WordWolf

I'm leaning towards what's been said about slandering Jesus by "tarring" him with the label "Samaritan". It would make a lot of sense-notably in that same chapter, by those "We're Children of ABRAHAM!" types.

Once again, Mike has successfully written another lengthy post, with complete disregard for addressing any errors of PFAL, while maintaining he doesn't have time to address even one in a small post. I suspect he didn't actually READ Rafael's post about Jesus at age 12. If he did, it sure didn't sink in. ------------------------------ "I said to her 'baby, ain't you got no shame?' She just looked at me Uncomprehendingly Like cows at a passing train."

Here's a little piece of obscure Tolkien trivia you may find interesting. (Or not.) The original version of "the Hobbit" (Bilbo's journey, during which he gets the ring) has that scene done differently. In the original, Bilbo and Gollum DO have the riddle game. However, Bilbo wins fair & square, and Gollum give him the ring as a present. Supposedly, Bilbo's talk of the ring as a "present" was one of the things that got Gandalf suspicious. (Gollum, somewhere in the trilogy, refers to the ring as his "birthday present"- why will become clear when the 3rd movie is released.) Supposedly, the current version of the book is what actually happened, the original is what Bilbo SAID happened. The current one has Bilbo stumble and slip the ring in his pocket unconsciously when he puts out his hands to get up. During the riddle game, Bilbo, trying to think of another riddle, puts his hands in his pockets. "What have I got in my pockets?" he mumbles absent-mindedly. Gollum claims that, since it's not a proper riddle, he should get 3 guesses. He misses, & goes away to get something. :)--> (He's had enough of this-he's going to get the ring, turn invisible, and kill Bilbo.) When he comes up blank, he realizes-too late-what "the Bagginnss" had in his pocket! He comes running back-and past Bilbo, whose finger had slipped into the ring. For those of you who wondered how Gollum knew the names "Baggins" and "Shire", Bilbo introduced himself properly when he met Gollum. I'll have to check the opening of "T2T" for that glow, Zix. Thanks for pointing it out. Anybody know how come the scene in Bree, in FotR was so different in the common room? I thought JRR's original version of what Merry & Pippin were saying, & Frodo vanishing, was a LOT more plausible than the movie version. They're running for their lives, & all day, Frodo doesn't think to mention he's travelling under an alias? Barleyman Butterbur, the innkeeper,doesn't have a note from Gandalf here. It would have helped, I thought. Then again, I thought that the idea of Strider carrying around the pieces of Narsil (in the book) was a stupid concept from the beginning. Guy travels light, & his main weapon is broken? Plus, he brings it on the road, where it can be lost? Anybody know if there's any plan to get special knives for Merry & Pippin, to replace the ones that they were supposed to get in the missing barrow-wight scene? (Sam, too, if I remember correctly.) It DID become an issue in the 3rd book, & I hope that scene stays intact. Frodo's barrow-knife, as you recall, was broken when the King of the Nazgul and Frodo faced off at the ford at the edge of Rivendell.

Rafael, Luke 14:33. Seems to me the CONNOTATION of "apostasia" (or the cognate thereof) is positive here-although the KJV has picked as negative a word to translate its DENOTATION into as possible. (Unless someone's ready to argue that being Christ's disciple is of equal or lesser value than all his earthy possessions.) Rafael, I still say that events falling under both a positive AND a negative connotation occur virtually simultaneously, and both right in the context of that verse. So, I still say that BOTH translations are correct in this instance, depending on which event you reference.

"So... ....does anyone know how to MADISON?" The Time Warp also occasionally shows up at dance events. Ever see 75 people on a dance floor all spiral to the floor as a song drains away? :)--> Those who love Yellow Submarine should make sure they see the blue edition. It has a few added lines, an entire missing scene (when the "goldfish bowl" is opened & we meet Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band), and an entire musical sequence ("Hey Bulldog" aka "You Can Talk To Me") which I liked better than most of the other numbers. :)--> Man, Max Headroom was ahead of its time there on net-net-network 23. :)--> If you all will excuse me, I'm getting in line now for tickets to "Underworld", due out later this year "sometime". I don't care HOW much it's going to suck-I'm gonna see it.

