Oakspear

Maybe, but what about the preceding verses?

Matthew 25:32-41

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

This last verse usually is viewed as meaning that the lake of fire is only for the devil and his angels, but reading the whole context, it doesn't really say that

Apparently there is at least one reference to eternal punishment:

Matthew 25:44-46

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Acknowledging that some Corps folks had actual honest-to-dog leadership and management ability, the conceit that by just being a Corps grad gave one the ability to run a business or manage a department, or anything else for that matter, was laughable. I saw resumes similar to this from people who ran two-twig "branches" and only previously had "real" jobs in the realm of convenience store clerk or window washer. Even while mostly waybrained I was somewhat insulted, as someone who had built my own resume in management over several decades, to hear these nitwits brag about how they were going to get sweet management gigs.

Since leaving TWI, I have been questioning and examining everything I learned.

And that questioning leads us all to different places

One thing that I have seen (your mileage may vary) is that no matter what ones position on Jesus is/isn't God; Trinitarian/Unitarian, you have to explain away or ignore verses that contradict each other. I doubt I'll have time to fully document that, but that's where questioning & examining have led me.

This pastor takes every opportunity to insert his theology of the trinity into teachings. He even said, much like another teacher I heard, that the comma in Romans 9:5 needs to be moved:

Original from American Standard Version:

5 whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen

Pastor authorized revision:

5 whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all God, blessed for ever. Amen

Wierwille would have been proud! Tinkering wit puncuation to make it say what he wants!

Regarding the Lord = God contention, some Trinitarians rely on the fact that when the NT quotes the OT, Yahweh/Jehovah is usually translated into Greek as kurios (lord)

"when Doctor did this, when Doctor did that" - that was the only phrase she would ever refer to him by. Not VPW, not Vic, etc. Only doctor.

Calling him just "doctor" was just annoying back when I was in, hearing people do it now is just plain creepy

I don't have a one liner, but due to the tendency within TWI to question mainstream Christianity, I started habitually questioning everything. Eventually that questioning outlook led me to question Martindale, which led me to question Wierwille...

Plagiarism is a pill hard to swallow when speaking from the Bible, if we quote book, chapter and verse are we excluded of plagiarism? Or is it only plagiarism if some still alive or recently alive person "wrote about it".

Plagiarism does not depend on whether the plagiarized work is by a living person. If you pass of another's words as your own then it's plagiarism

Think about it, we quote and repeat the words of Jesus and the apostles from the gospels, epistles, proverbs, psalms, etc. without giving credit. I guess then we plagiarise on a consistent basis. Where do you draw the line?

Are "we" passing off the words from the bible as our own? That's where the line is

Yes, vpw's stuff was not original, did he steal it and if vpw took it from someone else, well, who did that person take it from.

It's prett clear that in some instances Wierwille publsihed things under his own name that were word-for-word taken from another's work

I find this whole topic of Biblical plagiarism an imploding concept.

What do you mean by that?

Really, who cares if truth be known.

Not you, apparently, but many of us do

Yes, I get it: VPW acted as though he "found" some great revelation from the Bible and not from someone else; yes, vpw was a turd for not giving credit,

No...I don't think that you do...

I get it but in the bigger picture lets just be thankfull we have available the Bible in its' many versions. Be thankfull you don't live in the middle east, we would be killed for these conversations - let that sink in a bit.

This is the logical fallacy of the red herring

I wonder what the percentage was of people in Session Twelve of PFAL (or the equivalent point in Martindale's WayAP class) that did not speak in tongues. That's a rhetorical question, since we'll never know that number, since "nobody gets misssed" right? And records surely were not kept and if they were, we surely won't get to see them!

Over the years I participated in only a limited number of PFAL classes; I can recall for sure only three people who did not speak in tongues at Session Twelve and did not thereafter. One was a guy who was very intellectual about the whole thing, never got into the emotional uproar that takes place at that key point of the session; he always said he was waiting for something to happen that never happened. The second was a lady in her late seventies who loved the social aspect of twig and was like a grandma to all of us, but she never seemed to understand what was being taught, or even make the effort. The third was one of my sons, who was in his early teens. He dug in his heels and just refused to do it - said it didn't make sense. My two older sons were just as non-questioning as their mother and I were, but Oakspear Junior questioned everything and was not at all impressed with what he heard.

Looking back at my own SIT experiences, I didn't think I was faking it back then, and I don't think that I did so intentionally, but it was so easy to get swept up in the emotion and the groupthink

I like to say that the religions disagree with each other about the same God.

