Oakspear

REVIEW In Mike's early posts in this thread he stated that PFAL was God-breathed, that it was superior to the available versions of the bible because these versions were corrupted by men, but that PFAL was revelation, and thus not corrupted. He later included the collateral volumes as God-breathed as well, and by implication, he included what Wierwille said in certain public teaching venues. I don't think anyone argued that everything out of Wierwille's mouth was wrong, but many put forth that his words must be compared to the bible, not the bible to his words. Numerous examples of verifiable errors in PFAL have been put forth, and at least one contradiction between statements in two different Wierwille volumes. The conclusion of most of the participants in this thread was that Wierwille's words, due to the demonstrable errors, could therefore not be God-breathed; but must be examined statement by statement like anyone else's. Even if we think that that all of VP taught was right, it still must be scrutizied for accuracy. Now we have this statement by St. Michael: Hmmm...maybe some aren't? Isn't that what we've been saying? And how do we determine this? For a minute there I thought he was back-pedaling, but he isn't really. Mike is going to tell us which of Wierwille's works were God-breathed, and which were not...based on what Wierwille said! Oh! I tremble with anticipation (yes, that was sarcasm for any who are keeping score) And let's not overlook this gem: Who here thinks Wierwille was talking about his own writings when he made "It Is Written" the Way Corps motto?Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

I was always unclear about the whole "cancer is a devil spirit" teaching. If I recall correctly, VP, at least early on said that cancer was a devil spirit because it had a life of it's own. Not that it was caused by a devil spirit. There is evidence biblically that devil spirits can cause sickness: Luke 13:11 - "And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up [herself]." Frankly, I think there was a lot about devil spirits that was pure speculation on Wierwille's part. So, in answer to your question Mike...maybe! I don't agree with the statement: 'the uncontrolled growth of a cancer cell equals independent life therefore it's a spirit'. My opinion, based on a layman's knowledege of cancer, is that cancer is just one of the many weaknesses of the corruptible seed that we are born of. I don't think Wierwille had to have been possessed to get cancer, for it to start, or for it to kill him. But he said it. I'm not the one who thinks his words are God-breathed. I do not see where the bible goes into any detail on the mechanics of possession or devil spirit attacks in any form. People got possessed δαιμονιζομαι - demonized and did things that they would not ordinarily do, or suffered things they wouldn't otherwise suffer. The spirits got driven out, and they were fine. We aren't given much information on how it happens, or if they are attacking soul life, or individual brain cells, so we don't really know. Wierwille didn't know either. Well, the devil is the author of death. Wierwille taught that death was always of the devil, didn't he? Martindale qualified this in some of his teachings and actually taught that someone could "die in believing", knowing when they would die, or giving up the ghost. If God did something like this, wouldn't he allow his man, if he was godly, to go peacefully, instead of losing his eye and having his body ravaged by cancer? I believe possession was control, oppression was an attack from outside without the person being possessed. Why? They have. I wish I could find the references and archived threads. I'm sure what you say could be true, but they seem to be in opposition to what VP taught. It was even brought up because Vic spent time early on saying how evil cancer was, even to where people who had family who were dying of cancer were made to feel badly about it, but his tune changed when he got it. Gee Mike, just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean someone hasn't discussed it. And maybe you're very wrong and many of us have discussed it on many occassions. Or maybe, like you, we heard all the evidence years ago and made up our minds. It's not thinking evil when you recognize evil in someone and point it out. Was Jesus thinking evil of the Pharisees? Was Nathan thinking evil of David? You assume much. Just because the topics of conversation do not fall in line with what you think they should be, it hasn't occurred to us? Here I is Miguelito! What do you want to talk about?It's interesting taht you a man who proudly asserts that he will not listen to opinions contrary to the ones that he has previously come to; chastises those here who he thinks don't consider his views. Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

