Oakspear

Sounds like a TWI urban legend to me...

Well, that's an interesting statement. :blink:

Ssshhhh....don't tell anyone...Jeaniam & I agree

Nope, never met the guy

My cousin worked in the same office as the guy who was our local Twig Leader. He witnessed to her and she attended twig and signed up for the class. They may have been dating, I'm not sure. My aunt suggested that I attend a twig with my cousin to keep an eye on her or something. I did. Next thing I knew I was in Nebraska.

As most of you know, I don't believe that the bible is infallible, inerrant, etc. I don't believe that it "fits together like a hand in a glove". However, I can suspend my disbelief for the purposes of discussions like this and can read and reason as if I did. WordWolf presented it well, IMHO; the bible unquestionably teaches that Joseph was not the biological/genetic father of Jesus. That God somehow was Jesus' father. How he accomplished that is not really addressed (i.e. it doesn't say whether he created a sperm that fertilized an egg, created an embryo that Mary carried to term or any other scenario). Naturally I believe that this is not necessarily the case, but I don't see how a biblical case can be made for any other position.

When a word is used figuratively, the literal meaning of the word isn't going to help all that much. However, one can look at the context: Mary asks the questions "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The answer is: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:" Practically, the results of "coming upon" and "overshadowing", at least in this case, is pregnancy. Obviously, biblically, this is a unique situation, so the word "overshadow" wouldn't necessarily mean impregnate" anywhere else.

WD: If TWI war dead are denied the use of a TWI symbol on their grave markers, then it would be the same situation. I don't know that it has come up though, do you know something I don't? It doesn't appear to me that they are against religion and it's symbols, but for equal treatment. Your quote about display of religious symbols did not include this: The right to display a religious symbol on a gov't supplied grave marker was not extended to all. Part of what made this an issue was President Bush's disparagement of Wiccans as "not a real religion". I did note that the list, although it includes some obscure groups, is far from a complete list of all religions. And I wonder why the gov't has to be so freakin' tight-@ssed about what goes on the markers. The service member is dead, has given his or her life for their country, let the family put any d*mn thing that they want on it, whether it be a pentacle, a cross, a holy spirit dove or whatever the family wants. Aside from the issue that it's a Wiccan symbol, it's a disgrace that a fallen service member's family has to fight the gov't in this fashion.

Wierwille & the other bigwigs are honored after their death, everyone else is bad-mouthed for not believing. Sorry if that doesn't fit the proper tone.

No, it's not on their agenda, but maybe it's on somebody's. Do you know of any fallen TWI service members that this was an issue with? I seem to remember the last time this issue was discussed somebody here mentioned not being able to get a holy spirit dove on a family members grave marker. I agree, do one, do all.

Usually I didn't mind setting up and cleaning public rooms for TWI events, somebody had to do it. I did mind doing chores around somebody's house. One branch coordinator couple would call us up and ask that our teenage sons come over and shovel their walk in the winter before fellowship. At the time we had one car; it took a lot of organization to get everyone fed, cleaned up, and out the door in time for a 7PM fellowship. Making a second trip over to shovel snow just wasn't going to happen! During the first running of The Way of Abundance and Power for PFAL grads, WayAP was to be run upstairs at the BC's house. The downstairs was to be used for fellowships. I was given the task of setting up the downstairs room. Mr. BC told me that I could set everything up in advance after one fellowship and leave it set up for the next one (we met 3x a week). One weekday night a get an angry call at about 6PM from the BC. He is furious that the room isn't set up. Knowing that I had set it up two night previous, I was confused, but drove over. When I got there I found that all the chairs and other furniture had been pushed against the wall, and BC yelling about not fullfilling my committment. When I told him that the room had been set up 2 days before, he angrily asked me if I expected him not to use his house for the whole time the class was running; he had moved all the furniture so that he and his wife could exercise (he was also mad that he and his wife had to move the furniture). I then reminded him that he had okayed leaving the room set up. His only response was "oh...well you'd better get it set up because people are coming over"

So does that make the mother a prophet since she accurately predicted the future?

