WordWolf

You can still participate in "Name That Tune", unless you don't listen to music.

Of late, they've been soft-pedaling it.

It's still in the required doctrine, but not as blatant as in vpw's day.

If you look closely, it still appears in stacks of books when they advertise,

but you can't make out the entire title clearly.

(In other words, they're not proudly flying the flag for the strangers and visitors.)

Not to my knowledge...all vps books where still on the shelf tucked away in a closet and i left in 2000..maybe they will introduce it..

still have mine cause it stills makes perfect sence to me.

I've heard Anthony Buzzard's book and the CES/STFI book both are superior to it.

(And I of course am unaffiliated with either and only know them from the GSC.)

[WordWolf in italics for variety.]

Recently, I got a CD from a person that still really likes Wierwille on Ephesians.

[see trouble yet? I do...]

Specifically, it spoke about "heresy" (not being like minded) and causing division in the church.

["heresy"- "when what you teach contradicts what I teach"]

Prior to that, I had been emailing this person and when I mentioned my book, The Genesis Pursuit, I got a non-response on it on return email, as if I hadn't written this at all, but was told I would be sent a CD. I got the CD and the subject was about heresy and division in the Christian church.

[Naturally, they left out how vpw was really big on being divided from the rest of the

Christian Church, because it's ok if HE did it, but wrong if anyone ELSE does it.

Can you say "hypocrite"? I knew you could.]

I am wondering, from those who read the book, if they believe it was "heresy" and if I am "causing division", or is this a possible attempt to stop me from promoting the book.

I haven't read it, but I'm confident it's neither "heresy" nor "causing division" to REASONABLE

Christians. The UNreasonable ones don't even need an excuse to disapprove- they'll invent one

if you don't provide any.

Of COURSE it's an attempt to stop you from promoting your book.]

Your thoughts, please. I am also wondering if there was any talk of "banning" the book or any leader speaking against it.

[None that I've heard, but naturally, I'm interested in your book now.

Then again, I picked up a copy of the "Satanic Verses" as soon as someone said I shouldn't.]

I must confess, I have not read your book yet.

Still, for someone to send you a CD rather that come right out and give your an opinion makes the person appear to have an agenda.

I'm not saying they do. Maybe that's just the way they are.

It kind of looks to me, though, that contradicting"The Doctor" may be the sore point in this scenario.

If you are confident in what you wrote, I would give it the big "shrug".

just my 2 cents.

That's how I see it, too.

No matter what you do, Im pretty sure someone somewhere will brand you a heretic, It seems to be a fairly popular 'christian' pastime....

It's sorta odd that a Wierwille follower would accuse anyone of 'causing division in the church, since Wierwille so vehemently hated most of christianity, and is himself a posterboy for heresy, but asking a Way follower to make sense never was an easy task.

Write whatever you want, there are about 5.999 Billion other living people that may find something valuable in it, no matter what someone who owns a CD may say

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.

Heresy --- to whom???

Heresy (imo) is defined by the person/ group leveling the accusation,

and therefore the accusation is (imo) compromised -- since it is from ONE viewpoint.

If you are (and you are) presenting valid points that shoot down docvic/ twi *doctrine*,

certainly they will rally and call you every name in the book. You're a threat to them.

Shucks -- we're ALL heretics here on GreaseSpot Cafe -- as pertains to twi.

The main difference between you and the posters here is ----

you're published, and have an Amazon.com link!!

(Will there be a sequel??)

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.

Can you document that God directly provided the sperm templelady?

I sent a sample of the dress to the lab. They haven't gotten back with the results yet.

<_<

And exactly how did he do that?

("Who are you, and how did you get in here?"

"I'm the locksmith. And, I'm the locksmith.")

I just don't buy it. I believe Joseph was the sperm provider.

You have a right to your opinion. More power to you.

Yeah, Jesus, really a person.

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.

We are the 14th generation.

