Mark Clarke

From the snowstorm thread:

Again, Mark, what is a factual error to you can be seen as not at all the case when you use differing methods to read the writings. This shouldn’t be too hard to see. We were shown how unbelieving scholars can read errors into the ancient scriptures by way of their methodology, right?

So please demonstrate what methods you use to determine that Wierwille was right when he said the KOG is over all but the KOH is defined by the personal presence of the King on earth, when a simple reading of the verses shows that the two phrases are synonymous and used interchangeably.

Again, Mark, what is a factual error to you can be seen as not at all the case when you use differing methods to read the writings. This shouldn’t be too hard to see. We were shown how unbelieving scholars can read errors into the ancient scriptures by way of their methodology, right?

So that's why I started the threads in the Doctrinal Forum. Please demonstrate what methods you use to determine that what most people see as blatant errors are not.

Thank you, Geisha! The "more abundant life" is not about getting material abundance any more than "believing" is about believing "for" stuff rather than believing the words of God and of Jesus.

I'm just poking my head in here for a sec, Mark.

Couldn't one be a sub-set of the other? You know, like when we did those math problems where a circle was inside another circle. The characteristics of the smaller circle would be included in the larger, but not all the characteristics of the larger would be in the smaller circle.

Just an idea I'm tossing out....

So if not all the characteristics of the larger would be in the smaller circle, then they are not interchangeable. But when you see how both phrases are used, they are obviously referring to the same thing. Besides, there are references to the Kingdom of God being "nigh" or "near." This can't be talking about simply the overall reign of God. Steve gives a good explanation of how the term is used.

Well, that's what Wierwille said, but it isn't necessarily so. He is called 'God' at least once, by Thomas the Apostle.

There are good arguments as to why Jesus is not God, but the lack of the phrase 'God the Son' is not one of them.

There are a couple of verses where he is called "God" in a representational sense. but the phrase "God THE SON" does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Neither does "God The Holy Spirit" for that matter.

No matter how you define the terms, any philosophical premise that speaks of a difference or distinction between "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" must then explain why they are used synonymously and interchangeably in the Gospels. The point I am making in this thread is really that simple.

Aren't non-profit organizations required to have their books examined every so often by some kind of authority?

I wish there were a Readers Digest version of this thread! :blink:

Guess where I learned this clever trick?

Yeah, in The Way Ministry. Witnessing and Undershepharding if I remember correctly.

The way it works is you bring up an anticipated objection and then address it before the other party has an opportunity to bring it up themselves.

Obviate

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obviation

You mean like this?

You wrote: If PFAL is the new God-breathed Word, Mike, how do you explain the glaring errors in it?

Now, really, what do you expect my answer is? Do you want me to say: "Sure there are errors, but I close my eyes to them."???

If I were to try to explain why there are errors in God-breathed PFAL I'd be an idiot or sorts.

Of course, my real answer (you expect this, right?) is that I disagree with the notion that there are errors!

Everybody's going around in circles about whether or not it was plagiarism or copyright infringement for VP to use the words/writings/ideas of others. Setting that aside for a moment, let us consider a more crucial question. Mike claims that God gave VP revelation as to what points he should keep and use, and what points he should reject from others' writings. I brought up a few very specific points which VP adapted, which are based on completely false statements. Not differences of opinion about theologies, but proven matters of FACT that he had wrong in his writings. If God gave him revelation as to what to use from other people's teachings, how did these get missed? Regardless of whether he "appropriately" credited his sources, the fact that he took statements from those sources without even checking to see if the FACTS were right, leads me to question whether indeed God revealed to him what parts to appropriate.

The points in question are in the Doctrinal Forum, BTW. The Kingdom of God / Kingdom of Heaven question is in its own thread, and three others (Throughly vs. thoroughly, lambano vs. dechomai, and holy spirit UPON vs. holy spirit IN) are in another thread called More Blatant PFAL Errors. You don't need to get into a lengthy debate - they're simple questions. How do you deal with these things if PFAL is "God Breathed"? I don't see much difference between saying "Sure there are errors, but I close my eyes to them" and "I see no errors because I close my eyes to them."

Thank you.....eternal has no beginning or end. Everlasting has a starting point but no end. No human being has or has ever been given, granted or guaranteed anything eternal.

That was what Wierwille taught, but it's not what the word really means as it's used in the Bible. Look up the Greek word aionios or the Hebrew word olam.

I had a couple questions too, that seem to have gotten buried.

Don't Worry Be Happy,

Thanks so much for your input! I have a couple of questions.

First, you mentioned Lamsa's "so-called" peshi tta text. I don't know much about what went into that. Why do you call it "so-called"?

And secondly, in your opinion, do you think VPW knew he was being dishonest if not fraudulent, or do you think he was so deluded that he actually believed his own BS?

Thanks, Steve, for the further explanation of the Kingdom of God.

