Raf

Gee, there's a thought. :)-->

Oh sheesh, Garth, I got rid of AOL two years ago! Don't you remember? I'm on bellsouth.net now. Thanks for the advice, all.

Does anyone else remember this? I don't. Either way, the article above has a citation (number 52) to a specific page in the PFAL book, which contradicts what the writer is saying (I'll say JM from now on, for Jueded-Morton). Unless there was an earlier edition that had these definitions, they goofed.

Ok, I just checked what I believe to be the references to allos and heteros above. Reference 52 is flat out wrong. BUT... There's no mention whatsoever of the "same kind/different kind" distinction referenced by the writer. He seems to have reference 53 right, and his refutation of it is on point. Allos and heteros simply don't mean what Wierwille said they mean. This is on the Actual (not merely apparent) Errors list. See the Companion Bible, Appendix 124 for the definitions of heteros and allos (different kind/same kind). It also includes the other definition. I don't see any evidence that Wierwille ever deviated from these definitions. If someone can find it, please let me know. But the writer of this piece simply has it backward and ends up bolstering what he attempts to dismantle.

That must be why Wierwille never wrote it. As Mike would say, the written book and the taped class were not identical. I don't know if he misspoke in the class or if you could attribute dishonest motives to VPW for this mistake/error. But I do know that to criticize him for something he corrected (ie, the use of anablepo) is just downright mean, if not ignorant.

Why not? I'm not always right. I'm not even often right!

Only on a couple of items, OM. I didn't refute the entire paper. Just a couple of items.

85% of your income > 100% of your income, even on the first of the month.

Now, I need to double check this, but this writer has the definitions 100% backwards. Bullinger (and therefore Wierwille) taught that allos was another of the same kind, and that heteros was another of a different kind, the exact opposite of the claim made by this writer! Therefore, all of the evidence used to in this section to prove Wierwille wrong actually proves him right! Again, I need to double check that. I don't recall Wierwille ever using the "same kind/different kind" argument in the context of four crucified. I recall allos being "more than two involved" and heteros being "only two involved." This person wasted valuable cyberspace with that section. Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm mistaken. Here's the writer's citation: Power for Abundant Living, p. 167.

Criticism by mischaracterization is what I'd call this. The fact that the word "malefactors" and the word "robbers" could refer to two different sets of people crucified with Jesus is not offered in PFAL as undeniable proof, but rather as opening the possibility. "All robbers are malefactors, but not all malefactors are robbers." Wierwille combined a number of matters to establish "four crucified" (I should say Bullinger did so, but that's not the point). Could robbers and malefactors be referring to the same people? Yes. Could those words be referring to different people? Yes. It was evidence for Wierwille's case, but it was not a smoking gun.

A lot to feed on there. Some real mistakes this writer makes. Real serious mistakes.

I already have broadband. How are the Dells? Tribune employees get a discount.

I detected an eyeroll. Or maybe he said it like Whoopi Goldberg at the end of Sister Act. You know what I mean? Bless you! You could almost see her giving the guy the finger when she said it.

Saying that I've "worked" with him is a bit much. I observed him for about seven years or so. Liked what I saw, but later learned there were things I didn't see. Don't know how he'd respond if confronted on them, but not my place to do so.

I can see it now. Anakin, on the bow of a Star Destroyer... "I'm the King of the Universe!!!! Wooohoo!!!"

Will I have to move if you move? Or is that unrelated?

Ooh, guilty as charged. Although it wasn't the whole board, for me, just a certain poster. But I got over myself. (allegedly).

I guess.

Thanks for taking my comments in their intended spirit, CM.

That would have been a lot more diplomatic, wouldn't it. If not for the potshot line, it is pretty much exactly what he said, though, isn't it?

Any advice?

If there's a pineapple on it, it's not a sport.

And I think it's a bit presumptuous to say he wants the glory to go to himself. That's all. If Jerry Barrax can honestly look at the scriptures and honestly come to this conclusion, why can't VF? Why do his motives have to be questioned, or worse, automatically impugned? It's a ruse? Why? Was it a ruse when he decided there was no "law" of believing? Would it be a "ruse" if he adopted the trinity? Why is it a ruse, rather than coming to a different conclusion from what he previously believed? If Jerry Barrax can do it, why can't VF? What I see here is a lot of people who have problems with the VF they knew in TWI and imposing those perceptions on decisions he made years after they lost contact with him (with the apparent exception of sunesis). I'm obviously biased, because I've seen the tears that have come out of that man's eyes when he talks about some of the things he did in the past. To see people who have not heard a word from him since the 1980s declare with certainty that his change of doctrine is self-serving strikes me as unfair. If you want to challenge the doctrine, go ahead. But to read into his motives when you haven't seen anything about the man for more than 15 years...? I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong." I am saying that there's no way you can, with certainty, say some of the things that have been said here. It's not right, IMO.

Heavens, no, George. That's something the old TWI would do. Not the new, kinder, gentler TWI.

It was a platitude that proves nothing.