Jesus the Christ said who is my mother, father, brother and sister.

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?

And there was something in there that the word "husband" was the word "ish" meaning mighty man which could be a husband or a father...

Something like that, anyway.

Good grief, it's amazing what your brain keeps hanging around!

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 have spent many, many hours studying the genealogy of JC. I found out on the internet there is a tremendous amount of dispute on this topic that has been going on for centuries. I previously posted about Mary’s genealogy…well…a second look.

Matt. 1:16 (KJV) And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

This one goes back to Abraham.

Luke 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, was the son of Heli,

OK. I was able to verify “as was supposed the son of Joseph” is in the Greek from multiple sources.

IN NEITHER ACCOUNT OF THE GENEALOGY IS MARY MENTIONED. At all. The fundamentalists want her in there. So, some maintain Helial was Joseph’s father in law and others his uncle and Mary’s father. We have no scriptural proof of either. We have no scriptural proof of a heredity via Mary. That I can find at least. One account gives Helial as Joseph’s father the other Jacob. One goes back to Abraham, the other to Adam. Why the discrepancy between who was Joseph’s father? No one seems to know for sure.

What can we say for a fact? Both accounts for sure pertain to Joseph. Mary could be in there but we don’t have proof. At this point.

Jesus was Joseph’s legal son but not biological. As such, he was a legal descendant of Adam, David, Abraham and others.

I vote we go with what we can prove and know for sure. Put the rest on a back burner.

VPW also taught that in Matthew 1:16 when it says 'And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ', that the word 'husband' should have been translated 'father' of Mary and added that otherwise the generations don't add up to fourteen.

And there was something in there that the word "husband" was the word "ish" meaning mighty man which could be a husband or a father...

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

My facts my be wrong because it’s been so many years since I took pfal, but what I remember is vp putting a great deal of emphasis that JC took a part. Didn’t he use Heb. 2:14 to say JC took flesh and not blood? I am thinking he tied that to sin being in the blood and Mary receiving seed (sperm) because of Gen. 3:15.

In any case, Heb 2:14 (NIV) Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death….etc.

Good work, Oakspear. To me, it’s quite clear the verse is saying JC had flesh and blood, and nothing more complicated than that.

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!

Anyone remember why vp taught it was not a virgin birth? I don’t.

Matt. 1:25 (KJV) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Matt. 1:15 (NIV) But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

I remember. But 1/2 the answer was already posted...

VPW taught that when the angel said to Joseph 'Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife', Matthew 1:20 KJV, it was in sexual sense. That when JC was conceived it was a virgin conception, but by the time JC was born Mary was no longer a virgin, but Joseph had been given permission by God to have sexual relations with her.

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."

(snip)

I actually got the point where I just didn't care... I was so miserable in my current circumstances that I figured if God abandoned me, I would take those consequences. If He couldn't understand what was terribly wrong with twi and with my marriage, and would hold my leaving all that against me, then he was not a god I could worship anyway.

I think that's what some of us call "being sick and tired of being sick and tired."

And, interestingly, once I made my decision to leave and started taking action on it, I got all kinds of confirmations and reassurances that I was doing exactly the right thing. I saw leadership and my ex do and say things that were absolutely appalling, and clearly not godly just to try to talk me out of it. And the people around my son and I were commenting that he and I seemed so much more light-hearted and fun-loving recently... so much less stressed and negative. Hmmm....

"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.' "

It seems as though, the mark and avoid method employed by the TWI has finally caught up with them and backfired on them.

Do you mean, all the marked and avoided people are speaking up,

or that they marked and avoided twi in response?

At one time, twi prided itself for it's work in translating the class into different languages...of course, that was when there were still qualified people to do the translating work...Today, God has decided that learning English is a prerequisite for learning his truth.

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.

Boys of Summer

Don Henley

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!

Is there any reference to reincarnation in the bible? Never thought about it.

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.

This is to examine Jesus being refered to as a "holy thing."

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.