About 'apostasia', I think the most literal translation would be "a moving away from". (Those of you who know your Greek, feel free to chime in & embarrass the hell out of me.) The word "apostasia" becoming "apostasy" is, to me, an example of the specialization of language. Over 2,000 years, some definitions drift. Another example is "katabole", which, nowadays, has given a few people the word "katabolism". That word has nothing to do with the meaning of 'katabole' at the time the Bible was written. (It MAY, however, have inspired someone to go into left field on the subject.) Anyway, 'a moving away from', as I see it. Since, at the time that verse is speaking of, both a positive and negative moving away from is current (the Rapture/Gathering Together/ Blessed Hope and the degeneration of society as the man of sins is revealed), I say they're BOTH right, since BOTH happen at the time. *waits for Greek scholars to ram him*

Rafael, Vertical Limit just reminded me of the famous "'in Christ' is a temporary position of the moment" (I forgot which was supposed to be 'standing' & which was 'state' also.) Remember that other fellow who pointed out the 'dead in Christ' rise first? So, those would be the corpses lying in harmony with Jesus, I take it?

Please share, Vertical Limit, as you have opportunity! :)-->

Please check me on this. I'm certain you remember this from the class-was it in the books? He said about Matthew 6:1-2, that those who did their alms before men had no reward. As we so often pointed out (Rafael & I), the verses say RIGHT THERE they HAD their reward! It says their reward was to be seen of men! That's what they wanted, & that's what they got. Also, about Matthew 6:33, he points out- correctly-that if you seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, all those things would be added unto you. Unable to let the verses go without embellishing, he adds, however, that if you DON'T seek first the kingdom of God, all these things will be SUBTRACTED from you! WHO SAYS? That's a gross overstatement! I would say it the way I always thought it-even back then. If you DON'T seek first the kingdom of God, then you're on your own. Happy hunting! I was reading Matthew today. Funny what you find when you're not looking for it. :)--> Rafael, give this thread a little time. I'm sure some good stuff isn't here yet. :)--> Eventually, you may want to rank them, & do a countdown, from least significant to most, or separate them into a list of short explanations and long explanations. :)--> (Most of my stuff is short explanations.:)--> )

I know this is about T2T, but there's something bugging me about both movies, & it's very petty. Those who read 'the Hobbit' know that Bilbo Baggins got "Sting", an elven knife, when Gandalf got "Glamdring" (aka "Beater") and the dwarf Thorin Oakenshield got Orcrist (aka "Biter"). All 3 weapons were magical, and glowed when orcs were present, the brighter the glow, the closer they were. At the door to Moria in FotR, I pointed out to someone Gandalf's sword, which he shifts when he sits on the rock to think. A few scenes later, Frodo sees "Sting" glow. I said "Wait a minute! Why isn't GLAMDRING glowing?" I don't remember it glowing at the beginning of T2T either. (One fan in the theater behind me said, of the beginning, "Glamdring did all the work!") C'mon, Jackson, would it really have been too much to ask to make it glow whenever Sting glowed? And, yes, a bright light from Gandalf as the Rohirrim charged at Helm's Deep would have gone a long way into making the rout more believeable. :)-->

Mike, I'd like to pass along something for your consideration. This isn't for debate, just some free advice you may appreciate. (Although you probably won't, but I'll try.) There are Christians out there doing God's will & seeing power from on high, who have never heard of vpw. If you want to glorify God as a Christian, and do your utmost for His Highest, you CAN do it without vpw or twi or pfal or any other letters. It won't end your world, Mike. Many Christians live like that. Please think that over for a minute. It won't end your world to be a Christian without vpw or twi or pfal.

Mike, I've seen people been attacked online, here & elsewhere. I've been attacked online, here & elsewhere. You haven't been attacked. The other posters believe you've provided extensive evidence that you are trying to subvert the body of Christ. Considering that, they've been very nice to you. Unless you count disagreeing as 'persecution'. Please stop playing 'poor persecuted one.' Supposedly, your time is limited. However, you've got plenty of time to complain. Whatever.

