WordWolf

Now we're up to some easier-to-remember, and more recent times. vpw has died, PoP has been read, and there's the first sizeable migrations from twi. lcm wanders in a fog. twi loses and regains its tax-exempt status. (The NEXT thread will address his loy-alty letter and timeframe.) What did you see and hear in that timeframe? Oh, and since Schoenheit's paper condemning Adultery was 1986, this would be a relevant topic...

[WordWolf in bold & brackets again...] I did nothing of the kind, but that never stops you from dragging in non-sequiturs and commercials anyway... Without any documentation, and ONLY repetition, all that's accomplished is a sideshow act. You're peddling snake-oil, and we're not buying. For most, the advertisements are seen as exactly that. And I won't belabour the last comment again at the moment.

Oh, and, different people have different opinions, based of course on their own sources. One person's opinion, I thought, was worth quoting on this "tattered remnants" thing. ====== "To get the Word of God our of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all the verses. If it is the Word of God, then it cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding. When we get back to that original, God-breathed Word- which I am confident we can- then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord.'" That's vpw himself, pg-128 of the Orange Book. He, for one, thinks that this is an attainable goal. Plus, this was in the Orange Book, which a few people credit with Divine Inspiration. So, I'm unsure whether Mike is more fond of his "tattered remnants" doctrine, or his "pfal is inerrant and from God" doctrine, but in this instance right here, they're mutually-exclusive.

Mike, if you're going to discuss text, that's a good thing. I recommend you go away, check your sources, THEN post. Otherwise, the posts will waste everyone's time and you look like shooting from the hip is ALL you can offer. I'd like your position represented honestly. ======= Oh, and Dan? (Sorry to keep bugging you.) Sorry about this interruption to your thread. I hope you're at least getting entertainment value while this plays out... Thank you for your tolerance.

[WordWolf in boldface again.] 'Mike': WW, You wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago." I've heard your BS before about some "wonderful" discoveries regarding ancient texts and now you come out with it again. [i've never MENTIONED it before. So I'm curious what voices you've heard that have mentioned it...] I decline your offer for a trade and I repeat my BS call on your assertion that there have been "major" breakthroughs in textual studies. Your offer is more a dare and I see no payoff for me to put my time into it. I don't need your deal to say "BS!" [Anybody ELSE would. See, the whole "tattered remnants" thing was an UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION. That means that-until you support it- there's no contextual difference between it and "unicorns carried off copies of the text!" We only have your say-so. Since we've known this was all just a smokescreen to claim another Bible was NEEDED, we knew your claim was made in the ABSENCE of any supporting documentation. So, I offered you a chance to surprise us-show us you have more to offer than just pulling something out of your...hat. In exchange, I'll answer your own claim I don't have an answer- which in ITSELF was a dare- and I'll offer TRIPLE the documentation YOU will. In short, I offered you the chance to show you had something to offer, and could at least equal 1/3 of my own "offer". Oddly, the fact that YOU started with a dare has escaped you. If you actually HAD some documentation, and I really WAS making this up-which you claim are BOTH true- then it would take you little effort to show me up- demonstrate to neutral observers that you actually HAD something to offer, while one of your detractors DIDN'T. Since you've miserably failed at those efforts so far, a gift-wrapped opportunity like this one would have proved useful-if you weren't all bluff. I offered a challenge, laid the odds on the weaker side, and STILL you won't meet it. I think most people can see which way the wind blows there...] Thread topic: the bottom line remains that we don't have the originals [Technically correct and universally agreed-upon.] and there are such a huge number of discrepancies [unsupported assertion. Wild claim.] from the sloppy copying of the originals [ANOTHER unsupported assertion. ANOTHER wild claim.] that the critical texts were a necessity to wade through all the TATTERED REMNANTS. [ANOTHER unsupported assertion. In stereo. Doesn't even sound like you know what a "critical text" IS.] And then, even after a dozen critical texts are produced [You know of a dozen? You're familiar with ANY?] EVEN THEY have inconsistencies as anyone with an interlinear can see by looking at all the footnotes. ["He said" for "Jesus said", and alternate spellings count as "inconsistencies"? I guess if you're desperate to find ANYTHING to call one, they count.] There's even no proof that ANY ONE of the critical texts have it right for any one passage. [unsupported assertion. As I said before, my CURRENT reading's sufficient to address it...presuming you want to go beyond bald statements made by fiat.] I don't need your deals to call your bluff. You offered to ALL the readers here a bluff and I called you on it. [YOU started by claiming "TATTERED REMNANTS." THAT'S a bluff, and your entire claim of this is a smokescreen to hide that, and switch the subject. Sorry, I was paying attention. YOU support your assertion ONE time, I'll support mine in TRIPLICATE. I'm confident in this because: A) You lack support for one time B) I have sufficient support for three.] NO DEAL. [Leaving, of course, no support for your doctrine of "tattered remnants", which was the original point you're hiding] Even if the originals were discovered in a cave tomorrow what proof could there be that they were said originals? How would anyone even get a strong hunch that they were the originals? [Well, if one has already concluded-as you have-that it is impossible, such a text would be mislabelled anyway, so that's a moot point. It's also a smokescreen for your unsupported opening assertion about "tattered remnants", which you've engaged in this new song-and-dance about my comment to conceal.] I say BS because you have no wonderful discoveries to report. [Which, of course, means that your doctrine declares discoveries are impossible, so you don't believe in them, even when dealing with one face-to-face. I presume you're also woefully under-researched on the subject, since you find the concept of seeing you're wrong so utterly repugnant that you do everything you can to avoid facing it. I'm doubtful you know as much on the subject as vpw did as of pfal, and HE was under-researched for his time-frame.] Biblical text research is a huge pile of opinions, guesses, theories, sense knowledge workings, and devilish interferences, just like it was 50 years ago and 100 years ago. [it's SO much easier to dismiss entire fields of study than to actually EXAMINE and EVALUATE them. It saves SO much time to declare oneself right by fiat. It allows one's bubble to remain intact much faster and surer than any honest evaluation...] There's NOTHING spiritually authoritative in that field. It can be useful for verification at times for someone who does already have some spiritual insights, but it's not what it's members tout it to be. ["Spiritually authoritative" meaning, an angel drops in and announces "this is the correct text". If that's the case, I agree. Otherwise, your casual dismissal shows an ignorance of the fields and a haste to dismiss them without a glance.] I'm out of the deal, WW. Never was in in the first place. [...otherwise, you'd demonstrate your own claim was hot air, and I'd spank you with a paddle again, even with a 3-for-1 handicap. Care to disprove it? Please, please try.] Now to all the folks at home, tell THEM what the great discoveries are and I'll look the other way. [My offer was to demonstrate the substance of BOTH our claims- especially since yours is an assertion based on "faith" rather than on "evidence". I've noticed that every time I ask for documentation of your claims, you run off- even when I offer something of greater value in exchange. Supposedly, you're right and the rest of us are wrong- but your claims can't hold up to even casual scrutiny or even a comparison. You know, if you ever actually WERE right, you might salvage your reputation somewhat, earn a little respect, and people might conceivably read some post of yours and agree sometime. For you, that would be a rich prize. Too bad it's unattainable.] Tell THEM what you meant when you wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago." [i made you an offer. I STILL never agreed to you assigning "homework". I'm ready to support my claim as soon as I have a reason- which, in this case, means actually seeing you offer something of SUBSTANCE. Yet again, you've weaselled out. If I really AM bluffing-which, supposedly, I've been doing- there's a very easy way to demonstrate it....] ======== Oh, and Dan? Mike's hoping you'll jump in and do his work FOR him. If you offer ANYTHING, he'll do his usual "see-that's what I meant all along." Figured you'd want to know that BEFORE he pulls it again.