My point about the terms K. of God and K. of Heaven are even more basic than that though. Setting aside what the meaning of the phrases are, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that they are synonymous and used interchangeably in the Gospels. This directly contradicts Bullinger's and Wierwille's claim that they mean different things. What The Hey keeps asserting that they have different meanings too (although he says one is part of the other). How then do you account for the fact they are clearly used interchangeably in the four Gospels?

(I'm still wondering how Mike dealt with this discrepancy when he decided PFAL was the God-breathed Word, but it seems like he doesn't want to discuss that anymore.)

The Way International is not controlled by the Wierwille family because they lost majority control of the Board of Directors. For whatever reason, VPW did not choose to continue to appoint family members to the board after Uncle Harry and Don. He could have and he could have charged the family members to keep control in the family. He didn't or couldn't, for reasons unknown to me.

The reason, I imagine, would be that he was dead. Don was on the board when VP died in 1985, and remained so until 1997.

You see Mark, many people are very intent on trashing Dr. Wierwille's name. Then ergo, what he wrote is no good.

That's exactly backwards. We "trash" his name because what he wrote (and did) is no good. There may be a few things he got right, but for the most part it has been proven wrong by the very keys that VP taught.

The trashing of Dr. Wierwille's name does a huge disservice to God's people and the ministry of reconciliation of Jesus Christ. It's not much unlike the day Jesus went to his home town and declared the Word to his own hometown folks. They just weren't having any. This is the apistia type of unbelief that we learned about. They thought they knew him but they really didn't. They wouldn't sit still long enough for the Lord to teach them.

Jesus said a prophet is not without honor except in his home town. VPW dishonored himself, and proved he was no prophet. "By their fruit you shall know them."

That's one of the reasons the Word Over the World Ambassadors were so successful on the field. How did they know what they were taught and were teaching was true? We just saw it in God's Word, believed it and walked out on it. It worked.

It's a little bit like ice skating. You just lace up the skates and get out on the ice. At first you look like a jerk and fall down a lot. But you're determined and you stay with it. Pretty soon you're gliding around the rink with greatest of ease. You're feeling pretty good and it's fun.

Just some food for thought.

Anything that "worked" was because of what God did for them, not what VPW or TWI did. In fact in some cases God did mighty works in people's lives in spite of what TWI said and did.

They ain't duped. They're jerks. They're liars. They're self-centered. They ain't duped.

Could it be you're confusing the followers with the leaders?

The leaders were/are jerks, liars, self-centered, etc., but the followers, such as many of us used to be, were duped into thinking it was God's Way.

"Dyslexics of the world, untie!"

(brought to you by DAM - Mothers Against Dyslexia)

What is hell or fire to you may not be to me.

I'm not talking about what they mean to me or you, I'm just talking about how the Greek Words used in the Bible are defined.

I understand Garth's reasoning quite well.

Just because it's written in a book does not make it so.

Have you, Mark, and not to single you out personally,

seen Jesus Christ, Christ or Jesus alive?

No, but the people who did have given their testimony, as I described above. If one accepts eyewitness testimony for other things, why not for that?

Thw whole point of this,

is to point out that some PEOPLE will burn in Hell forever.

Well, I disagree on both points.

'Some people' and 'forever'.

Interesting. I agree with 'some people' and 'forever' but not 'burn in hell'.

All PEOPLE will experience the fire of hell.

But not forever.

Nor is it something to wait for till after we die.

As you say, we need to define 'fire of hell'.

In fact Hell can be visited at the spirit's will.

As well as heaven, NOW.

This 'people going to burn in hell forever' CRAP.

Is getting boring, or will start yet another war.

Depends on how you define 'heaven' and 'hell'.

What is Hell?

That's the confusion. There are at least three Greek words translated 'hell' in the KJV. One is hades which is simply the state of the dead, and has nothing to do with fire or torture. Everybody experiences that, but it's a state of unconsciousness and corruption.

What is the lake of Fire?

What is going to burn?

The Lake of Fire is a different Greek word: gehenna. It originally meant a garbage dump where they burned refuse. Its Biblical meaning refers to a specific place that will exist in the futute, where the devil and the antichrist and all who reject Christ will be thrown. But it is not endless torture, it is complete and permanent destruction.

NO DOUBT we all will experience this great moment.

As well as NEED to to experience the 'heights' of heaven.

No doubt we will all experience hades (unless we are alive and changed when Christ returns). But the lake of fire is a different matter. And 'heaven' is not promised to the followers of Jesus. We will live with him on a restored earth and rule the nations with him. That's the great message of the Kingdom of God that he preached.

So, I'm all for listening IF the one speaking has experience this.

If not, it guess work, based on carnal, natural understanding of what is written.

And not, as the scriptures declare, that the Spirit will show us.

If one can shut up long enough to hear it.

Nothing wrong with learning from books.

But it's a far cry and a WAYYYYY Back Seat to LETTING the Spirit guide, lead and show the secrets that are hidden in plain sight.

If the knowledge is from the Scriptures it isn't natural, carnal knowledge. The spirit will not contradict what the Scriptures tell us; the Word and the Spirit work together as they are both from God.