BTW, I was wondering... for the purposes of this thread, are we counting things like vpw's mistaken use of the word 'anabolepto' in the class & the correct usage of "eidon" in the later editions, when talking about Enoch not 'seeing' death? What about Paul imprisoned in Jerusalem, where the closest anyone ever comes to getting born again was one man-"I don't remember if it was Felix or Festus"-who said "almost you persuade me to be a Christian." Well, doc, the reason you can't remember if it was Felix or Festus is because it was Agrippa. :)--> Of course, the entire statement that "the closest anyone came to getting born again" during the time Paul spent in jail completely ignores Onesimus (Pilemon 1:1-10), and whoever else is not named like Onesimus is. I find it hardly credible to think that Onesimus was the only one. However, the fact that one can be named specifically discredits this statement directly taken from pfal. Hey, this is fun! Rafael, you going to make one concise list of these when we're done? It would look great as a hanging from the bookshelf I keep my old collaterals on. :)-->

During PFAL itself, vpw says that "Peter denied Jesus 3 TIMES 3 times"-a total of 9. In Jesus Christ Our Passover, vpw wrote that Peter denied Jesus 6 times. (This bugged me.) I'm unsure if the book has it as 6 or 9. --------------------- Here's one Rafael used to wince at in PFAL... vpw said that "atheists" contradicted themselves because it means they don't believe...but in doing so, they believe that they don't believe." As anyone who sat thru SESSION ONE OF THE SAME CLASS should have been able to tell, "atheist" does not refer to "believing". That class (& this thread) talked about 2 words: "apisistia" & "apeithia". With the prefix "a", or "not", these words could loosely translate into 'no belief' and 'no pathos'. As in "is it apistia, or apeithia'? I don't know & I don't care." Atheist can be loosely translated "no god." "Theos" means "god". All students should have been able to tell that, since they learned that "theoponeustos" meant "God-breathed". ------------------------ Here's my personal, all-time favourite. We've NEVER discussed it, AFAIK. Get your pencils ready. Ready? Here we go. Every person who sat thru pfal should be able to remember vpw talking about how different people told vpw how God told them to tell him to go to different places, telling him to do stuff. Eventually, he figured out the problem. The next time someone told him something like that, vpw told him that God had told them nothing of the kind-that God didn't tell them to tell him to go-God told THEM to go. God tells you what YOU need to do, and if you are supposed to tell someone about it, God will tell you that, also. ------ In fact, this lesson is a very hard lesson Joseph learned in Genesis 37:5-19. God gives Joseph 2 dreams, but does NOT tell Joseph to tell anyone. He tells his brothers, and they hate him enough to kill him or sell him into slavery, either one. It's a very, very important lesson to learn. ------------- Supposedly, however, God gave vpw revelation that he was "some great one". Why, then, did vpw go around telling EVERYONE that, when the rule was that if God wants you to tell someone, He'll tell you to tell them? In all the accounts of that happening, never was it mentioned that God said to pass it around. In fact, if He did, that's especially peculiar, since it would not have been profitable all thru the years. :)-->

A) If you meant to say we should examine what vpw taught & wrote, & see what was in line with Scripture & what wasn't, well, then, that's something almost ALL of us agree on. In fact, many of us have been doing that for MORE than 5 years, which makes you a latecomer to the party. :)--> (You cited 5 years.) B) You said we don't really have Scriptures, "only the tattered remnants." That's not what I learned in pfal. With the exception of a tiny handful of verses deliberately forged to promote a doctrine, it's been fundamentally unchanged. The main problems, as pfal said, were in man's not READING the Bible, and not UNDERSTANDING what the Bible says. Virtually all notes I make on an English version are directly from the Greek-the Stephens Text or the Nestle Text. Supposedly, that's what the translators worked from when they made the versions. I'm just proofreading their work from the Greek texts. Inasmuch as I virtually never need to exit the Greek texts (on the New Testament) & wonder where something came from, it seems obvious to me that the GREEK is nearly 100%. So long as the GREEK is translated correctly, so long as the Bible is actually read, and so long as one is reading with comprehension, there should be few problems with understanding Scripture. "Tattered remnants"? I think NOT. ------------------------------------------ C) You offered 2 possibilities: 1) the Christian tradition-'churchianity' 2) "Mastering" vpw's books. I choose 3) Attempting to "Master" the Bible, irregardless of what vpw or anyone else said about it. If their teaching holds up, great, if not, I trash it. None of us was suggesting the denominational structures offered the answers vpw was also lacking. Suggesting we did was intellectually dishonest, & possibly quite revealing.