This is a tricky subject to cover WELL here....

Make up your mind, Mike. Did you really want to know what's been uncovered, (no you don't) or do you just want to presume that anything you've never heard of, doesn't exist (bingo), especially since it discredits your theology? I'm waiting for one (just one) source from Mike that suggests "tattered remnants", just one sign that Mike didn't toss out all the evidence and then decide there WAS no evidence. Then we can discuss that and the three (two more than one) sources I promised. I didn't ask Mike prove himself as capable as WordWolf, or even HALF as good. I asked for Mike to prove himself 1/3 as good as WordWolf, which is a goal Mike may potentially reach. This new "insightful comment" - "BS"- is this really the closes Mike can do in backing up his claim? Is he honestly and truly THAT incompetent that even the SLIGHTEST proof of his position is impossible? We'll see. If his followups are equally "insightful", then we have our answer.

Lest we lose the context of that comment....

Trade you three for one, Mike. Mention any ONE and discuss, then I'll mention THREE and discuss ALL THREE. Surely with a handicap that big, you can come up with SOMETHING.

Correctamundo, Oakspear.

The singer said of the song's opening guitar riff that he found one riff that escaped Robert Plant and the others who discovered most of the good riffs.

Some time ago, I read about one that said something like this: "Here lies (name) who was accidentally shot by his butler who was cleaning his gun. 'Well done, good and faithful servant.' " Sarcasm, I see, is not a new invention. ========= I think the most memorable one I've seen was ordered by a man's ex-wife and mistress. It currently sits atop his grave in Montreal's Cimetiere Notre-Dames-des-Neiges. "John Free your body and soul Unfold your powerful wings Climb up the highest mountains Kick your feet up in the air You may now live forever Or return to this earth Unless you feel good where you are! Missed by your friends." What's so memorable? Look at the epitaph more closely. Okay, focus on the first letter of each line....

