WordWolf

Interesting view. I reserve the right to completely disagree, of course.

Here's a few to start you off. There's lots. "vpw's plagiarized sources" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...&hl=sources "vpw on the sources of his books" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...&hl=sources "JCOP, JCNG" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...89&hl=JCOPS "Did vpw plagiarize JCING?" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...91&hl=JCOPS

I've seen the case for "virgin conception and virgin birth" and the case for "virgin conception but not virgin birth", and find a strong case for the first, and a rather weak case for the second by comparison. I find one needs to reach for obscure possible meanings and ignore the more direct ones in order to reach it. That's acceptable to me when the direct meaning is obviously contradictory, but otherwise I see no reason to do that. Naturally, everyone's welcome to make up their own minds. No need to correct yourself Jean. It was much more interesting when John said he had given birth three times.

Romans 15:4 (King James Version) 4For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. learning: Greek word "didaskalion", from "didaskalia", "teaching, instruction". ln the KJV, "didaskalia" is rendered "teaching" one time, "learning" one time (Romans 15:4) and "doctrine" NINETEEN TIMES. One of those is II Timothy 3:16. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" So, Romans says the things that were written aforetime were for our DOCTRINE, for our TEACHING, for our INSTRUCTION. (Raf and others pointed this out some time ago.) Now, as to aforetime, there's a gap of some 400-500 years between the "Old Testament"s last book and the beginning of the New Testament. At the time of the writing of Romans, there being no printing presses, copies of ANY books of the New Testament were either UNWRITTEN YET, or nearly impossible to find due to initial scarcity and inability to mass-produce. The things that were written aforetime- unless Paul was using a modern meaning of "accessible right now", are the books of Genesis to Malachi. The Gospels were NOT circulated at the time Romans was written-in fact, Paul may have been unaware of most of them. A strict view towards dispensationalism, an an urge to pigeonhole everything neatly into little packages-plus a desire to be new and different- produces sharp cutoffs like the one that shoves the unwritten and uncirculated Gospels into the Old Testament. The Gospels- at least anything instructional- are as applicable to us as the Epistles- at least the instructional parts. Sometimes twi doesn't even teach on the Gospels THEN.

James 1:22-25 (KJV) 22But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. 23For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: 24For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. 25But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. James 2:8-13 8If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. 13For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

No. I'm saying that vpw edited and "wrote" the first 2 editions of RTHST, which is demonstrated by there being nobody else around TO edit. With the S.I.A.L, the books were taken from material vpw had already "written", dictated, what-have-you, and the staff EDITED that material. According to staff, this wasn't a simple proofreading process, as they sought to correctly convey his intent (primarily) while leaving his words as intact as possible (secondarily). Therefore, I believe they intended to convey his intent, and succeeded in doing so. (I can't absolutely guarantee it, but he DID "sign off" on books 1-4.) The material was "his", but the framing was theirs. I don't consider that being them literally writing the SIALs. Now, JCOP and JCOPS, those WERE written entirely by the research staff, and vpw added his name on the cover, and an introduction, and that's all he wrote for them. THOSE were the serious research books from twi, you probably noticed. (lcm's book, "VP and Me" includes him complaining about one of the staffers while the staffer was writing-as one writer- JCOP.) Now, those 2 books, yes, I consider vpw's contribution" to be equivalent to slapping his name on them to directly say-not imply- "I wrote this." He neither is listed as "editor" (which would at least have admitted others wrote it) nor included ANY MENTION of writing done by the research staff. Contrary to what one or two people have tried to claim in the past, this has never been acceptable policy ANYWHERE, and no credible Christian writer has engaged in such practices. So it wasn't commonplace or expected- rather, honest representation was-and is-expected anywhere except twi-world. You WERE aware of SOME of this, right? If not, let me know, and I can direct you to threads that were specifically about the books and who wrote them. My intent in mentioning this was to point out that it is unlikely but POSSIBLE that vpw's precise intent got lost in editing. Therefore, if he is wrong, it is not necessarily (only PROBABLY) his fault. Without guaranteeing his phrasing, one can't guarantee what he INTENDED to say.

I wasn't trying to imply anything there. My main point was that all of us in this discussion either agree on that point, or are non-Christians willing to discuss as if they did agree with that point in order to participate fully in the discussion on its own merits. They're accepting, for the purposes of this thread, the position that the Bible is God's Word, although they do not personally hold that conviction. (Oakspear mentioned something to that effect.) It was parenthetical because it doesn't affect the thread or its content.