Rafael: Just because something was in the film but not in the book, does not mean he was correcting a mistake. Quite a few things, like even "It's CHRIST in you...", are not in the book. It definitely edited for clarity! As far as that bogus definition of "atheist", I scratched my head on that one too. What bothered me more than the fact that he made the statement (I chalked it up to him sometimes aying things off the top of his head without thinking it through) was when people would quote it as if it were true. People were always referring back to these Wierwille slips of the tongue as if they were gospel. Hey...I just thought of something...why did they call non-wayfers "unbelievers"? They believe something don't they? Even if the believe that they don't believe! :D--> Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

Rafael, you beat me :D--> Do they teach you to type fast in "reporter school"? :D--> I went to "grocery school", I just learned how to handle "melons" :P--> Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

Okay Mike, you want it, you got it YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION TO POST HERE AND TO POST "ON TOPIC" Any dissenters? Oh, Mike, please stop whining, it's not dignified ;)--> Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

Mike: The issue of taking apoll to vote you off the forums is a straw man. You're the only one that suggested it. No one gets voted off for their opinions. No one wants you off, we don't like your opinions, but we want you to have the opportunity to keep posting them...get it, geez Mike, I thought you were an intelligent guy! Permission to get back on topic? Who's stopping you? Talk about whatever you want, answer whatever questions you want and at whatever length you want. And regarding "sicking a hacker on you" - OCD speaks for himself! Like you, he has his own unique niche here at the cafe. Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

Mike: For the most part you have been treated pretty respectfully until your post addressed to MJ. Goey, Rafael, Mark S, myself and others have dealt mainly with the substance of your position, and have not attacked you personally. Your points have been countered with the bible, with logic, and *gasp* common sense! Your position is a minority one here, to say the least, and unpopular to boot; yet The administrator and moderators have not censored you, and it has not been suggested seriously that you not be allowed to post here. I believe, as do most of the others who have engaged you, that debate is a good thing. I believe that the posting of diverse opinions is a good thing. I believe that rebutting those opinions that are demonstrably false is a good thing. Mike, I am reasonably sure that you realize this, but Grease Spot Cafe is not filled with folks eager to eat up every word you write. You are starting to come across as someone who thinks he has a following. Keep on preaching, brother, but you'd better expect, no make that bet your life on, being rebutted and argued against. Maybe you have rationalized this as the adversary standing against and trying to hinder your "godly" stand; but what it is is that many people here see contradictions between the bible and what you are saying, between the bible and some of what Wierwille taught. Note that the arguments that you are getting are not atheistic arguments against the veracity of the bible, we are relying on the premise that "The bible, as originally revealed to men of God, and written as they were moved by the holy spirit, is the Word and will of God" (like Wierwille said). Most of the arguments also are presented using Wierwille's own keys to understanding and interpreting the bible. we are playing on your field Mikey. A few posters have described your post to MJ as "creepy". What's your point here? If MJ is Sxxxx, who the H*LL are you to put her real name on this board? If MJ isn't Sxxxx, New York's a big f---in' state, do you really think they're going to run into each other? Sheeesh. Why don't you leave MJ be? She doesn't appear to want your help, if she ever did. Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

from Mike: Mike, every question about why you think something, including why you believe VP's works are God-breathed, is some version of "Doctor said", or "Doctor wrote". Everything you have written so far refers back to VP Wierwille as the authority. You have repeatedly used circular logic. That's why we think you can't see that. You're doing it again Mike: Wierwille's teachings cannot be in a grey area between good and evil because Wierwille said so. This is a logical fallacy: that because something is not 100% one thing, it therefore must be 100% another. (logic experts, feel free to supply the correct name). I saw Way people use this fallacy over the years: "Do you think I'm totally f---ed up?", one might ask, or "Do you think I'm possessed?" When you would answer no (maybe the person was just wrong, or simply mistaken), the person would conclude that they were right...end of discussion. Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

Posted by EW Bullinger What everyone needs to do? No, I don't need to do that. I don't even want to do that! Just kidding. I agree with previous posters, those who disagree with Mike have the right to speak, in fact, some of us feel very strongly about responding to this line of thought and not letting it go unanswered. Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

I don't think that four crucified would fall under the guidelines that Rafael set for this thread (not that we've all been following the "rules"). More of an interpretation isssue than a facts issue.Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

