is "Last of the Mohicans"?