The posts we had from staff who discussed how the magazine articles, the S.I.A.L. books and so on, reflect a position where vpw ENDORSED the finished product, but the editing staff operated as I previously described. I'm taking it as a given that those posts are correct. (The exceptions to this process, of course, are the (at least first 2) early editions of RTHST, which vpw did personally and HAD no real staff to edit in the first place, and JCOP and JCOPS, which were written entirely by the research dept.)

You can blame the early discussion of "thing" on me, for which I gladly take the credit and blame. The implication of twi's teaching that the KJV-exclusive translation is "thing" was that abortion was acceptable- which some people had been specifically taught in twi, and that with this verse. The intent of the initial post seemed to be about Jesus' nature, and how he is "holy", and his heredity in some form or another. I think all the posters (those not discussing this on a purely intellectual level) agree Jesus was holy- and still is. It's the OTHER stuff beyond that where the disagreements are.

I agree, based on the eyewitness accounts we've seen to-date. lcm seems clear his biggest mistake was GETTING CAUGHT, and is convinced he didn't hurt other Christians and act improperly to them. lcm COULD have grown past that, but has not. Not being interested in growing past that (an assumption I'm making), there's no reason for him to visit here, even if he knows we're here. (A lot of people nowadays don't know the internet well enough to find us, amazing as it seems to me.) If he got here, he'd find people who are critical of him, insist they and others were hurt by him, and some comments meant to hurt him (justified or not.) If he'd grown, he might find all of those instructive in their own ways, but otherwise, he'd just find this a place with a lot of bitterness and criticism.

I'm not convinced one way or the other he was definitely correct, but I see that as the information he intended to impart, reflected by how he said it. A complication, of course, is that he himself didn't really edit the S.I.A.L. books- the editing staff did. Therefore, the EXACT phrasing was how they interpreted his intent and phrasing to the best of their abilities, which is not an absolute guarantee it's phrased EXACTLY as he would have. So, it's more sure to say what the editing staff believed than what HE believed in that chapter. I think that transcript of the class will be more explicit as to what vpw himself said moreso than this-which, pretty much, is how it should be, I suppose. Meanwhile, what IS the section of Romans that was driving you nuts, another spot?

So far, seems there's at least 3 positions on this represented, all 3 of which claim, one way or another, that Christ was of God. 1) "Jesus was genetically Mary's son, and God created the genetic contribution the father provides, and Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born." (WordWolf, Oakspear.) A) "Jesus was genetically Mary's son, and God created the genetic contribution the father provides, and Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, but Joseph and her had conjugal relations after that and before Jesus' birth." (Larry, Jean.) X) "Jesus was genetically Mary's son, and genetically Joseph's son as well. He was of God nonetheless." (cman.) A side issue, which I'm hoping to discuss a little later, is the discussion of whether or not Jesus was completely a creation of God, whom Mary effectively was a surrogate mother to, but did not provide any genetic material to him, or if Mary was a natural mother to Jesus in the manner we all normally think of a natural mother. (I'd like to pick that up once we've explored the more basic discussion topics, which it doesn't look like we've finished with so far.)