Historically, we're talking about the same God. Theologically, we are most certainly not. Christianity generally adheres to the Trinity. Jews do not accept that. To tell a Jewish that he worships the same God as most Christians is, theologically speaking, an insult. Likewise, to tell most Christians that they worship the same God as Islam, which rejects the divinity of Christ, is an insult. To the outside observer, they worship the same God but disagree with each other vehemently about his will, his plan and his attributes.

I don't think there was as much anger about the suggestion that monotheists were all worshipping the same god twenty years ago...before 9/11; today there seems to be a more visceral loathing of Islam by most Christians, even non-fundamentalists who would have had no problem with the concept back then. The first time I ever heard anyone suggest in my hearing that Allah wasn't Yahweh was at a Word in Business, or maybe the Rock of Ages and it was Martindale's foam-at-the-mouth delivery of "Da Truth". The highlighted (by me) portion of your comment makes sense to me and is a good way to put it, but when you come down to it, isn't every Christian worshipping different gods? I say this because, despite what creeds and doctrinal positions put out there, most people have their own view of the biblical god that may or not be the same as the person sitting next to them at church.

One thing that I think that most Christians believe, even those who believe that the Islamic version of God is a different entity than their god, is that the god of the Jews is the same as the god of the New Testament

What may be evidence to you is merely a claim to anyone else, a claim that requires evidence if you expect anyone to believe it.

Even what he thinks is evidence to him (outside of any need to prove it to anyone else), even if the poles really were (or appeared to be) there to guide him home and were later disappeared (or were never really there) is only evidence that something apparently unexplainable happened. Even if "normal" evidence (witnesses, photos, Edward Snowden) were provided, who says that it was God? Or UFOs? Or Magick?

The question is absurd. "Ist's" proclaim against "Ism's": I beleive in something I don't believe.

I disagree, the question isn't absurd; it's an accusation that is often made against atheists, that it's a "religion"

Who do you imagine believes something that they don't believe? That sounds a bit like Wierwille's nonsensical rant about atheists not being possible

Rid'n the rick'n fence - don't that make your balls hurt?

Who do you imagine is riding a fence?

To ascert to non-beleif is a paracox. You become a parasite on those with beleif.

I assume you mean paradox...how so? How do you figure those who do not believe are parasitic upon those who believe?

...or had large rocks thrown at it and smashed with a bat...

You made my day with that remark

Recently at Wheaton College a professor was suspended for, among other things, making a statement asserting that Muslims and Christians worshipped the same god. Since then I have seen quite a few vehement denials that they are the same deity by a variety of Christians. This past week, President Obama's visit to a mosque occassioned more angry denials that the gods of the Quran and of the New Testament were the same.

Most of those who claimed that they were different entities cited differences between how the New Testament and the Quran described God. My position is that, despite differences in attributes between the descriptions in the two "holy" books, Muslims and Christians are each referring to the same god.

Even if one approaches the argument from the point of view that Christians, and their view of God, are correct, the fact that Muslims view him differently does not necessrily mean that these deities are actually different. If one is to take the position that difference in methods of worship, and difference in attributes as written in "scripture" mean that we're describing two entities, then to remain consistant, one would have to also view the god of the Old Testament as a different god than the one described in the New Testament. Marcion took this very same position - founding a Christian sect that viewed the Old Testament god as an evil "god of this world".

The purpose of this thread is not to debate the actual existance of God, or whether Christianity or Islam is true

And maybe the problem with anything that actually is evidence, is that it can't be interpreted or explained by "normal" means or measurement.

For example:

You can't see the road because of blizzard conditions, so you end up following the road by following the telephone poles and the wires between them.

It's slow going, but you eventually get to where you're going safely.

You return home a few days later (when the weather and the roads have cleared) by the same route.

Except that you realize there are NO poles nor any telephone wires of any kind along the way. They were never there.

Maybe.

But I don't think we're talking about the same thing. In your example, assuming that the State Department of Roads or the telephone company hadn't for some reason taken down all the poles in the intervening few days, something out of the ordinary had happened, but the percentage of stories purporting to indicate supernatural occurences that contain no elements that are anything more than mundale approaches 100%. (In my experience - your mileage may vary)

Even in your hypothetical, the Christian would credit God; the UFO enthusiast, aliens; and Gardnerians, magick. All citing the fact of the missing poles as "evidence" of God, aliens or magick.

1. The truth is: I am not afraid one damned bit, knowing that most of you here are truly wonderful folks at heart. (That was merely a figure of speech...and "lumps" was a slight attempt to be humorous: OOPS...MY BAD...Ha!)