It's not a "no-brainer". I think you'll find that there are differences of opinion about this among "believers", if by that you mean Christians. Your position could be correct, but what's your basis for it? It's just as logical to believe that the Gospels were written to the church so that we could know about the earthly life of the savior, read his actual words, see what he accomplished before he was "taken up". As far as anything being "for our learning": that flies only if you accept dispensationalism, and even then if you accept that "for our learning" necessarily precludes being "to us" as well. Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

I do not think there is a written record of that teaching by Wierwille, so you're right Rafael. The posthumously edited books may not be "Vic-breathed" ??????????????" (victorpneustos) [the Greek is for Karl :D-->] Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

Did someone already bring up Athlete's o' the spirit? I know it's not technically PFAL...okay, it's not PFAL period! I can see that there are athletic references in spots, but that whole section in Ephesians...I have never been able to find where he decided that those words were actually ahletic terms. It looks like they are the normal words for helmet, breastplate, shod, etc. Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

Karl: I typed my last reply on Microsoft Word, where you can go to the "Insert" menu under "symbols" and get Greek, Cyrillic, Hebrew, Arabic, etc. letters. Cut and pasted it over to reply. Just figured out how to do that and wanted to play :P--> Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

In Colossians 3:5, the word “mortify” does not mean “to blow apart”; it is the Greek word ?????? (nekro?) which means to make dead. Strong's Number 3499 ?????? {nek-ro'-?} 1) to make dead, to put to death, slay 2) worn out 2a) of an impotent old man 3) to deprive of power, destroy the strength of Even in English, it doesn't mean to "blow apart" Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary: Main Entry: mor·ti·fy Pronunciation: 'mor-t&-"fI Function: verb Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing Etymology: Middle English mortifien, from Middle French mortifier, from Late Latin mortificare, from Latin mort-, mors Date: 14th century transitive senses 1 obsolete : to destroy the strength, vitality, or functioning of 2 : to subdue or deaden (as the body or bodily appetites) especially by abstinence or self-inflicted pain or discomfort 3 : to subject to severe and vexing embarrassment : SHAME intransitive senses 1 : to practice mortification 2 : to become necrotic or gangrenous ...PFAL...more God-breathed every day :D--> Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

If you look at the text of "Doctor's" lost last teaching...it looks like . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...a bondage face Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

Re: the "dominant genes": VP & LCM taught that the genetic information that God via holy spirit provided "would have been" dominant. Dominant does not mean better in genetics. Brown eyes are a dominant characteristic, blues eyes are recessive; one is not better than the other. Re: SIT practice sessions: "Primitive" cultures do not necessarily have simpler languages. Just because the language sounded strange (gee, guh, goo) does not make it less complex. Languages have varying numbers of sounds, some many, some few, and that number has no bearing on the level of complexity. The whole practice sessions concept was bunk. Only a limited number of languages have the same "alphabet" that we do, and among those, fewer have the exact same sounds. (try to pronounce the Welsh "LL", or the clicks and pops in Xhosa, or even the "ch" in Hebrew or German) The tongue and interpretation being the same length is garbage also. Not only are words longer or shorter (as in the Spanish example) but sometimes one language lacks a single word for a concept, so a sentence must be substituted. Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

Steve!: I am certain that Mike's mind won't be changed. He said that he is not considering our words because is mind is already made up. You're right, this "debate" is fun! And it points out to bystanders the illogic of Mike's stance on one hand and the logic and consistancy of what Rafael and Goey and others are saying on the other hand. Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

It's obvious because I said I have isues! As have most of us here, including myself What you have seen is your business, I don't disagree with what you have seen. In fact, I have seen incredible insights as well. In fact, it was by using the "previously mentioned principles" that I discovered error in what is and was taught in TWI. Yeah, me too, believe it or not. I just came to different conclusions than you didOakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

The first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet are not alpha, beta, gamma, delta, but aleph, beth, gimel, daleth. Despite his claims that the "original" text has "God" as the first word, all available texts in the oldest known biblical language, Hebrew, say beredangh (in the beginning) barah (created) Elohim (God) ha-shamayim wa ha-eretz (the heavens and the earth) Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