Emphases mine. So, you care about the answers to your questions, but not enough to remind me WHICH questions they were when asked. You find time to quote other things, but not the questions, nor to post them off-the-cuff. That's not exactly going to motivate me to answer them. And I shall explain them. Looking back, you posted that you "can't discover how {I} came to this conclusion." Not "can't agree with your conclusion", but couldn't even discover how I got there." The conclusions were the simplest, most straightforward read of the verses quoted- which WERE quoted. That means either: A) You were having difficulty with a straightforward read of the verses (which I was suspicious was not the case, since you seemed fairly intelligent) or B) You were able to see the conclusions, but disagreed with them (but chose to communicate DIFFERENTLY than just saying that) or C) You were able to see the conclusions, but decided to claim you didn't, for reasons of your own. Regardless of the result, all 3 of those are frustrating. Despite that, I put in the time to break down all the verses-in 2 versions- with an explanation of the most straightforward read. (That is, what a careful reader who's a stranger to the Bible would come away with if they read those verses carefully.) The "sigh" meant I was frustrated-since I saw no reason a fairly intelligent reader (yourself) could HONESTLY say he was UNABLE to see how those verses were read to those conclusions. (Not DISAGREE, but not even see how they were concluded.) I think I'm entitled to a sigh about that-if that's the truthful account of things. Since I lost you, I concluded I'd have to break it down further, in PLAINER ENGLISH (somehow, I went somewhere esoteric and lost my reader.) Therefore, I made a good-faith attempt to break it down as simply and directly as possible, without adding any complications. What I used was plain English. That's a statement of description of the posting style I intended to use- and, IMHO, I successfully used when laying it out the long time. You perceived sarcasm where there was none. You perceived insult AND injury where there was none. And if I thought I was wasting my time, I d* sure wouldn't have sat down and run through all those verses a SECOND time when I thought I was perfectly clear the first time. (The perceived request for a THIRD time, later- now THEN it seemed obvious to me that I was being jerked around, so I refused and asked what you got from reading those verses. That's when it was obvious you clearly DID see where I got my conclusions the FIRST time, making the entire effort the second time NEEDLESS, let alone the claim you didn't see it after the SECOND time. You don't think I should perceive THAT as an insult? (I didn't perceive your request for more speed to be one, since when I responded to that, you agreed that having my response forthcoming was sufficient.) NO, NO, and NO-and neither are you OURS. You've conveniently skipped the CONTEXT of the statement. I said "Pending more information, it looks like he was looking for an excuse to show us how clever he was, to show off, even if he had to manufacture the opportunity from whole cloth." I responded to your response to another poster- your response of "if you're an adult try to act like one." by saying you were "lecturing the other students." By that, I was saying that you FELT LIKE taking me through some verses in detail a few times (at least a third if I kept playing along), and told another poster matter-of-fact-ly to try to act like an adult. I was objecting to this, because YOU ARE NOT OUR TEACHER, AND THIS IS NOT YOUR CLASS. In case you missed it, this is not ANYONE's class, NO ONE here is "our teacher", and we are all students to the degree we can all learn here- but that by no means makes any of us "students" of any other. (Except for those few who actually DO decide one other poster is their "teacher." I suggest you post more closely to what you mean, and stop any accidental or intentional attempts to jerk anyone around. I see almost all the posters here as equals, including you. I even mentioned I haven't asked anything of you I don't already ask of myself. I will keep an eye on my posts, but offer no guarantees anyone will ever like my posts- but they're straightforward and offer no games or snares to the reader or respondent. You're welcome to watch your own, or not, as you see fit. As you yourself pointed out, it is your choice as well.

Even just going from what's there, it seems that's what he was saying. "Conception by the Holy Spirit was the only way Jesus Christ could be conceived. Mary nurtured the body of Jesus in her womb and He became the line of Adam and David according to the flesh. The Holy Spirit contributed the soul-life in the blood of Jesus by way of the sperm. In His arteries and veins there was sinless soul-life. When Judas betrayed Jesus he confessed according to Matthew 27:4, “I have betrayed the innocent blood.” Sin made the original soul-life corruptible, but the soul-life of Jesus was from God." "contributed the soul-life in the blood" "the soul-life of Jesus was from God" "In His arteries and veins there was sinless soul-life." "When Judas betrayed Jesus he confessed according to Matthew 27:4, “I have betrayed the innocent blood.”" So, he was saying that Jesus' blood/"soul-life" was sinless, & that because it was from God. He contrasted that to the blood of everyone else: " Sin made the original soul-life corruptible, but the soul-life of Jesus was from God." Therefore, according to vpw, "Jesus blood=sinless, innocent" "everyone else's blood=NOT sinless and innocent." Otherwise, he would not be making any comparison there at all. Whether or not he was right was a separate issue- this was what he intended to say, and succeeded in saying.

None of us see it the way you do, and when asked to explain it, you get antagonistic. So, we don't get it, we're not going to get it, and you certainly aren't inspiring us TO get it. Actually, we've gotten some places, even with the cheap shots in-between.I expect we'll get some more places. With a standard of comparison (we're agreeing on using the Bible in this discussion) we CAN get someplace. With you not agreeing, we (us and you) CAN'T. So, feel free to leave us alone and let us get where we are going. We'll get there eventually, lumps and all. If you're equating your posts with Scripture, very few of us will be quick to get on your bandwagon. but hey, it's YOUR bandwagon, and you can play whatever music you want on it...