Okay, got it. I read into your comment something that wasn't there, my bad!

2. "gift ministries"? Not per se, in the Scriptures. I had rather hoped you would "read between the lines" a bit more.

Hmmm...I'm not sure there's anything between the lines to read

3. Yes. I suppose I was quoting VPW. (Not always a good thing to do here at GS, huh?)

Ha! Yes, he's not all that popular here! That's not to say that something the Vicster said was necessarily wrong, but he is certainly not considered a reliable source

If you consider my "idea" to be rubbish (or merely "without a proper foundation"), just say so...and I'll be most happy to delete the entire post. (And I'm not trying to be facetious....really!) In my heart, it's truly but a small thing for me to "prove" from the Scriptures anyway.)

I don't know if it's rubbish or not - I was just questioning select parts of what you said - and anyway, you have every right to post your opinions here, even if nobody agrees

I have yet to find much of any reason for "the Christ Administration" or where it came from, other than wanting to number "the Grace Administration" as the fifth.

Same here. Wierwille and Bullinger each contorted their takes on the bible in order to make it fit their number theories. What? Was the supposed "Christ" administration 1-3 years?

Please excuse me for "butting in". Perhaps what I have to say belongs more appropriately in the Doctrinal Forum, but I'm not afraid to post it here anyways. (And I'll gladly take "whatever lumps I have coming" for doing it…Ha! Ha!)

Interesting comment, why would there be any call to "be afraid", let alone think there might be "lumps" for posting in the "wrong" forum?

Please take special notice of how these gift ministries...

Is there soemwhere in the bible where they are called gift ministries?

As a general rule, an apostle is one who brings new light to God's people.

Are you quoting Wierwille, or is this your own conclusion? Where is this definition given in the bible?

It may be old light, but is certainly new to those receiving it.

I always thought that this phrase was Wierwille's way of getting people to view him as an apostle, since he certainly wasn't bringing any "new light"

...I had put myself in the unenviable position of having to decide who was and was not a Christian. I made a lot of judgment calls (Mormons - no, Jehovah;s Witnesses, yes). B

I thought that you let me in even though I came out as a pagan.

Here's something recent then...my bro-in-law, an 'innie' based in Hawaii, has been compiling a book on everything that is wrong with twi. He plans on presenting it to the board of trustees at some point. Good 'luck' is all I say :rolleyes:/>

Yup...good luck. I didn't write a book, but sent a ten page, single-spaced letter to John Reynolds, then on the Board of Trustees, breaking down everything that I could find wrong with Martindale's class. I got a call from Reynolds, but was thrown out of TWI shortly thereafter

I'm not trying to put a horn in your foot!

hah! the filter gotcha!

I think you'll find, if we took a roll call, that the GSC regulars, old guard, veterans, what-have-you, are a mixed bunch. There are a couple of posters here who I know for sure were at the "top" and had visible leadership roles, others were WOWs, some were in Fellow Laborers, some were never involved in a "program" and were never leaders of any sort. There are GSC posters who were involved in TWI for 30 years, others were barely in for a cup of (lukewarm, served in a reused stryo cup) coffee. Some of the regulars still hold onto some TWI doctrine, some are or were involved in spinoffs, some are active in mainstream churches, some are adherents of others faiths, some are atheists or agnostics.

We're hardly a pack...sometimes it seems that way, but often it's just a pack of two or three!

"If a tree falls in the forest and noone hears it, do the Sunday Services still suck?"

Worth repeating!

...I am trying to find a reasonable way to express what it means to be "God-breathed"...

Steve:

Perhaps the translation "given by inspiration of God" isn't a bad translation

I believe that Wierwille's pseudo-intellectual and shallow understanding of biblical languages often (usually?) led him to wrong conclusions about what words really meant. A common TWI methodology was to look at the root word and assume that its derivative retained the exact meaning. While the two elements of theopneustos do indeed come from the words for "God" and "breath", pneustos, in the form pneuma that we are familiar with of course is usually translated "spirit" - and has more than one meaning.

My opinion about the bible is that at best it is the musings and thoughts of men who were inspired to write down what their subjective experience of God was.

Not very rigorous, but perhaps that will give you an idea

(btw - while I'm not an atheist, I have long given up the belief that the bible contains "the truth" or that it has any divine origins - I find that scholars like Bart Ehrman articulate my opinions about the bible pretty well)

...It's accepting a premise, no matter how it's viewed.

Or accepting evidence...