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&p...tvm1x6wc4.app5b Bush Administration Agrees To Approve Wiccan Pentacle For Veteran Memorials Monday, April 23, 2007 The Bush administration has conceded that Wiccans are entitled to have the pentacle, the symbol of their faith, inscribed on government-issued memorial markers for deceased veterans, Americans United for Separation of Church and State announced today. Link to list of symbols: http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/hm/hmemb.asp

Here's a definition of agape that does not include the word "Christian": http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/agape And a discussion of pre-Christian uses of the word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

Only in the context of belief in the Bible as the only rule of faith & practice, i.e. "The" Word of God. Bramble does not believe that. One might argue that limiting ones thoughts to a 2000+ year old book is pretty flimsy as well. One might, but I'm not :B) The word is mentioned in the bible and is a Christian concept, but not exclusively. Or did you think that the word was used first by the biblical writers? And isn't their a verse in I John that mentions loving darkness? And love is translated from agape? maybe, but what's that got to do with the discussion at hand? There is no illogic in Bramble's participation in this discussion that I can see.

I agree Jean; from an inerrant bible point of view, it makes more sense for 1) Matthew to contain Mary's geneology and 2)For the "Joseph" in Matthew to be the father of Mary, despite there being no textual or lingusitic support for that translation. This is one of the areas where I actually agree with Wierwille :o What's interesting is that Wierwille obviously read Bullinger's explanation, but rejected it. One of the corrolaries (geez, how do you spell that word?) of the belief that the "royal" geneology in Matthew was Joseph's is that "The Lord's Brethren" could not have been older sons of Joseph from a previous marriage as some theologians suggested, since elder sons would have invalidated Jesus' claim to the Davidic throne. Bullinger made this statement in his appendix to the Companion Bible. Wierwille repeats this same statement in The Word's Way chapter 'The Lord's Brethren", even though he did not believe that the royal line traced through Joseph.

We had a dating forum once (independent of GS, butset up by GSers), about 4 years ago. It didn't get much use. When I was single, I wasn't willing to move, so I didn't persue anything with GS wimmin, but found a lovely NBW gal right here in Nebraska.

I believe he was too, but then again, I'm not a Bible believer. Can you support that position from a biblical perspective?

If you have a Companion Bible, look up Bullinger's explanation of the 14 generations. Note that David is mentioned in two of the fourteens. Bullinger can be just as "flexible" as Wierwille in translating and interpreting, but he makes a case that does not require retranslating a Greek word as "father" that everyone else translated as "husband". Most of us aren't, but a good percentage of what we were taught in PFAL can be verified or debunked with a little simple checking that most of us never did.

I started hiring myself out officating at weddings this year. I've done three so far, all low key, low budget and the people were in love...what the heck else matters? Several weeks ago I got a call at my regular job; a couple who I had agreed to do a wedding on June 2nd needed me to come over that night (I was working 'til 10PM) and marry them. It seems that the guy had cancer and they were driving up to the Mayo clinic that night. I married them at 11PM on the front lawn with 3 witnesses. A happier couple I've never seen.

Actually, it does not say he only took part, but that he likewise took part..."Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;" Wierwille was correct in saying that "took part" is μετέχφ, but according to blue letter bible, http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.p...;version=KJV#14 it appears that it is a synonym for κοινφνέφ, translated "partake". The word "likewise" should have been a clue that Wierwille was incorrect: it indicates that there is the two words or concepts being compared are the same, not different. Just one of many examples of Wierwille making up definitions of Greek words to suit his theology.

Can you point out precisely where WordWolf twisted your words?

As a typical 19 year old who knew little or nothing about the bible, I was taken in by the slick marketing and the confidence. I wanted to have the bible make sense to me, and my church didn't really make the attempt. Wierwille seemed to ahve the answers and I didn't have the skills to rebut him.

Many of us who were invoved in The Way have an exaggerated view of how effective Wierwille was at getting his message out. To us, The Way was the center of our universe, but the vast majority of people in this country, let alone the world, never heard of it. Sometimes I'm surprised when I mention that I was involved in The Way International and I'm greeted with the blank stare of incomprehension! I don't know how many people each of those who Wierwille plagiarized reached with their messages, but why assume that Wierwille was more effective just because you heard of Wierwille and not Stiles, Bullinger or Kenyon? Another point is that I believe that most, if not all, of us who sat through PFAL and bought into what was taught, did so, at least in part due to Wierwille's credibility as an authority on the Bible. We believed his made up definitions of Greek words, accepted that there was an "old document" that said that illegitimate boys were bar-mitzvahed at 12 rather than 13, and allowed his views to dominate our thinking despite the lack of evidence, documentaion and simple logic. I submit that if most of us had known from the start that Wierwille was lying, his credibility would have been greatly diminished. To this day many hold beliefs based on what Wierwille taught while deluding themselves that they have actually done research to verify what was taught.