He's throwing in a a cliche. Since he doesn't have SUBSTANCE to add, he's pretending he actually ADDED to the discussion. He's determined to know as little about the subject as possible. He STARTED from his position, and anything that sounds like it might support his position, he declares accurate and calls a victory. This is the same type of thinking that gave us Piltdown Man. =========== As for me, my reading of late suggests Mike's position is silly. I'm not afraid of books like the one that started the thread. However, I recommend balancing the read with all OTHER books on the subject rather than just embracing it immediately. BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago.

Catcup: "Maybe we elevated VP higher than we should have, but he knew it was happening, he allowed it to continue, and even encouraged it." ======== I disagree. You're suggesting it wasn't vpw's idea the ENTIRE TIME. He PLANNED it, he ORCHESTRATED it, and people FELL for it. vpw erased his sources and claimed his special connection to God was the source for all his insight, and not the use of a good xerox machine. vpw called himself "THE Teacher" and expected special treatment and people got chewed out when he didn't get it. He supposedly had death threats and bodyguards, a plane, and had "Hail to the Chief" played for himself. He put forth that when he "suggested" something, it was an "order". And that's just off the top of my head. This just didn't sneak up one day from the ranks. vpw orchestrated it from Day 1.

If you gentlemen want to continue this, please continue it in Doctrinal. Issues of canon vs non-canon are Doctrinal and not "About the Way."

Pages 3 & 4 are where we discussed how all the Christians were DISPOSABLE...

vpw taught it to his "inner circle", and likely to the early corps. You can see it in progress in the "vp and me in wonderland" thread.

It was a beautiful day, The sun beat down, I had the radio on, I was driving. Trees went by Me and 'Del' were singing 'Little Runaway' I was flying."

I should have known I'd get myself in trouble.... I don't have a par for it, but how about Paul Sorvino to Mira Sorvino ?

Go ahead and go into 1986. Who's it going to hurt?

As always, we're looking for your recollections of events. ANY recollections are appreciated. This was the year vpw ran to Gartmore, and the PoP was written after his death in April 1985. vpw taught on "the Hope" shortly before he died. It was a VERY busy year in twi. What do you remember of it?

I see I went too fast for you. I'll slow down. You were replying to this: Now then, any careful reader should be able to see that I ran thru all the possible meanings of the 2 concepts disagreeing. Anyone who wanted to make consistent sense of them, furthermore, can see that the Gospels verse was approximately understood correctly, and the Epistle verse was written correctly, but twisted from its meaning to form an excuse to abuse Christians. Jesus' warning was NOT to disregard your natural father. "Honor your father and mother" is the first commandment with promise. Jesus warned against taking another man, and making him an authority figure with religious power. Like in Judges 17. This Micah guy made himself a bunch of graven images (in violation of the First Commandment), and a house for them. Then he decided to finish the whole set. Judges 17:9 "And Micah said unto him, 'Whence comest thou?' And he said unto him, 'I am a Levite of Bethlehem-Judah, and I go to sojourn where I may find a place.' 17:10 And Micah said unto him, 'Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give thee ten shekels of silver by the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals.' So the Levite went in. 17:11 And the Levite was content to dwell with the man; and the young man was unto him as one of his sons." Is the account inconsistent? Did he offer the man being a father and instead make him a son? The account IS consistent, and the offer was as stated. The "father" Micah referred to was a title of RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY, much like the secular authority of a natural or foster-father, except in a religious dimension. The young man lived there like he was one of the family, but the position he filled was as "father and priest", religious authority. If you need more, the next chapter tells more on this. THIS is the type of authority Jesus said NOT to have, and it's the type twi specializes in. ====== So, what was Paul on about? Paul spoke to someone specific, and said that he "fathered" him. Paul acted as an advisor and educator to this specific person, as an earthly father might. He did not act as "religious authority" even though this would not have seemed unreasonable at the time. Further, since Paul knew that now EVERY CHRISTIAN was a "priest", Paul knew the CONCEPT just COULD not work-even on paper. Paul was not acting as if he had any legal rights (or any other rights) to boss around his "son"- marking this different from the Judges incident AND Jesus' warning. His "son" was effectively an "adult". If one would try to extend authority and claim Paul could claim the same rights as an earthly father, this would not work, since an earthly father could not boss around his adult sons who made their own paths in the world. So, no matter how you slice it, Paul was NOT claiming Patriarch status, nor religious priest status, over the few people he PERSONALLY "fathered". There is no Biblical basis for the twi-invented doctrine of "vpw is our father in the Word."

Just thought I'd mention- I was raised Roman Catholic, and got straight "A"s in religion, and neither at home, nor in class, nor in mass, did I get an impression that I'd better shape up or I'd be going to hell. I've seen that characteristic on fictional television, but I'd never seen it for real growing up. So, not everyone was taught that-although I don't think anyone WAS saying EVERYONE was taught that.