Still waiting....

I made my big decision a little over ten years ago, and the kind of discusion you seem to want to have I engaged in for many of the years prior to 1998. I went back and forth on the validity of many points in PFAL during those earlier years, but it was all finally settled for me by ’98.

Now I want to put the bulk of my time absorbing the material, workig WITHIN it, which means using a completely different set of tools than working OUTSIDE it like you want to do. One of the tools I use is I assume it’s valid (my only rule for faith and practice) and proceed from there. You generally assume it’s invalid (or at least one point is) and work on it with set(s) of material you do think is valid, what I would call your somewhat unsettled, unspecified rule(s) for faith and practice.

Even if you were to adopt a neutral stance toward PFAL’s validity (unlikely considering your posting against it), and even it you were to adopt and disclose one sole rule for faith and practice, I’d have to decline the opportunity to spend beaucoup hours debating PFAL. Our rules would still clash and we’d never convince each other of anything.

How long would it take to explain how you handle these three simple contradictions (four, counting the Kingdom of God question)?

I made my big decision a little over ten years ago, and the kind of discusion you seem to want to have I engaged in for many of the years prior to 1998. I went back and forth on the validity of many points in PFAL during those earlier years, but it was all finally settled for me by ’98.

Now I want to put the bulk of my time absorbing the material, workig WITHIN it, which means using a completely different set of tools than working OUTSIDE it like you want to do. One of the tools I use is I assume it’s valid (my only rule for faith and practice) and proceed from there. You generally assume it’s invalid (or at least one point is) and work on it with set(s) of material you do think is valid, what I would call your somewhat unsettled, unspecified rule(s) for faith and practice.

Even if you were to adopt a neutral stance toward PFAL’s validity (unlikely considering your posting against it), and even it you were to adopt and disclose one sole rule for faith and practice, I’d have to decline the opportunity to spend beaucoup hours debating PFAL. Our rules would still clash and we’d never convince each other of anything.

How long would it take to explain how you handle this one contradiction?

Not thinking is what got us hooked in the illogical and senseless doctrines in the first place. "If God spoke directly to him then what he taught must be right even if I don't see how it makes sense."

Are they towing the line now?

How do you determine what is true and what is not?

What do you breathe? What do you eat and drink? Do you have a home that provides comfort?

Don't be discouraged in your quest for truth and life by naysayers and critics.

It is God, not TWI or PFAL that provides us with what we need. It has nothing to do with whether we believe PFAL is God-breathed. I would ask you the same question: "How do you determine what is true and what is not?" How do you explain the obvious errors in PFAL, such as have been brought up here and in the Doctrinal Forum? Discussions can be carried on there so as not to derail this thread (not that it hasn't been derailed a lot already...)

Followers of The Way International are pure evil. That's all there is to it.

Correction: Followers of The Way International are duped. The Organization itself is what is evil.

(And seaspray, please note we are talking about the organization known as The Way International, not followers of the Way, the Truth, and the Life, Who is Jesus Christ. There is a big difference.)

... and the following like replies.

Ahh yes. Your proof. ... 'Proof' of witnesses, based on, ... the scriptures and other writings by followers who already believe in said beliefs. Which is based on believing the verbal accounts of earlier followers. Which is based ... catch my drift?. But all based on the accounts of those who already believe.

What is missing here? Independent testimony, records, accounts, etc. of those who haven't already pledged their lives to Christianity to begin with, and that based soly on faith. ... Kinda like getting independent accounts of what was going on in TWI outside of the starry-eyed, loyal accounts of their followers. ... You know. A little bit of objectivity and independent verification.

Show us something that is _outside_ of scripture and other writings from the loyal-till-I-die followers, and then maybe we'll have something viable.

Ok?

When you say, "who already believe in said beliefs" you are forgetting that the eye witnesses did not believe it at first. They were only convinced because they saw the risen Christ. Every event that we know of, we learned about from eye witnesses. What reason would you have for doubting the testimony of those who saw him? There were many, many people who would have loved to be able to disprove the resurrection, and it would have been easy - just produce the body. But nobody ever did. That fact and the fact that the witnesses claimed to have seen the risen Christ is even attested to by Josephus (even though he himself did not believe).

There are other factors too. It's interesting that you mention "loyal-till-I-die followers." The very fact that they were willing to die rather than renounce their testimony gives it more credence. If it had been fabricated, or in some way proven false, why would the apostles go to their death proclaiming it? What would they have to gain? It wasn't like cults today where a lot of money and power is at stake.

There are a number of other factors that make the very existence of Christianity extremely unlikely if it had not been based on the historical reality of the resurrection. Check out this article by James Patrick Holding for more detail.

Bringing it back to the topic of this thread, it's not that God inflicts punishment on "those who do no more wrong than not believe in a god." He has provided a way for anyone to escape the basic end of all mankind, which is death. And He did a lot to bring that to pass, even though none of us deserved it. For those who reject His plan, what else is there but death? Yet it is complete destruction, not unending torture in fire.