I'm still mildly surprised that you honestly think that God's resources on earth are so meager, and his plans that poorly-thought-out, that ONLY vpw could have gotten the job done, that ONLY vpw could teach the Bible to all those people, that ONLY vpw could have accomplished anything of value in his generation. (Ignoring even Stiles & others, who were already getting the job done.) Of course, once you get past the hurdle of 'he was unique & extra-special and absolutely necessary", it becomes a short trip to 'we can overlook ANY shortcoming so long as he's still functioning'. That's pretty much what I get from your last post. I say, that if God could have a backup plan ready that scrapped the 12 tribes completely & restarted with Moses (as He told Moses He was ready to do), then I find the idea that God can't reach His people if one person's injured or dead to be a silly one. God will reach them from another direction, with another person. Simply put, in the eternal plans of God, we are all precious & loved, but we are also expendable-none of us is the be-all and end-all, summing up the wisdom.

I would like to thank certain posters at this time-not by name, but by category. I'd like to thank the ladies who were sexually used by vpw for not jumping all over Mike for calling into question whether they are telling the truth or not. I REALLY expected one of you to get indignant about it. Congratulations on controlling your responses. ------------ Of course, Mike, you DO realize it's easier to dismiss charges of sexual molestation, sodomy 3, rape, etc, if they don't impact directly on your life, don't you? I might imagine your perspective on that issue would be somewhat different if something had happened to your wife, sister or daughter. (If your perspective would NOT change with it impacting so close to you, then 'shame on you'.)

Do you think we'll have to deal with "special editions" in several years, once we've all bought copies? I hope not. One series is enough for that sort of thing. -------- I don't care how unauthentic it is to have an elf firing arrows while surfing a shield in the middle of a major battle-it looked too cool to leave out! Besides, from the books, it's clear elves can fire arrows under just about any circumstance imaginable, & hit their targets.

"Outside of this ministry, people, I've seen very few answers." Well, I'd say that's at least partially true. Then again, it's also been said an atheist is unable to find any evidence of God for the same reason a thief is unable to find a policeman. vpw's dogmatic position was that there was little, if any, accurate knowledge of God and His Word outside of twi. Of course, most of the pfal subject matter came straight out of books by Bullinger, Kenyon, Stiles, Larkin, & Leonard. One might wonder why THEY had any answers, since they never heard of vpw or twi. If you had an accurate record of the last things he intended to say before he died, I'd be interested in hearing them, but forgive me if I don't fawn over them & make a religion out of them. Pfal was not perfect. We've shown that over & over here (as have others, elsewhere). vpw was not perfect. It's been shown that A) he refused to cite sources to maintain an aura of "eliteness", as if he figured it all out himself B) his own moral character was frequently lacking. If all I had to offer people, in bringing them to Christ, was what was offered in the pfal classes (all 3 levels), a great deal would be lacking. That "last teaching" was the closing remarks of a man with an overinflated sense of his organization, and an underinflated sense of all Christians outside that organization. Since I don't have a slavish devotion to either the man nor his class, I can evaluate both coldly, & I find neither is the be-all and end-all this tape suggested. --------- I also find it funny to suggest that vpw's "believing" covered for everyone while he was alive. So, he was some sort of metaphysical Superman, holding the moon in its proper orbit while he was here, covering for our utter failure of believing? Please. Until you cease worshipping any man or any class or any organization as the be-all and end-all, you will stunt your own growth as a Christian, and then what good are you to God?