Perhaps (just perhaps) your questions got either lost in the shuffle or forgotten as the other matters were addressed. If so, a recap would not go amiss. It's what I'd do for you. Instead, you elected to suppose I'm on a high-horse. Which is more likely to get us somewhere? I quoted the King James Version and the New American Standard, and cited them correctly when I did so. I have not CHOSEN to quote anyone else, nor am I COMPELLED to do so. If I should choose to do so, I will cite them properly. (I mentioned FF Bruce's book and an episode of Gilligan's Island. If you feel it's necessary, I can cite the page# where Bruce explains "boustrophedon" and find the episode name and number I mentioned, if you ask. Fair is fair.)

Right- check the surrounding exposition. His discussion of why the "innocent" blood is "innocent" SHOULD have what we're looking for.

Not at all. You're intelligent enough and educated enough to be held to a reasonably high standard. (No higher than I hold myself to.) I asked for OTHER sources, sources that WERE traceable. If your beliefs are correct- they might be, they might not be, but they are UNTESTED- then there SHOULD be better sources. I expect you'd prefer to know when your sources need improvement, and when to seek out better sources. I don't quote Gilligan's Island when I can quote FF Bruce's "the Scrolls and the Parchments", and I expect you'd do the same. Wouldn't you warn me if my sources needed improvement?

Now THERE was an old story around twi... It's called "SYNESTHESIA". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

Might want to cross-check it against the phrase "innocent blood" when he was expounding on Judas' statement on betraying Jesus. That might be where he gave the sin-blood connection he held forth.

Jean: "BTW, I thought Larry gave a source for the marriage customs." Larry: "You thought correctly Jeaniam." You both missed my objection. I shall give an unrelated example, and explain its relevance to my post. One episode of Gilligan's Island had the Professor explain something. "Cuneiform, which is the oldest form of writing, was invented by the Assyrians. But I read it as though it were Boustrophedon, you see?" "Basically, all ancient languages read from right to left, but I read from left to right." In other words, according to this source, The Assyrians invented Cuneiform, and Boustrophedon reads from left to right. Both are incorrect. The Sumerians are taken to have invented Cuneiform, and Boustrophedon changes direction from line to line in how it's read. So, someone claiming either- and citing that episode as a source- is giving a source. However, that changes little because it is not a DOCUMENTABLE source. You know where they heard it, but not what THAT statement is based on. Going back to my statement, I said "The thing is- you're both taking it as a "leap of faith" that those ARE the marriage customs, correctly quoted. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not, but without a source, they're opinion and hearsay. Unsourced statements are how we got vpw playing for the Sheboygan Redskins, according to one website. The main case for Joseph and Mary doing the horizontal hucklebuck before Jesus' birth seems-so far-to rest on unsourced statements from vpw and a few other people- and I have no guarantee THEIR source was not vpw. Is there a documentable source asserting this was a possibility? If so, can you post it or something?" His sources were where the UNSOURCED STATEMENTS I mentioned were posted. Scroll down the pages- there are NO SOURCES given for their content. They may be based on nothing more than hearsay. One can't look up their sources and compare them. Wikipedia articles aren't taken as serious research pieces- and they generally are not. However, if an article fails to cite its sources, then someone slaps a sign on it warning the reader that there's no sources cited-which may mean the content is made-up or otherwise unreliable. That's also why I mentioned the Sheboygan Redskins thing- someone could cite that other website as a "source"- but that source was unreliable and thus had incorrect information based on incomplete research. So, Larry gave a source. However, there's no way to confirm that source was ACCURATE, since there's no documentation, thus no way to confirm it's based on correct information. I know you're both ready and willing to accept what both sources said, but even if I was, that STILL doesn't mean what we WANT to believe is CORRECT. Furthermore, he's relying on them more in further posts now. That's not how proper intelligent discussion goes, as I'm sure you both can see.

It probably wouldn't be a lot of trouble- providing he has a copy of vpw's books. If he still has them, he'd need to know which one to reference, and where. So, it's an easy-sounding request, but may not be at all easy to fill, depending.