Yeah, I knew it... ...another good woman gets scooped up :(--> Oakspear :(--> disclaimer: the frowny faces above are a lame attempt at humor :D-->...congrats to the happy couple...and congrats on getting out of Trenton ;)-->

So, no further revelation is needed now that VP has "closed the book", huh? Part of the problem was that VP didn't always understand Bullinger. I could come up with a few examples if I was home with my Companion Bible, but I can recall one:Bullinger came to a different conclusion than Wierwille did regarding the two geneologies of Jesus. Wierwille wrote that Matthew contained Mary's bloodline, putting forth that "Joseph, the husband of Mary" should have been translated, "Joseph, the father of Mary". He pointed out that the list was short a generation. Bullinger concluded that Matthew had Joseph's geneology and put forth something about Joseph being considered a legal son by Mary's father Heli because he married Mary and the missing generation being accounted for by David being listed twice. (take a moment to allow your head to stop spinning) Both explanations always seemed a bit convoluted to me, but VP's seemed to make a little more sense. Based on his belief that in Matthew, which documented the royal bloodline, was Joseph's geneology, (appdx 98)Bullinger makes a statement when discussing Jesus' brethren appdx 182). He discounts the theory that James, Joses, Simon, and Judas were Joseph's sons by a previous marriage (the Catholics used this one to maintain Mary's perpetual virginity) because, if Joseph had older sons, it would have invalidated Jesus' claim to the throne of David, since he would not have been the oldest son of Joseph. VP, in his chapter in The Word's Way, "The Lord's Brethren", makes that same statement that Bullinger did about invalidating the claim to the davidic throne. But VP taught that Mary was of the royal bloodline of David through Solomon, not Joseph. What difference would it make if Joseph had previous children, as long as he was Mary's eldest? He basically quotes Bullinger with attribution, without accepting Bullinger's premise. Stuff like that, revelation or not? Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads... [This message was edited by Oakspear on January 02, 2003 at 14:20.]

Mike: Please clarify for me if you can: What are you claiming is God-breathed, or received by revelation, of VP's writings? I think we can safely say that you don't think his grocery list, or his high school literature assignments or even love poems to Mrs. Wierwille are God-breathed! I don't believe anyone suggested that. Are you saying anything that he wrote about the bible is God-breathed? Are you saying anything he wrote after he started teaching PFAL? Are you saying anything he wrote after PFAL was filmed? Some other criteria that I have missed? Whatever that criteria for "writings" turns out to be, you have claimed that VP's writings have the same authority as Paul's. Just want to make sure that I understand what you're saying. Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

No you're not alone. :D--> As I recall, the point Wierwille was trying to make in the throughly/thoroughly example was to read what was written. I'm sure countless people looked at the word throughly and read thoroughly. If he would have stuck with that instead of giving an incorrect definition of throughly, he'd have been fine. Through most of PFAL we are told that we would be taught keys to unlock the doors of the bible; that we would no longer have to depend on what man told us, we could compare what preachers and scholars said with what the bible actually said. I thought that was pretty cool, it was part of what attracted me to twi in the first place. What was practiced was in reality somewhat different: instead of working the Word on our own, Wierwille worked the Word and told us what he came up with. Any answers different than Wierwille's were considered wrong, no matter that we used the Keys" as well. So, instead of utilizing the "keys to unlock the doors", we acted pretty much like the people in the denomination did, letting our leaders tell us what the bible said. Oh sure, we were told that the denominational leaders didn't go to the Word, but I was amazed over the years at the number of ministers who "worked the Word" as thoroughly as Wiewrwille did, using some of the same verses and coming to different conclusions. And now we're participating in a conversation where one of the positions is that the "keys", and the conclusions reached by them, were given by revelation, and we know this because the guy who supposedly received the revelation told us he did. Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...

It's so great that we have examples of fanatical Wierwillism being posted here. Should make anybody who has checked this site after being witnessed to think twice. Thanks for the info MJ Oakspear ...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...