I was glad they left in the "contest" between Legolam and Gimli at Helm's Deep, even if it didn't run thru several scenes. I think Faramir got short-changed. Is it part 3 where Eorl the Young (or whatever his name was) appears? I thought there was a scene with Theoden & one hobbit.... Perhaps it's in the 3rd book/movie. If Part 3 does not have the Fellowship show up at Isengard to "chat" with Saruman, I will be peeved..... I missed the lines where Grima/Wormtongue explains why he calls Gandalf "stormcrow", but, since they left out Aragorn's answer to why fools in Bree call him "Longshanks", I guess that's only fair. We still haven't heard how Smeagol became Gollum, or what he was before he became Gollum. Yes, I know the answer, but a lot of people didn't read the book. Quickbeam would have been nice to meet, although he would have extended the ent scenes. I could have done without that Aragorn-off-the cliff scene. Where did that come from, & did they really think it added to the movie, but the stuff I mentioned before didn't? Despite all my objections, I think it was great, especially the Battle at Helm's Deep. Meanwhile, I'll regroup at Minas Troney.

Thanks for posting that, Socks. I never saw vpw teach that, but I'm glad he was honest about that, at least. From the first time I read those verses, though, that's the impression I got. It's not that hard to detect the sarcasm, especially if you read the whole chapter. ------- I read something once. It said a native american was asked if he knew what a conscience was. He replied, "It is a 3-cornered thing in here." *gestures to his chest* "When I do wrong, it turns, and the corners stick me & hurt me. But if I KEEP doing wrong, then the corners wear out & they don't hurt anymore."

I was going to say "Romulans." Klingons would just smack him around. The borg weren't even IN this quadrant until the 24th century, (Not counting one-way trips.) Never trusted those Romulans, never. However, if it was the Romulans, he would never have seen/heard it coming. So, I'd say "E"-something other than them. Probably something designed by Spielberg- he just can't get past this idea of alien abductions he's been pushing since Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Thank you so much for that spoof on the "Andorian incident." (Which I liked.) -------- Yes, unless Wesley Crusher showed up on Voyager or DS9, his last ST:TNG appearances established the following: He entered the academy, & joined the flight team. Just before graduation, practicing a forbidden flight maneuver ("the Colvoid Starburst") killed off one team member & destroyed their ships. When this was learned, the team captain was expelled from the Academy, & the remaining handful were to repeat their senior year-their last year's credits were nulled. Rather than graduate a year later (which at least one of the others did), Wesley quit the academy & drifted a bit. He began developing mysterious time-space powers & went off with the enigmatic "Traveller." (This was foreshadowed back in the series' second episode, "Where No One Has Gone Before.) When Wes was on the Enterprise, he held the ranks of "field-ensign" and ensign. When in the academy, he held the rank of cadet (I saw no indication that his previous rank of ensign entitled him to any special treatment, although it must have had some social esteem attached to it. It probably explained how he got on the team as a lower- classman, originally.) He was last seen looking like he was leaving Starfleet for good. How DID he get his new rank? What happened to his "powers"? ------------ My 2 cents on the different series... The original. It was successful in doing episodes that actually got you to think. For example, "Let that Be Your Last Battlefield" successfully showed the stupidity of racism. Next Generation. A lot of fun. Much better budget & special effects. Occasionally attempted to match the original's ability to make you think, & failed miserably each time. Problems all got solved in one hour. DS9. The least "Star Trek" of the shows, it was probably my favourite for that reason. The writers put a LOT more effort into the little details that the old fans would catch. Problems could come back to haunt you. Voyager. TV Guide ran an article back when it was about to premiere-Dilbert rated tv shows. He had this to say about it... "Star Trek in an area of space with no Klingons, no VUlcans, no Romulans & no Cardassians. This has 'management decision' written all over it." I think that summed it up. I don't really have an opinion about Enterprise, for or against. I DO think they had the right idea. The series' technology was getting too advanced to write stories around. Without a major societal collapse, this was the only way to fix that. =========== Thanks for reminding me. Lexx DOES strike one as what it would REALLY be like, stuck on a ship for months at a time, doesn't it? Xenia Seeberg once said she didn't understand why fans voted Zev as sexier than some of the other SF women characters. It probably had to do with them "feeling her pain", so to speak.

"BOD does full-disclosure of all wrongdoings, provides all details & a full apology." I don't CARE if it's too long.

Well, I WASN'T until I read your post. That's standard operating procedure. Back when Return of the Jedi first hit theaters, I had the paperback on my shelf before I saw the movie. (I refrained from even reading the back cover.) However, I have been able to avoid all rumours & news about the movie UNTIL THIS THREAD. Thanks heaps.