WTH: "Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book." WordWolf: "Got a source for this claim? Otherwise, I'm saying you made it up. It doesn't make sense, either. vpw and JCING critics objected to its main assertion and its conclusions. They did not care at ALL what his background was like. They didn't care his MOTIVATION for writing the book-they objected to the book. Considering how weak an "argument" it makes for something so controversial, most of us-even those who agree with its conclusions- can see the critics had a point, too." WTH: "If you are saying I need to back up the statement of the critic's who claim VPW was always anti-trinitarian, then apparently you have never read the Introduction in any of their books either. They often state and make the claim that VPW was always anti-trinitarian in the Introduction of their books (while aligning his position along with that of Arius) and then go on to refer to VPW as the one who is the: "Johnny-come-lately" to the party (debate) - i.e. saying Arius was the first one who came up with the anti-triniatarian idea of God, and VPW just came along later." Raf: "Then we have that gem from WTH: WW asks you to prove that people have accused VPW of always being anti-trinitarian, and WTH replies with a quote from JCING that does not even remotely address the question. Then he goes on to pretend to cite the introductions to other books. Since it's so difficult to prove a negative, let's ask WTH to establish a positive: Can you name one book that claims VPW was always anti-Trinitarian? Your claim was that MOST of his critics made this claim. I'm not asking you to prove that. I'm asking you to prove that ANY of his critics made that claim. " WordWolf: "Let's see ONE, ONE quote from ONE Introduction to ONE of their books. YOU'RE the one who made the claim they said that. Therefore, YOU'RE the one who needs to support your made-up claim. Don't pretend I have to find books that I think NEVER EXISTED, to quote Introductions that NEVER EXISTED, when you're the one who claims they do. That's not how INTELLIGENT discussions work- the Burden of Proof is on the one claiming the existence of something." ============= For those with short attention spans, the claim that has been questioned has always been WTH's claim that vpw's critics claimed vpw was always anti-Trinitarian. "Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book." WTH claimed it, and his claim was challenged. Let's continue. ============ WTH then went off for several paragraphs about his "Johnny-come-lately" claim, ignoring his other claim that was actually being discussed. He included some personal comments, & started some namecalling: WTH: "Sorry, but I haven't kept any of those early cult books to prove to you or anybody else exactly who wrote that in their Introduction. I never thought at the time I would have to keep those "early cult books" around just to prove that point to some **** replying to a post on the Internet in 2007 some 30+ years later." Raf: "Unable to prove any point, WTH resorts to namecalling. Very mature. " WTH: "Are you saying that the critics didn't call VPW a "Johnny-Come-Lately"? Who started the name-calling anyway?" Raf: "I'm saying that you have not proven your point that they claimed he was always an anti-Trinitarian. Your analysis of "johnny come lately" doesn't address that issue in the slightest." WTH attempted to make the discussion about his "Johnny-Come-Lately" assertion again. Then Raf responded. Raf: "YOU made the claim that VPW's critics accused him of always being anti-trinitarian. your "johnny come lately" discussion does not support your case. You have failed to provide a single example of anyone claiming that VPW was always anti-trinitarian. Quoting his comment that he's not some johnny come lately has NOTHING TO DO with your claim." "Calling him a Johnny come lately does NOT imply that Wierwille was ALWAYS anti-trinitarian. It only implies that he was anti-trinitarian at the time he wrote the book, which, best as I can tell, he was." ========== So, will we see WTH actually address his claim anytime soon, that supposedly "Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book"? Doubtful. He seems unable to tell that's what's being asked of him. Either that, or-understanding that IS what's being asked of him, and unable to support it, he'd rather do his best to change the subject and distract from the question than admit he doesn't have documentation for his claim. Usual responses at this point-based on his previous posts- tend to center around personal attacks and more changes of subject. Most likely, that's what we'll see here. But hey-he COULD surprise us all.

I saw that he ALSO contended that. However, his actual POSTS had him disputing a virgin conception until he posted his own opinion. I can't read his mind- I have to go from his posts. I doublechecked- it wasn't me who was reading wrong. If he doesn't want misunderstandings, he should either read more carefully before posting, or post more carefully after reading. He's an intelligent fellow, and is well able to do this without undue effort. The thing is- you're both taking it as a "leap of faith" that those ARE the marriage customs,correctly quoted. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not, but without a source, they're opinion and hearsay. Unsourced statements are how we got vpw playing for the Sheboygan Redskins, according to one website. The main case for Joseph and Mary doing the horizontal hucklebuck before Jesus' birth seems-so far-to rest on unsourced statements from vpw and a few other people- and I have no guarantee THEIR source was not vpw. Is there a documentable source asserting this was a possibility? If so, can you post it or something? "Euphemism" is one of the 217 figures of speech Bullinger said is in the Bible. The expression to "know" someone referring to carnal knowledge is not confined to the early chapters of the Gospels. The expression (in Greek or Hebrew, depending) appears in other places as well. Feel free to start off on looking at some examples. I'll get to it in turn otherwise.

You win the white carnation! If you feel like making a new thread on this at some point, there's something I taught on healing a long time ago that I'll want to find again.